FIFA Rankings / WC seeding farce

[alpine_saint]

I see it has been stitched up again.

 

4 S. American seeds, come on FFS. Uruguay arent even sure they will be there yet. How can you go from play-offs to seeded ?

 

Switzerland, Belgium

 

Its about time FIFA decided on one system for seeding and stuck with it...

[Window Cleaner]

too many draws in England's games over the last year,the FIFA ranking system is based on winning matches and not drawing them.

Drawing with a minnow sets you back in the classment, drawing with sides like Ireland in friendlies is particularly nocive to your FIFA ranking. If you can't win friendlies don't play them if you want to be seeded for top tournaments. Switzerland beat Brazil and that brings a shedload of points, Uruguay beat Argentina and that helps no end. The higher the classment of the side you beat the more points it brings you because the coefficient is 200-Ranking, so if you beat Brazil your result is 3x199x1 even for a friendly.

Edited 17 October, 2013 by Window Cleaner

[stevegrant]

I see it has been stitched up again.

 

4 S. American seeds, come on FFS. Uruguay arent even sure they will be there yet. How can you go from play-offs to seeded ?

 

Switzerland, Belgium

 

Its about time FIFA decided on one system for seeding and stuck with it...

Er, they have, it's called using the FIFA rankings system. It's not perfect, by any means, but it does measure performance over the last 4 years, with the most recent results given a higher weighting. Switzerland and Belgium topped their groups unbeaten, winning more games than England did over the same period, and in groups with (surprisingly) higher average rankings. We had two genuine minnows in our group, while Macedonia and Cyprus aren't anywhere near as bad as Moldova or San Marino.

 

Draws get you a third of the points as wins do, in both the group tables and in terms of ranking points. Teams who play more competitive games (the South Americans played 16 in qualifying compared to 10 in most European groups) and get results will naturally end up higher in the rankings. Uruguay also got to the semi-finals of the Confederations Cup, which will have (some would argue artificially) boosted their ranking as it's deemed a competitive tournament and therefore given a higher weighting than friendlies.

[Tokyo-Saint]

That's all very interesting Steve but do they have Wayne Rooney upfront and the worlds best ever left back TM Ashley Cole in defence?

[Bearsy]

Here is transcript of press conference with Roy Hodgson:

 

Journo: Roy, what are your thoughts on England's world ranking dropping to 17th?

 

Hodgson: Well naturally I'm very disappointed with our ranking. I had hoped if anything to improve our ranking. I think a lot about ranking, it is important to me. I want to have a good rank... why is you laughing?

[Spudders]

Good one bear, are we still handing out reputations points? If so have +1

[Bearsy]

Cheers spooder. I've made that same joke bout 100 times on this forum and that is the only time i ever got any credit for how very intellectual + amusing it is. I feel validation yo!

[dinger]

too many draws in England's games over the last year,the FIFA ranking system is based on winning matches and not drawing them.

Drawing with a minnow sets you back in the classment, drawing with sides like Ireland in friendlies is particularly nocive to your FIFA ranking. If you can't win friendlies don't play them if you want to be seeded for top tournaments. Switzerland beat Brazil and that brings a shedload of points, Uruguay beat Argentina and that helps no end. The higher the classment of the side you beat the more points it brings you because the coefficient is 200-Ranking, so if you beat Brazil your result is 3x199x1 even for a friendly.

 

I've just learnt a new word! Thanks Window Cleaner.

[Spudders]

Ahhh I only usually view the muppet show area so I've missed all your other duplicate posts of the same joke.

+99 reputation points.

[alpine_saint]

Er, they have, it's called using the FIFA rankings system. It's not perfect, by any means, but it does measure performance over the last 4 years, with the most recent results given a higher weighting. Switzerland and Belgium topped their groups unbeaten, winning more games than England did over the same period, and in groups with (surprisingly) higher average rankings. We had two genuine minnows in our group, while Macedonia and Cyprus aren't anywhere near as bad as Moldova or San Marino.

