Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

... but all of the top 22 have either qualified for, or are in playoffs for, the 2014 Finals.

Denmark, in 23rd, are the highest-ranked team who can't qualify. In fact of the definite qualifiers (Costa Rica are 33rd) the only real outliers so far are the AFC qualifiers, who are all in the 40s or 50s (South Korea are 58th) but that's possibly because they've largely only played each other, or teams like Iraq and Qatar, for the last twelve months; an alternative view could be that yes, in fact, the AFC teams are ranked in about the right place and the fact four of them are going to Brazil needs looking at.

It would suggest that the much-maligned system has some merits, at least when it's used to calibrate results at the end of a World Cup qualifying campaign. Possibly the only quibble is that Uruguay remain 7th, and are presumably on for top seeding status at the finals if they get past New Zealand, which doesn't seem fair on Chile or Ecuador.

[philistine]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Uruguay will play Jordan.

[ursus arctos]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Uruguay are playing Jordan.

Mexico are playing New Zealand.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Sorry, yes, Jordan. Already mentally assigned both Uruguay and Mexico to get through those playoffs, so forgotten who plays who.

[ursus arctos]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Isn't the least that one can expect from any system based on recent international results that it would reflect the results of a just-completed round of qualifiers? That seems to be particularly true of one that weighs "competitive" matches more heavily than friendlies.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Absolutely, but whatever tinkering's been done to the ranking system it feels about right, now, and it certainly hasn't done in the past. England are ranked between Chile and Bosnia, for example, instead of 4th.

[ursus arctos]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

I haven't been following the tinkering closely, but it also seems self-evident that any such system is going to look more "accurate" at the end of a qualifying cycle than it does in the middle of the cycle, particularly given the absence of any system that seeks to balance the difficulty of a team's games across the cycle.

[Sam]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

What ursus said.

Uruguay had a huge dip in the middle of qualifying but have picked themselves up again of late and ought to be dangerous next year. And yes, Rogin, you're right about them being seeded if they qualify - by beating Argentina they've edged Italy out of the seeds pot, which they wouldn't have done if Italy had kept their concentration and played out the win against Armenia early in the day.

The seedings are based on the ranking released today, even though by the time the playoffs are played the FIFA rankings might have changed.

[Duncan Gardner]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

A choice of rankings as Euro 16 qualifying starts:

[Sean of the Shed]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

There are some remarkable fluctuations in Scotland's rankings there.
One has them 17th and another 37th.

[enzee199]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

I guess the best test of the different rankings would be to develop a point system for world cup performance - games won/goals scored/clean sheets/whatever else, rank the tems in order and then do a correlation test between this and the other rankings...

Unfortunately I really can't be bothered to do this!

[Duncan Gardner]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Some context:

FIFA calculate from all results for the past four years, but previous years are weighted at only 50%, 30% and 20% of the period from August 2013- July 2014. So, scores in the second half of qualifying are worth twice those of the first. This benefits Scotland, for example.

UEFA use only competitive games, but for six years (ie from the beginning of World Cup 2010 qualifying, with that tournament weighted at 50% of the two more recent). So a team that declined from the previous Euros can still rank highly, eg Ireland.

Elo assess every international result in the past to predict the likelihood of a given outcome in the near future (as opposed to rewarding one in the recent past). There is weighting for more recent games but this is more complex than the formulas used by FIFA and UEFA. England do well by consistently qualifying and historically reaching more quarter-finals than anyone except Germany.

My list simply orders the teams that qualified for Brazil 2014 by their performance there, and those that didn't by points earned in qualifying (and by reaching the play-offs). So Iceland get credit for the latter, not reflected by any of the other systems.

[enzee199]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Right,

I've done a correlation test for DG's top 13 (i.e the teams that made the WC Finals)

I've used the same ranking data

FIFA Ranking = 0.81

UEFA Ranking = 0.41

ELO Ranking = 0.50

It's interesting that the FIFA rankings actually do a decent job of predicting final placings - the maximum correlation would be +1 or -1 so 0.81 isn't bad at all.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

The FIFA rankings currently give a weighting of x4 to matches in the 2014 World Cup finals, compared to x2.5 for qualifiers played after July 2013, x1.25 for qualifiers played in 2012-13, and x0.9 for matches in the Euro 2012 finals.

So you'd expect a high correlation between those and any list based solely on World Cup results.

