Zathras 296 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I used it as an example because I knew USA and England results. I am sure I could have found similar results from any number of other teams, but England and the US are the teams with which I am most familiar. Sorry, but I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. The ranking is calculated on a pure mathematical base of points accredited to matches over a certain period. So the fact that America are dropping down despite winning a game can for example be down for certain games from four years ago not being considered any more or something similar. And the fact that Mexico are ranked higer is just because they collected more points in that period. Nothing else (well, of course you could consider cheating...). My point was more that the weighting of results while better now is still not quite right IMO. I'm not quibbling with the math, I'm quibbling with the formula. Also, the way in which 'strength of opponent' is calculated leads to the rankings being somewhat self-sustaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I used it as an example because I knew USA and England results. I am sure I could have found similar results from any number of other teams, but England and the US are the teams with which I am most familiar. Sorry, but I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. The ranking is calculated on a pure mathematical base of points accredited to matches over a certain period. So the fact that America are dropping down despite winning a game can for example be down for certain games from four years ago not being considered any more or something similar. And the fact that Mexico are ranked higer is just because they collected more points in that period. Nothing else (well, of course you could consider cheating...). My point was more that the weighting of results while better now is still not quite right IMO. I'm not quibbling with the math, I'm quibbling with the formula. Also, the way in which 'strength of opponent' is calculated leads to the rankings being somewhat self-sustaining. It does, but then again teams like Australia, USA and Mexico have comparatively easy routes to the World Cup, so they then get the chance to prove their worth where it really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 296 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I used it as an example because I knew USA and England results. I am sure I could have found similar results from any number of other teams, but England and the US are the teams with which I am most familiar. Sorry, but I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. The ranking is calculated on a pure mathematical base of points accredited to matches over a certain period. So the fact that America are dropping down despite winning a game can for example be down for certain games from four years ago not being considered any more or something similar. And the fact that Mexico are ranked higer is just because they collected more points in that period. Nothing else (well, of course you could consider cheating...). My point was more that the weighting of results while better now is still not quite right IMO. I'm not quibbling with the math, I'm quibbling with the formula. Also, the way in which 'strength of opponent' is calculated leads to the rankings being somewhat self-sustaining. It does, but then again teams like Australia, USA and Mexico have comparatively easy routes to the World Cup, so they then get the chance to prove their worth where it really matters. Actually, I disagree with the premise that their routes to the World Cup being easier gives them a chance to prove their worth. Playing conditions and officiating in Central America are worse than most European managers can really imagine. Take the last US qualifier in Panama for example. The US had three players injured by tackles at the knee and yet there was never so much as a booking until the 90th minute when Panama were losing 3-0 and getting more blatant in their frustration. But more than that, playing sub-standard opposition makes it more difficult to be in form and ready to play top class teams when you only bring in your full top squad once in a blue moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I used it as an example because I knew USA and England results. I am sure I could have found similar results from any number of other teams, but England and the US are the teams with which I am most familiar. Sorry, but I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. The ranking is calculated on a pure mathematical base of points accredited to matches over a certain period. So the fact that America are dropping down despite winning a game can for example be down for certain games from four years ago not being considered any more or something similar. And the fact that Mexico are ranked higer is just because they collected more points in that period. Nothing else (well, of course you could consider cheating...). My point was more that the weighting of results while better now is still not quite right IMO. I'm not quibbling with the math, I'm quibbling with the formula. Also, the way in which 'strength of opponent' is calculated leads to the rankings being somewhat self-sustaining. It does, but then again teams like Australia, USA and Mexico have comparatively easy routes to the World Cup, so they then get the chance to prove their worth where it really matters. Actually, I disagree with the premise that their routes to the World Cup being easier gives them a chance to prove their worth. Playing conditions and officiating in Central America are worse than most European