 

Draws get you a third of the points as wins do, in both the group tables and in terms of ranking points. Teams who play more competitive games (the South Americans played 16 in qualifying compared to 10 in most European groups) and get results will naturally end up higher in the rankings. Uruguay also got to the semi-finals of the Confederations Cup, which will have (some would argue artificially) boosted their ranking as it's deemed a competitive tournament and therefore given a higher weighting than friendlies.

 

Have they ? It seems it wasnt that long ago (France 98, acutally) where using the history of the previous WC (USA 1994) was a way of keeping England out of the seedings then.

 

Also, I was under the impression that some eyebrows have been raised about them using solely Oct 2013 Rankings to decide the seedings.

 

I simply cannot see how Switzerland can be placed ahead of Italy, Netherlands, England to name-but-three for seedings. One four-time winner, another winner, and one 3x Finalist.

[stevegrant]

Have they ? It seems it wasnt that long ago (France 98, acutally) where using the history of the previous WC (USA 1994) was a way of keeping England out of the seedings then.

 

Also, I was under the impression that some eyebrows have been raised about them using solely Oct 2013 Rankings to decide the seedings.

 

I simply cannot see how Switzerland can be placed ahead of Italy, Netherlands, England to name-but-three for seedings. One four-time winner, another winner, and one 3x Finalist.

That's like saying you cannot see how Portsmouth, twice winners of the old First Division title, are currently ranked 83rd in the country.

 

Seeding is based on how likely they are to perform at the forthcoming championship, based on the statistical data from the most recent matches played.

[Window Cleaner]

I've just learnt a new word! Thanks Window Cleaner.

 

that would be noxious to you people I guess but I like nocive better and am always prepared to further the cause of Franglais. Why if it weren't for people such as I crèpes and croissants wouldn't have made it across the channel yet.:rolleyes:

[alpine_saint]

That's like saying you cannot see how Portsmouth, twice winners of the old First Division title, are currently ranked 83rd in the country.

 

Seeding is based on how likely they are to perform at the forthcoming championship, based on the statistical data from the most recent matches played.

 

Which will bear no resemblance whatsoever to what will really happen; you know as well as I do that Italy and the Netherlands are going to go much, much farther than Belgium and Switzerland, so I dont really know why you are bothering to defend it.

[stevegrant]

Which will bear no resemblance whatsoever to what will really happen; you know as well as I do that Italy and the Netherlands are going to go much, much farther than Belgium and Switzerland, so I dont really know why you are bothering to defend it.

Assuming they don't get drawn into a "group of death", Belgium will go further than both Italy and Netherlands. I'm willing to put decent money on it. Don't forget, the Dutch didn't get a single point in the Euros.

 

Switzerland were the only team to beat Spain in the last World Cup and haven't lost a competitive game for more than two years (and only 4 competitive defeats in more than 5 years).

 

It's rather rich of you to accuse someone else of defending a viewpoint, especially when I've actually got statistical data to back up my opinion unlike your usual reactionary gibberish.

[S-Clarke]

I see Apline is right, once again.

[alpine_saint]

Assuming they don't get drawn into a "group of death", Belgium will go further than both Italy and Netherlands. I'm willing to put decent money on it. Don't forget, the Dutch didn't get a single point in the Euros.

 

Switzerland were the only team to beat Spain in the last World Cup and haven't lost a competitive game for more than two years (and only 4 competitive defeats in more than 5 years).

 

It's rather rich of you to accuse someone else of defending a viewpoint, especially when I've actually got statistical data to back up my opinion unlike your usual reactionary gibberish.

 

Ah, statistics. Must be true then

 

Brilliant oxymoron there, putting gibberish and statistics on opposing sides..