The current (post-2014 WC) FIFA rankings are 1. Germany, 2. Argentina, 3. Holland, 4. Colombia, 5. Belgium, 6. Uruguay, 7. Brazil, 8. Spain.

Costa Rica are up to 15th, and England down to 20th (behind also Mexico and the USA).

The FIFA rankings are (as I said last year!) much-maligned, but it's hard to argue they haven't got that about right. For example, if they re-ran the World Cup right now, those would be the 8 seeds - seems about right to me.

[enzee199]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Good point - forgot to look at that!

I've just done the correlation with the May rankings and FIFA drops to 0.14, which is truly terrible.

I guess what this shows - apart from the fact that I should look at dates closer - is that FIFAs ranking are heavily focused on the World Cup - which is why there's a big cyclical trend.

[enzee199]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Also it makes it bad for assessing the relative strength of nations which do not make it to the finals

[Duncan Gardner]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

...but in July next year (ie after only six of Europe's qualifying dates), they'll be used to seed qualifying for the 2018 World Cup. Seeding posts as per today's announced rankings:

Rnk Zon. Rnk Team Pts +/- Pos
1 1 Germany 1669 0 Equal
4 2 Belgium 1388 1 Up
5 3 Netherlands 1375 -1 Down
7 4 France 1191 2 Up
9 5 Portugal 1175 2 Up
10 6 Spain 1119 -2 Down
11 7 Italy 1064 2 Up
12 8 Switzerland 1063 -2 Down
14 9 Croatia 1002 5 Up

18 10 Greece 946 -4 Down
19 11 Ukraine 920 5 Up
20 12 England 919 -2 Down
21 13 Romania 876 5 Up
22 14 Czech Republic 870 6 Up
24 15 Slovakia 861 16 Up
26 16 Bosnia and Herzegovina 837 -1 Down
28 17 Iceland 816 6 Up
29 18 Austria 810 10 Up

30 19 Russia 792 -7 Down
32 20 Denmark 763 -5 Down
34 21 Wales 715 -5 Down
36 22 Slovenia 683 17 Up
37 23 Scotland 674 -8 Down
39 24 Sweden 646 -7 Down
43 25 Northern Ireland 625 28 Up
44 26 Poland 621 26 Up
45 27 Israel 615 19 Up
46 28 Turkey 614 -8 Down

46 29 Serbia 614 -12 Down
48 30 Albania 604 -3 Down
50 31 Hungary 561 4 Up
59 32 Bulgaria 532 -13 Down
61 33 Republic of Ireland 519 1 Up
63 34 Finland 510 2 Up
64 35 Montenegro 504 -21 Down
68 36 Norway 481 8 Up
75 37 Armenia 432 -23 Down

88 38 Estonia 369 -7 Down
92 39 Lithuania 364 11 Up
96 40 Cyprus 348 -11 Down
99 41 FYR Macedonia 340 13 Up
99 42 Latvia 340 0 Equal
106 43 Belarus 301 -17 Down
117 44 Georgia 271 -7 Down
119 45 Moldova 262 -14 Down
126 46 Azerbaijan 233 -31 Down

126 47 Luxembourg 233 1 Up
132 48 Kazakhstan 218 -5 Down
155 49 Liechtenstein 136 17 Up
157 50 Malta 129 -2 Down
187 51 Faroe Islands 42 -8 Down
202 52 Andorra 9 1 Up
208 53 San Marino 0 0 Equal

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

There'll be a few in that pot 3 looking at a few in that pot 2 and thinking "we could do them".

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Will UEFA get Russia plus 13 qualifiers in 2018, or Russia plus 12? If it's the latter it would make sense for them to make it 8 groups, with winners and 4 playoffs going through.

[Duncan Gardner]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Eight groups for 52 teams (ie without Russia and Gib) means (4x7) + (4x6). England (say) won't want to play 12 qualifiers, so (7x6) + (2x5) with only best six runners-up playing off is as plausible. Or more radically (2x6) + (8x5) with two best runners up progressing.

[Wouter D]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Wow, so Greece finally fall out of the top pot.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Rankings catch up with the World Cup as England drop below Costa Rica

[linus]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Those rankings do pass the eyeball test, surprisingly. Costa Rica would actually be in 7th place based on the results from last year alone.

[ursus arctos]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Bhutan, who were dead last in the rankings before today, have beaten Sri Lanka in Colombo.

[N est à?]

Say what you like about the FIFA rankings ...

Straight from the motherfuckin slums thats busted
Bhutan clan aint nuttin to fuck with