Fifa world rankings

[johnjoeefc]

Just had a look at these for the first time in years. Apparently USA are better than Germany and Holland. Let's bare in mind USA didn't even qualify for the last World Cup in the easiest of qualification groups.

Just makes you question how these are actually worked out but clearly a bit of a joke. Admittedly Germany and Holland are not in their best moments but both of these nations are significantly better than USA and Mexico for that matter. I think the process of these needs a rethink.

Yea USA won the gold Cup, but surely the merit of winning such a poor competition should barely count towards rankings when the opposition is all of League one standard.

 

[Death]

If USA were in Europe they would easily make semi finals or finals. They are isolated and never get a chance.

World cup is a farce.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Just had a look at these for the first time in years. Apparently USA are better than Germany and Holland. Let's bare in mind USA didn't even qualify for the last World Cup in the easiest of qualification groups.

Just makes you question how these are actually worked out but clearly a bit of a joke. Admittedly Germany and Holland are not in their best moments but both of these nations are significantly better than USA and Mexico for that matter. I think the process of these needs a rethink.

Yea USA won the gold Cup, but surely the merit of winning such a poor competition should barely count towards rankings when the opposition is all of League one standard.

They aren't meant to rank who is the absolute best and therefore they treat competitions equally across continents

 

[Martin Alvito]

They aren't meant to rank who is the absolute best and therefore they treat competitions equally across continents

Which is an astonishingly stupid idea, if you're going for accuracy.

Look at the Official World Golf Rankings. They weight the competitions by field strength. A tournament where all the big fish show up is worth far more than the PGA Tour event played the same week as the Open Championship. That event, and the silly season events, traditionally have very weak fields.

I suspect that one purpose of FIFA's rankings is to promote the possibility that CONCACAF and AFC teams have a chance at the World Cup, since those countries have a lot of eyeballs to capture.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Which is an astonishingly stupid idea, if you're going for accuracy.

Look at the Official World Golf Rankings. They weight the competitions by field strength. A tournament where all the big fish show up is worth far more than the PGA Tour event played the same week as the Open Championship. That event, and the silly season events, traditionally have very weak fields.

I suspect that one purpose of FIFA's rankings is to promote the possibility that CONCACAF and AFC teams have a chance at the World Cup, since those countries have a lot of eyeballs to capture.

There's no good way to do it though like that. They've got one competitive tournament every four years to measure. The only other way is to make friendly results matter and that's also pretty dumb.

 

[PaddyJames]

Just had a look at these for the first time in years. Apparently USA are better than Germany and Holland. Let's bare in mind USA didn't even qualify for the last World Cup in the easiest of qualification groups.

Just makes you question how these are actually worked out but clearly a bit of a joke. Admittedly Germany and Holland are not in their best moments but both of these nations are significantly better than USA and Mexico for that matter. I think the process of these needs a rethink.

Yea USA won the gold Cup, but surely the merit of winning such a poor competition should barely count towards rankings when the opposition is all of League one standard.

Yeah but imagine how much oil and freedom the USA would find in FIFA if they didn't look favourably on them.

It's not worth the hassle.

 

[Martin Alvito]

There's no good way to do it though like that. They've got one competitive tournament every four years to measure. The only other way is to make friendly results matter and that's also pretty dumb.

I agree that there's no good way. There are, however, better ways if we were going for accuracy.

The WC and continental championships count. Qualifications count. Silly tournaments like the Confederations Cup and the UEFA Nations League count less. I agree that friendlies are scrimmages that don't count.

What we would probably find if we did things that way is that the better UEFA and the top CONMEBOL teams are the only ones that have a realistic shot at the World Cup. We would find that the US and Mexico could make a run, but aren't at all likely to lift it.

That's not the story that FIFA wants told, so they don't tell it. We can simply compensate by shuffling the CONCACAF, CAF and AFC teams down a bit mentally. I don't believe that Senegal is #21, or that Japan is #24, any more than I believe that the US and Mexico are top ten. There's a decent chance that they're the best the respective confederations have to offer.

 

[WA Toffee]

As far as I am aware, it really doesn't matter. Eufa seeding for qualification is based on the rankings, but obviously only affects eufa countries. I believe other federations are the same (except SA which is just one group). So whether the AFC gets the same weighting as UEFA makes not 1 blind bit of difference to anything.