[norwaysaint]

Alpine, are you saying that no matter how strong they prove themselves to be, no matter what their results on the pitch in recent years, Belgium and Switzerland shouldn't be allowed to be seeded, because they don't have the history of Italy and the Netherlands? Conversely that no matter how poor their team is at the moment, that Italy and the Netherlands should have an automatic right to be seeded? That sounds ridiculous. They are both very strong teams, seeded on merit. The seeding for this is along similar grounds to most sporting competitions.

 

What I don't agree with is friendly matches influencing world rankings. It seems to me the idea of a friendly is that it should have no direct competitive consequences.

 

I don't really care whether England are seeded or not. Actually, on a selfish level, I'd love to see England in a group with three of the best teams. That would be the best world cup imaginable for me. Obviously that wouldn't be much fun in other parts of the draw though.

[dinger]

Sorry Alpine, this doesn't stack up at all. Teams are seeded based on results. Have you seen Belgium recently? They're brilliant. And last time they played the Netherlands they spanked them. Switzerland is a surprise, but again look at their results, they keep winning. They beat Brazil a couple of months ago.

 

It's not a perfect system by any means, because teams from continents with predominently lower-ranked nations have less opportunity of facing/beating high ranked teams and scoring more points. Which you could argue keeps the centres of power in Europe and South America. But it's a lot better than basing seeding on heritage and sentiment, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

[Dark Munster]

When England again get knocked out in the quarter-finals in a penalty shoot-out, I wouldn't bet against Belgium being the team to do it. Hazard, Dembélé, Fellaini, Kompany, Vermaelen, Mignolet, Vertonghen, Mirallas, Benteke, Lukaku, Witsel, Defour. That's what you call a golden generation.

[Batman]

Alpine doesnt care about england anyway. so whats the issue?

 

as for belgium. what a fuking squad they have. I am really looking forward to seeing them

talking of england, it was good to see us beating Montengro and Poland with good attacking football. but as said on the Football Ramble. its easy to get over excited but when we play the likes of Belgium, Germany, Italy, Holland, Argentina in a competitive match, we will get brushed aside.

 

Its about time, we as a nation looked at getting to a 1/4 final as a very very good achievement and not the bare minimum as we are no way as good as so many teams

 

we simply do not deserve to be seeded

[Window Cleaner]

When England again get knocked out in the quarter-finals in a penalty shoot-out, I wouldn't bet against Belgium being the team to do it. Hazard, Dembélé, Fellaini, Kompany, Vermaelen, Mignolet, Vertonghen, Mirallas, Benteke, Lukaku, Witsel, Defour. That's what you call a golden generation.

 

Any of them actually play football in Belgium because Anderlecht were one of the shîtest teams I've ever seen in the CL last night.

[Sour Mash]

When England again get knocked out in the quarter-finals in a penalty shoot-out, I wouldn't bet against Belgium being the team to do it. Hazard, Dembélé, Fellaini, Kompany, Vermaelen, Mignolet, Vertonghen, Mirallas, Benteke, Lukaku, Witsel, Defour. That's what you call a golden generation.

Why is that any different to our golden generation?

[norwaysaint]

Why is that any different to our golden generation?

He didn't say it was different. Maybe their generation of gifted players will do better than ours, maybe it won't.

[CB Fry]

Alpine doesnt care about england anyway. so whats the issue?

 

I thought this. How many times have we had him ranting out his "I hope we don't qualify" routine? All of a sudden he is raging against a perfectly reasonable seeding process.

 

Lets remember Alpine's main theme today: that big teams deserve special treatment entirely because they are big. There is nothing smaller teams can do to surpass this as they are small.

 

I wonder if he sticks to this notion next time, say, Man United get away with something another club might not do.

[Picard]

that would be noxious to you people I guess but I like nocive better and am always prepared to further the cause of Franglais. Why if it weren't for people such as I crèpes and croissants wouldn't have made it across the channel yet.:rolleyes:

 

crêpes

 

Like me you're now getting both your French and English mixed up.

[alpine_saint]

LOL at CeeBee and DullDays sneering at something that doesnt exist.

