According to the official 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Regulations, the league format tiebreakers are as follows (article 17.6):
In the league format, the ranking in each group is determined as follows:
a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
b) goal difference in all group matches;
c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches. If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings will be determined as follows:
d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned;
g) drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee.
However, according to Ugandan website New Vision, these rules will only be applied in the third and final round of the qualifiers. For the second round, it seems the CAF tiebreaking rules (head-to-head results coming first) take precedence.
Here's the most interesting part of the article:
The table standings FIFA sent to the local football governing body FUFA indicate that Uganda are second in Group 3 , and will be among the teams considered as best runners-up after next week’s final round, if they beat Benin.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
European Cups: Changes in coefficient calculation
Andreas Dimatos, the director of Greek sports daily newspaper Goal News, published a very interesting article concerning the changes in coefficient calculation that UEFA will implement from next season (2008-2009).
Bert Kassies has translated the most relevant parts:
UEFA Europa League by Andreas Dimatos
...
Changes in coefficient
1) club coefficient ... from next season not added the 33% of the country coefficient, but it will be reduced to 20%. This will benefit medium strenth clubs (that don’t benefit from the low coefficient from their country, unlike clubs from e.g. Spain) and also the clubs that regularly (annualy) play in Europe and have their own points, in stead of being supported by their country coefficient.
2) the bonus of 3 pts for entering the group phase of the champions league, will be raised to 4 point (thus equalling 2 ‘paper’ wins) and the same bonus will be given to teams qualifying to the round of 16, in stead of just the 1 point that this yielded till this year.
3) the clubs will benefit from their points in the qualifying rounds, while till now these points (reduced to half their value) only went to the country coefficient. The basic rule is that the points they will get will be standard and independent from the match results. This way, for the first Q-round of UEFA cup they will obtain 0.25 pts, for the Q2 0.5 and for Q3 1.000 and for Q4 1.5 and for qualyfying for the group phase 2.0 pts. The same way, in the 1st qualif round of the CL the bonus will be 0.5 pts, Q2 1.0 pts. No points bonus is foreseen for Q3 (as the teams that will not qualify will continue in the last Q round of UEFA cup), also no added bonus for the play offs (as the teams that qualify will get 4 pts for the group phase of CL and those losing will get 2 pts for the UEFA group phase).
Mr. Dimatos has been kind enough to vouch for the validity of his UEFA source although understandably he couldn't tell me their identity. However, he did promise to keep me informed of new developments.
For more scenarios, take a look at the "Changes in calculating club coefficients from 2009" topic.
Bert has already computed the rankings and coefficients applying the new rules. Here are some of his posts:
Date: 26-09-2008, 21:09
Coefficients and rankings 2009 calculated with the new method (retroactive). Assuming table of MTC except bonus points for winning the final (not sure and my program needs more adaptation).
Country Ranking 2009
Country Coefficients 2009
Team Ranking 2009
Team Coefficients 2009
Date: 27-09-2008, 13:00
Coeffcients when applying ALL changes retroactively:
Country Ranking 2009
Country Coefficients 2009
Country Coefficients 2008
Country Coefficients 2007
Country Coefficients 2006
Country Coefficients 2005
Team Ranking 2009
Team Coefficients 2009
Team Coefficients 2008
Team Coefficients 2007
Team Coefficients 2006
Team Coefficients 2005
Date: 27-09-2008, 19:26
And then finally the most probable Team Ranking that will be used for seeding next season. I think that only the new 20% country contribution will be used retroactive, so only the Team Ranking 2009 will be changed. The Country Ranking 2009 will not change. I assume that the new bonuspoints and points for qualifying will not be used retroactive, and thus the rankings for 2009/10 will be the first to use the new calculation method.
Team Ranking 2009 with of 20% country contribution.
Bert Kassies has translated the most relevant parts:
UEFA Europa League by Andreas Dimatos
...
Changes in coefficient
1) club coefficient ... from next season not added the 33% of the country coefficient, but it will be reduced to 20%. This will benefit medium strenth clubs (that don’t benefit from the low coefficient from their country, unlike clubs from e.g. Spain) and also the clubs that regularly (annualy) play in Europe and have their own points, in stead of being supported by their country coefficient.
