Excumbrian Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Could someone please explain to me why, in all seriousness, FIFA have ranked USA (7th, ranking points 768) above: 8 Spain 750 9 Portugal 743 10 Sweden 740 11 England 738 12 Turkey 731 13 Italy 725 14 Denmark 721 15 Germany 718 ...and for that matter Mexico ranked above the USA, despite the USA trouncing them in World Cup qualifying? Do these rankings mean anything, and does anyone other than FIFA take them seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Read the rankings procedure. Basically, it's results over 4 years with official games (Q's and tournies) worth more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excumbrian Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 Well granted -- the ranking procedure is there for all to read but the results are obviously nonsense. Does anyone really think the USA are more likely to win the World Cup than any of the teams immediately below them (with the obvious exception of England...sorry Sven!) quote:Originally posted by Daniel Read the rankings procedure. Basically, it's results over 4 years with official games (Q's and tournies) worth more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Well, how do you think they should rank them? Based on opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excumbrian Posted October 29, 2005 Author Share Posted October 29, 2005 Why bother ranking them at all? Better to have no rankings at all than those that are obviously rubbish. quote:Originally posted by Daniel Well, how do you think they should rank them? Based on opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Well, they are in general rather accurate and serve as a global view of soccer strengths. You're just looking at the top, which is controversial in any list. But you can see the relative strengths of certain teams, just divide them in groups of 20 and consider them "A" pool, "B" pool, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Just wait for the World Cup. I see the ratings this way: you can live up to them or not in the crunch. To fulfill your rating's expectations you should do better than the corresponding round of your post. If you are in the top 30 and can't qualify for the WC, then you have failed. If you are in the top 16 and can't get through the qualifying round in the Cup itself, then you have not done well. If you are one of the top 8 teams, like the US, and can't make it to quarter finals, you have fallen short. The top four teams should at least be able to make it through quarters to the semi finals. I think the top two in the ratings should be in the semis. Normally the teams that have shown themselves consistently able to fulfill their ratings are Germany (usually outdoing themselves) and Brazil. Then there are teams like England and Spain which are perpetually knocked out in quarters, which is what probably should happen. Italy has also been a consisten over-acheiver, as they are so competitive in key moments, at least they were. Holland is the most famous under-acheiver (perhaps with Spain and England in there too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. Normally the teams that have shown themselves consistently able to fulfill their ratings are Germany (usually outdoing themselves) and Brazil. Then there are teams like England and Spain which are perpetually knocked out in quarters, which is what probably should happen. Italy has also been a consisten over-acheiver, as they are so competitive in key moments, at least they were. Holland is the most famous under-acheiver (perhaps with Spain and England in there too). Come on, Spain is a bigger under-achiever than Holland. Holland's underachievement is vastly overrated. Although they haven't won much, they often come close only to fall to the best team in the tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 This just came to me in regards to the US/Mexico rating: remember the Mexicans beat #1 Brasil in an official competition (Confed Cup) and usually do well in another (Copa America) in which the US doesn't participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 quote:Originally posted by amacpher Come on, Spain is a bigger under-achiever than Holland. Holland's underachievement is vastly overrated. Although they haven't won much, they often come close only to fall to the best team in the tournament. Yes, but Holland is usually ranked higher, and has higher ranked players in typical awards giving. In any case Holland failed to even qualify for the World Cup recently, and Spain has qualified for every one since at least the 70s. Spain has been knocked out early recently (Eurocup), but they came quite close vs. S. Korea in the last one, some would say falling due to refereeing errors (some pretty iffy ones there). Win that and they would have been into semis. Indeed Spain is typically a team that can not lose in all qualifiers and get their only official loss in a cycle in a quarter final round of the Euro or World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.