 

Where did I use England as the sole, or even main context in which I complained about the process ? I used France 98 as an example. So f**king what ? I still dont care that we've got to Rio, since Woy will go with his conservative unimaginative squad taking the likes of Gerard and Lampard and leaving the likes of Clyne, Shaw and Lallana at home and we will make the second round, tops.

 

FIFA dont stick with one process, and something is guiding the changes. Considering Blatter's obsession with his legacy that has brought us a Qatar WC that is in a complete mess, and pressure to reduce the number of European places, I know what I think is causing it.

Edited 28 October, 2013 by alpine_saint

[alpine_saint]

I thought this. How many times have we had him ranting out his "I hope we don't qualify" routine? All of a sudden he is raging against a perfectly reasonable seeding process.

 

Lets remember Alpine's main theme today: that big teams deserve special treatment entirely because they are big. There is nothing smaller teams can do to surpass this as they are small.

 

I wonder if he sticks to this notion next time, say, Man United get away with something another club might not do.

 

Apart from the numpty rounds of the FA Cup, tell me where English Football uses seeding at all.

 

Bellend.

[hypochondriac]

Apart from the numpty rounds of the FA Cup, tell me where English Football uses seeding at all.

 

Bellend.

 

Why should teams be seeded based on what they have achieved potentially decades previously?

 

Bellend.

[fish fingers]

Why is that any different to our golden generation?

 

When was that?

[stevegrant]

Apart from the numpty rounds of the FA Cup, tell me where English Football uses seeding at all.

First two rounds of the League Cup (including the round that we enter) are seeded, based on the previous season's final league position.

 

No idea what how we do things domestically makes any difference to what happens on the international stage in competitions run by completely different organisations though.

[CB Fry]

Apart from the numpty rounds of the FA Cup, tell me where English Football uses seeding at all.

 

Bellend.

 

Bless you.

 

So do bigger teams deserve special treatment simply because they are big or not?

 

You're the one saying Italy and Holland deserve a golden ticket regardless of performance and Belgium can get stuffed no matter how many games they win.

 

If that was applied elsewhere you'd be screaming blue bloody murder.

[Sour Mash]

He didn't say it was different. Maybe their generation of gifted players will do better than ours, maybe it won't.

Why use the phrase "that's what you call"?

[Sour Mash]

When was that?

Beckham, Scholes, Ferdinand, Owen, Lampard, Gerrard, Cole?

[norwaysaint]

Why use the phrase "that's what you call"?

 

Well, isn't it?

[alpine_saint]

First two rounds of the League Cup (including the round that we enter) are seeded, based on the previous season's final league position.

 

No idea what how we do things domestically makes any difference to what happens on the international stage in competitions run by completely different organisations though.

 

I completely agree; it was CB Fry drawing parallels, not me.

[Dark Munster]

Beckham, Scholes, Ferdinand, Owen, Lampard, Gerrard, Cole?

I would say the current Belgium squad is stronger than that. Of course that is a matter of opinion, but for a country 1/5 the size of ours their current squad is amazing, and surely is a golden generation by their standards, if not ours.

[Sour Mash]

I would say the current Belgium squad is stronger than that. Of course that is a matter of opinion, but for a country 1/5 the size of ours their current squad is amazing, and surely is a golden generation by their standards, if not ours.

By their standards? What does that mean? Burkino Faso might currently have a golden generation by their own standards, but no-one goes on about them! The Belgian players listed on this thread - how many major trophies have they won between them so far?

[alpine_saint]

By their standards? What does that mean? Burkino Faso might currently have a golden generation by their own standards, but no-one goes on about them! The Belgian players listed on this thread - how many major trophies have they won between them so far?

 

Kind of proves my point. Thumping mediocre teams in qualification is one thing, putting it together in 8 games over 4 weeks is another. Netherlands have as equally an impressive record in this qualifiying campaign, and pedigree for reaching the final, and are unseeded. Placing Belgium and Switzerland before Italy and Netherlands is a f**king joke.