2) the bonus of 3 pts for entering the group phase of the champions league, will be raised to 4 point (thus equalling 2 ‘paper’ wins) and the same bonus will be given to teams qualifying to the round of 16, in stead of just the 1 point that this yielded till this year.
3) the clubs will benefit from their points in the qualifying rounds, while till now these points (reduced to half their value) only went to the country coefficient. The basic rule is that the points they will get will be standard and independent from the match results. This way, for the first Q-round of UEFA cup they will obtain 0.25 pts, for the Q2 0.5 and for Q3 1.000 and for Q4 1.5 and for qualyfying for the group phase 2.0 pts. The same way, in the 1st qualif round of the CL the bonus will be 0.5 pts, Q2 1.0 pts. No points bonus is foreseen for Q3 (as the teams that will not qualify will continue in the last Q round of UEFA cup), also no added bonus for the play offs (as the teams that qualify will get 4 pts for the group phase of CL and those losing will get 2 pts for the UEFA group phase).
Mr. Dimatos has been kind enough to vouch for the validity of his UEFA source although understandably he couldn't tell me their identity. However, he did promise to keep me informed of new developments.
For more scenarios, take a look at the "Changes in calculating club coefficients from 2009" topic.
Bert has already computed the rankings and coefficients applying the new rules. Here are some of his posts:
Date: 26-09-2008, 21:09
Coefficients and rankings 2009 calculated with the new method (retroactive). Assuming table of MTC except bonus points for winning the final (not sure and my program needs more adaptation).
Country Ranking 2009
Country Coefficients 2009
Team Ranking 2009
Team Coefficients 2009
Date: 27-09-2008, 13:00
Coeffcients when applying ALL changes retroactively:
Country Ranking 2009
Country Coefficients 2009
Country Coefficients 2008
Country Coefficients 2007
Country Coefficients 2006
Country Coefficients 2005
Team Ranking 2009
Team Coefficients 2009
Team Coefficients 2008
Team Coefficients 2007
Team Coefficients 2006
Team Coefficients 2005
Date: 27-09-2008, 19:26
And then finally the most probable Team Ranking that will be used for seeding next season. I think that only the new 20% country contribution will be used retroactive, so only the Team Ranking 2009 will be changed. The Country Ranking 2009 will not change. I assume that the new bonuspoints and points for qualifying will not be used retroactive, and thus the rankings for 2009/10 will be the first to use the new calculation method.
Team Ranking 2009 with of 20% country contribution.
Monday, September 29, 2008
EURO qualifying set to become a joke
The most likely qualification setup for EURO 2016 (and beyond) is a 9-group system. I'm going to look only at the one host scenario (France), but it makes little difference when you move to two hosts.
9 groups (2 x 5, 7 x 6)
Top two from each group and the best team in third place advance. The other eight play-off for the final four spots.
Using the current UEFA coefficient these would be the pots for the preliminary draw:
Pot 1: Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Croatia, England, Portugal, Greece, Turkey
Pot 2: Sweden, Russia, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Israel, Ukraine, Scotland, Denmark
Pot 3: Switzerland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Norway, Ireland, Slovakia, Finland, Austria, Lithuania
Pot 4: Belgium, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Wales, Latvia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Belarus, Albania
Pot 5: Hungary, Cyprus, Georgia, Moldova, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Iceland, Liechtenstein
Pot 6: Azerbaijan, Montenegro, Malta, Luxembourg, Andorra, Faroe Islands, San Marino
Possible draw:
Group 1: Croatia, Russia, Norway, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, Azerbaijan
Group 2: Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Northern Ireland, Kazakhstan, Faroe Islands
Group 3: England, Czech Republic, Serbia, Belgium, Armenia, San Marino
Group 4: Germany, Israel, Austria, Wales, Iceland, Luxembourg
Group 5: Greece, Scotland, Lithuania, Slovenia, Cyprus, Montenegro
Group 6: Portugal, Romania, Ireland, Latvia, Hungary, Andorra
Group 7: Spain, Poland, Switzerland, Macedonia, Moldova, Malta
Group 8: Italy, Denmark, Bulgaria, Albania, Estonia
Group 9: Turkey, Ukraine, Slovakia, Belarus, Liechtenstein
Remember, top two from each group and the best team in third place advance. The other eight play-off for the final four spots.