managers can really imagine. Take the last US qualifier in Panama for example. The US had three players injured by tackles at the knee and yet there was never so much as a booking until the 90th minute when Panama were losing 3-0 and getting more blatant in their frustration. But more than that, playing sub-standard opposition makes it more difficult to be in form and ready to play top class teams when you only bring in your full top squad once in a blue moon. I appreciate that, their routes to the finals are easier imo, which was more my point. Performing once you get there isn't made easier by the logistics of getting squads together etc. I just meant that USA gets the chance to play in the World Cup so they shouldn't be too bothered about the rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 296 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I used it as an example because I knew USA and England results. I am sure I could have found similar results from any number of other teams, but England and the US are the teams with which I am most familiar. Sorry, but I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. The ranking is calculated on a pure mathematical base of points accredited to matches over a certain period. So the fact that America are dropping down despite winning a game can for example be down for certain games from four years ago not being considered any more or something similar. And the fact that Mexico are ranked higer is just because they collected more points in that period. Nothing else (well, of course you could consider cheating...). My point was more that the weighting of results while better now is still not quite right IMO. I'm not quibbling with the math, I'm quibbling with the formula. Also, the way in which 'strength of opponent' is calculated leads to the rankings being somewhat self-sustaining. It does, but then again teams like Australia, USA and Mexico have comparatively easy routes to the World Cup, so they then get the chance to prove their worth where it really matters. Actually, I disagree with the premise that their routes to the World Cup being easier gives them a chance to prove their worth. Playing conditions and officiating in Central America are worse than most European managers can really imagine. Take the last US qualifier in Panama for example. The US had three players injured by tackles at the knee and yet there was never so much as a booking until the 90th minute when Panama were losing 3-0 and getting more blatant in their frustration. But more than that, playing sub-standard opposition makes it more difficult to be in form and ready to play top class teams when you only bring in your full top squad once in a blue moon. I appreciate that, their routes to the finals are easier imo, which was more my point. Performing once you get there isn't made easier by the logistics of getting squads together etc. I just meant that USA gets the chance to play in the World Cup so they shouldn't be too bothered about the rankings. I'm not particlarly bothered about where the US is ranked in them because they're meaningless. I wish they had more meaning and could actually be used as some sort of a yardstick, though. They did enter into the seeding decisions for the 2006 World Cup, though, and I feel it was a travesty that Mexico got a seed. The US is a better team than Mexico, and so were several other non-seeded teams. e.g. Czech Republic, Portugal, Netherlands (who lost out b/c they missed 2002), and arguably Ghana and the Ivory Coast. If they're going to be used for such an important thing (mexico would NEVER have gotten to the 2nd round without a seed) then they should be fixed. That being said, I think a great way to alleviate part of the problem would be to lump the CONCACAF and CONMEBOL federations together into one big qualifying group. It's a financial thing though, since teams like Grenada can hardly afford to go to Canada and Argentina for qualifying matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Aye, fair comment re: the seedings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 10035 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) Aye, fair comment re: the seedings. Allthough the US can't really complain imho. Mexico got seeded because of their involvement in the Confederations Cup 2005 (although this is a shit competition) and did well. All what the US (as they are the better team) had to do was to qualify instead of Mexico there. Edited March 15, 2007 by Isegrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 296 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Aye, fair comment re: the seedings. Allthough the US can't really complain imho. Mexico got seeded because of their involvement in the Confederations Cup 2005 (although this is a shit competition) and did well. All what the US (as they are the better team) had to do was to qualify instead of Mexico there. I don't think either deserved a seed. I'm not complaining that Mexico got a seed and the US didn't; I'm simply complaining that Mexico got a seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 10035 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Aye, fair comment re: the seedings. Allthough the US can't really complain imho. Mexico got seeded because of their involvement in the Confederations Cup 2005 (although this is a shit competition) and did well. All what the US (as they are the better team) had to do was to qualify instead of Mexico there. I don't think either deserved a seed. I'm not complaining that Mexico got a seed and the US didn't; I'm simply complaining that Mexico got a seed. So what do you want? First you are complaining about "the formula" that means that European results do have more weight than Concacaf ones. Then you are complaining that Mexico (despite being a Concacaf team) getting seeded at the World Cup as as a reflection of their past success in friendlies, the Gold Cup (and as a result of this in the Confederations Cup). You have totally lost me, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 296 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Aye, fair comment re: the seedings. Allthough the US can't really complain imho. Mexico got seeded because of their involvement in the Confederations Cup 2005 (although this is a shit competition) and did well. All what the US (as they are the better team) had to do was to qualify instead of Mexico there. I don't think either deserved a seed. I'm not complaining that Mexico got a seed and the US didn't; I'm simply complaining that Mexico got a seed. So what do you want? First you are complaining about "the formula" that means that European results do have more weight than Concacaf ones. Then you are complaining that Mexico (despite being a Concacaf team) getting seeded at the World Cup as as a reflection of their past success in friendlies, the Gold Cup (and as a result of this in the Confederations Cup). You have totally lost me, really. I would be happy if the rankings (and seeding formula) made as much sense as the ELO ratings (like they do for chess masters) http://www.eloratings.net/system.html or if the rankings were based a little more on recent results instead of 4 year old results. I can see the idea of using the last two or three world cup performances in the formula for seeds, but not so much for the rankings which I would argue are more likely to be in flux from year to year. Maybe there's not too much movement at the top 5 places, but beyond that it's a bit wishy-washy. Most of the time, I'd argue that the teams from 10-25 are pretty evenly matched. Putting Scotland, Greece and Romania above Ghana, Ivory Coast and USA doesn't read right to me. However, them all being in the 15-35 range does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 International football is based on a 4 year cycle though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 296 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 International football is based on a 4 year cycle though. Is it? Is it really? The UEFA championships or World Cup are every 2 years. The Copa America is every two years. The Gold Cup is every two years. The African Cup of Nations is every 2 years. I dont' know about the Asian championship. Apart from the World Cup and UEFA championships, everythings is 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) International football is based on a 4 year cycle though. Is it? Is it really? The UEFA championships or World Cup are every 2 years. The Copa America is every two years. The Gold Cup is every two years. The African Cup of Nations is every 2 years. I dont' know about the Asian championship. Apart from the World Cup and UEFA championships, everythings is 2 years. The biggest two tournaments are then. Anyway, it would make sense for FIFA to base their rankings on the cycle of their major tournament, i.e. four years. Edited March 15, 2007 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Mag 3 Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 Putting Scotland, Greece and Romania above Ghana, Ivory Coast and USA doesn't read right to me. Looks about right to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 10035 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 The ELO ratings make as much (or as little) sense to me as the FIFA system. I don't see that much of a diference in that regard. I guess that because of the huge difference between the structure of all confederations, but especially between UEFA and the rest, it will be impossible to get a "fair" rating system. The only "fair" system would be for every nation to play every nation, but that is impossible. And imho UEFA is the most competitive confederation as there are not only two teams who dominate everything as is in most other confederation (maybe with the exception of Africa). And with teams only playing a few games every year I think a four-year-circle is the best reflection of world football as only this secures that competitive games from the top teams of all confederations against each other (i.e. during the world cup) are taken into consideration and give a reflection of the strength of the confederations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Still, I like the ELO ratings. Even if they still rank England at #7. http://www.eloratings.net/world.html 'Calling America! You're ranked lower than us! Calling America! And it's funny as fuck!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 10035 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Also regarding Zathras main grief, the ranking of the USA below a country like Scotland... If you look on a short term base, i.e. the results between March 2006 and March 2007, you get this: Scotland W 4, D 1, L 2 USA W 4, D 2, L 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Mag 3 Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 (edited) Shota Arveladze, " get it right up yi!!"........... Edited March 24, 2007 by Scottish Mag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay 10 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Shota Arveladze, " get it right up yi!!"........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walliver 0 Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Scotland are currently the unofficial world champions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now