What big gun could fail to qualify if third place means you're still in the race?
With second place enough to avoid play-offs, qualification will be achieved sooner and teams will play their last matches with their second string. How will this make the qualifying more competitive?
9 groups (2 x 5, 7 x 6)
Top two from each group and the best team in third place advance. The other eight play-off for the final four spots.
Using the current UEFA coefficient these would be the pots for the preliminary draw:
Pot 1: Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Croatia, England, Portugal, Greece, Turkey
Pot 2: Sweden, Russia, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Israel, Ukraine, Scotland, Denmark
Pot 3: Switzerland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Norway, Ireland, Slovakia, Finland, Austria, Lithuania
Pot 4: Belgium, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Wales, Latvia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Belarus, Albania
Pot 5: Hungary, Cyprus, Georgia, Moldova, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Iceland, Liechtenstein
Pot 6: Azerbaijan, Montenegro, Malta, Luxembourg, Andorra, Faroe Islands, San Marino
Possible draw:
Group 1: Croatia, Russia, Norway, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, Azerbaijan
Group 2: Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Northern Ireland, Kazakhstan, Faroe Islands
Group 3: England, Czech Republic, Serbia, Belgium, Armenia, San Marino
Group 4: Germany, Israel, Austria, Wales, Iceland, Luxembourg
Group 5: Greece, Scotland, Lithuania, Slovenia, Cyprus, Montenegro
Group 6: Portugal, Romania, Ireland, Latvia, Hungary, Andorra
Group 7: Spain, Poland, Switzerland, Macedonia, Moldova, Malta
Group 8: Italy, Denmark, Bulgaria, Albania, Estonia
Group 9: Turkey, Ukraine, Slovakia, Belarus, Liechtenstein
Remember, top two from each group and the best team in third place advance. The other eight play-off for the final four spots.
What big gun could fail to qualify if third place means you're still in the race?
With second place enough to avoid play-offs, qualification will be achieved sooner and teams will play their last matches with their second string. How will this make the qualifying more competitive?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
EURO 2016 scenarios (II)
UEFA confirmed the expansion of the final tournament from 16 to 24 teams, as from the 2016 edition.
Looking at yesterday's post about the EURO 2016 qualifying scenarios, only 2 possibilities remain for both cases - one host and two hosts.
One host scenario (France)
1. 9 groups (2 x 5, 7 x 6)
Top two from each group and the best team in third place advance. The other eight play-off for the final four spots.
2. 10 groups (8 X 5, 2 X 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best six teams in third place play-off for the final three spots. The other four stay at home.
Assuming the top 23 nations in the current UEFA coefficient ranking qualify, these would be the final tournament pots:
Pot 1: France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Croatia
Pot 2: England, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Sweden, Russia
Pot 3: Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Israel, Ukraine, Scotland
Pot 4: Denmark, Switzerland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Norway, Ireland
Two host scenario (Sweden and Norway)
1. 9 groups (3 X 5, 6 X 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best eight teams in third place play-off for the final four spots. The other one stays at home.
2. 10 groups (9 X 5, 1 x 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best four teams in third place play-off for the final two spots. The other six stays at home.
Assuming the top 22 nations in the UEFA coefficient ranking qualify, these would be the final tournament pots:
Pot 1: Sweden, Norway, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands
Pot 2: Croatia,England, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, France
Pot 3: Russia, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Israel, Ukraine
Pot 4: Scotland, Denmark, Switzerland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Ireland
The 9 groups option seems more likely as it leaves less third placed teams at home.
Looking at yesterday's post about the EURO 2016 qualifying scenarios, only 2 possibilities remain for both cases - one host and two hosts.
One host scenario (France)
1. 9 groups (2 x 5, 7 x 6)
Top two from each group and the best team in third place advance. The other eight play-off for the final four spots.
2. 10 groups (8 X 5, 2 X 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best six teams in third place play-off for the final three spots. The other four stay at home.
Assuming the top 23 nations in the current UEFA coefficient ranking qualify, these would be the final tournament pots:
Pot 1: France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Croatia
Pot 2: England, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Sweden, Russia
Pot 3: Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Israel, Ukraine, Scotland
Pot 4: Denmark, Switzerland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Norway, Ireland
Two host scenario (Sweden and Norway)
1. 9 groups (3 X 5, 6 X 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best eight teams in third place play-off for the final four spots. The other one stays at home.
2. 10 groups (9 X 5, 1 x 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best four teams in third place play-off for the final two spots. The other six stays at home.
Assuming the top 22 nations in the UEFA coefficient ranking qualify, these would be the final tournament pots:
Pot 1: Sweden, Norway, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands
Pot 2: Croatia,England, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, France
Pot 3: Russia, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Israel, Ukraine
Pot 4: Scotland, Denmark, Switzerland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Ireland
The 9 groups option seems more likely as it leaves less third placed teams at home.
Friday, September 26, 2008
EURO 2016 scenarios
According to Franz Beckenbauer, UEFA looks set to expand the EURO championship to 24 teams from 2016.
Let's look at the possible qualifying systems:
Assumptions
1. League format, no preliminary rounds to restrict the number of participants.
2. No more than 8 teams in a group.
3. No less than 4 teams in a group.
4. No more than 3 teams qualifying out of a group.
5. No worst runners-up (or third placed teams) stay at home (as much as possible)
6. Final tournament will have six groups of four teams with the top two in each group and the best four teams in third place advancing to the last 16.
One host scenario (France)
With 52 members associations competing for 23 places, there are 6 options.
1. 8 groups (4 x 6, 4 x 7)
Top two from each group and the best six teams in third place advance. The other two play-off for the final spot.
2. 9 groups (2 x 5, 7 x 6)
Top two from each group and the best team in third place advance. The other eight play-off for the final four spots.
3. 10 groups (8 X 5, 2 X 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best six teams in third place play-off for the final three spots. The other four stay at home.
4. 11 groups (3 x 4, 8 x 5)
Top two from each group advance. The best two teams in third place play-off for the final spot. The other nine stay at home.
5. 12 groups (8 X 4, 4 x 5)
Winners and the best ten runners-up up advance. The other two play-off for the final spot.
6. 13 groups (13 X 4)
Winners and the best seven runners-up up advance. The other six play-off for the final three spots.
Assuming the top 23 nations in the current UEFA coefficient ranking qualify, these would be the final tournament pots:
Pot 1: France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Croatia
Pot 2: England, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Sweden, Russia
Pot 3: Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Israel, Ukraine, Scotland
Pot 4: Denmark, Switzerland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Norway, Ireland
Two host scenario (Sweden and Norway)
With 51 members associations competing for 22 places, there are 5 options.
1. 8 groups (5 X 6, 3 X 7)
Top two from each group and the best four teams in third place advance. The other four play-off for the final two spots.
2. 9 groups (3 X 5, 6 X 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best eight teams in third place play-off for the final four spots. The other one stays at home.
3. 10 groups (9 X 5, 1 x 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best four teams in third place play-off for the final two spots. The other six stays at home.
4. 11 groups (4 X 4, 7 X 5)
Top two from each group advance.
5. 12 groups (9 X 4, 3 x 5)
Winners and the best eight runners-up up advance. The other four play-off for the final two spots.
Assuming the top 22 nations in the UEFA coefficient ranking qualify, these would be the final tournament pots:
Pot 1: Sweden, Norway, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands
Pot 2: Croatia,England, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, France
Pot 3: Russia, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Israel, Ukraine
Pot 4: Scotland, Denmark, Switzerland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Ireland
Let's look at the possible qualifying systems:
Assumptions
1. League format, no preliminary rounds to restrict the number of participants.
2. No more than 8 teams in a group.
3. No less than 4 teams in a group.
4. No more than 3 teams qualifying out of a group.
5. No worst runners-up (or third placed teams) stay at home (as much as possible)
6. Final tournament will have six groups of four teams with the top two in each group and the best four teams in third place advancing to the last 16.
One host scenario (France)
With 52 members associations competing for 23 places, there are 6 options.
1. 8 groups (4 x 6, 4 x 7)
Top two from each group and the best six teams in third place advance. The other two play-off for the final spot.
2. 9 groups (2 x 5, 7 x 6)
Top two from each group and the best team in third place advance. The other eight play-off for the final four spots.
3. 10 groups (8 X 5, 2 X 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best six teams in third place play-off for the final three spots. The other four stay at home.
4. 11 groups (3 x 4, 8 x 5)
Top two from each group advance. The best two teams in third place play-off for the final spot. The other nine stay at home.
5. 12 groups (8 X 4, 4 x 5)
Winners and the best ten runners-up up advance. The other two play-off for the final spot.
6. 13 groups (13 X 4)
Winners and the best seven runners-up up advance. The other six play-off for the final three spots.
Assuming the top 23 nations in the current UEFA coefficient ranking qualify, these would be the final tournament pots:
Pot 1: France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Croatia
Pot 2: England, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Sweden, Russia
Pot 3: Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Israel, Ukraine, Scotland
Pot 4: Denmark, Switzerland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Norway, Ireland
Two host scenario (Sweden and Norway)
With 51 members associations competing for 22 places, there are 5 options.
1. 8 groups (5 X 6, 3 X 7)
Top two from each group and the best four teams in third place advance. The other four play-off for the final two spots.
2. 9 groups (3 X 5, 6 X 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best eight teams in third place play-off for the final four spots. The other one stays at home.
3. 10 groups (9 X 5, 1 x 6)
Top two from each group advance. The best four teams in third place play-off for the final two spots. The other six stays at home.
4. 11 groups (4 X 4, 7 X 5)
Top two from each group advance.
5. 12 groups (9 X 4, 3 x 5)
Winners and the best eight runners-up up advance. The other four play-off for the final two spots.
Assuming the top 22 nations in the UEFA coefficient ranking qualify, these would be the final tournament pots:
Pot 1: Sweden, Norway, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands
Pot 2: Croatia,England, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, France
Pot 3: Russia, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Israel, Ukraine
Pot 4: Scotland, Denmark, Switzerland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Ireland
UEFA Cup to become UEFA Europa League
Source: uefa.com.
The UEFA Executive Committee has approved the change of name for the UEFA Cup to the UEFA Europa League from 2009/10.
The UEFA Executive Committee has approved the change of name for the UEFA Cup to the UEFA Europa League from 2009/10.
The new UEFA Europa League logo (©UEFA)
'New impetus'
The new name heralds major changes to the competition, which will have a new 48-team group stage with centralised marketing of broadcast rights, a presenting sponsor and an official match ball in addition to centralised sponsorship from the knockout stages and a new logo and visual identity. UEFA President Michel Platini said: "These changes will improve this historic competition which is very important for UEFA and for European football, as it gives more fans, players and clubs the thrill of European club football. I am convinced the new format will give the UEFA Europa League a successful new impetus."
Wholesale changes
The changes to the name, logo and brand identity of the competition are the next logical step following the decision to alter the format of the UEFA Cup and create a true group stage, with both home and away matches. That decision was taken by the UEFA Executive Committee in Lucerne, Switzerland, back in December 2007. The change of name better reflects the format of the competition and with the enhancements to the logo and brand, the changes are such that from the 2009/10 season the UEFA Cup will effectively become a new competition.
Changing landscape
The new name and logo will help underline the competition's special character and unique sporting appeal. The new format will encourage teams from emerging countries or lesser-known teams to challenge the old order, and the new identity will seek to reflect that. UEFA's ambition in making all these changes is to rejuvenate the competition in the light of the new European football landscape, which has changed significantly with the continued success of the UEFA Champions League, so that the UEFA Europa League can establish itself as a major competition.
FIFA Ranking: USA September 2008 detailed point totals
The columns are as follows: Match date, Opponents' FIFA trigramme, FIFA match points for USA
"0.2 time frame"
"0.3 time frame"
"0.5 time frame"
"1.0 time frame"
Adding it up:
Year - Points - Matches - Multiplier - Total
Total for the four years: 788.3377297, rounded to 788.
"0.2 time frame"
| 4-Sep-2004 | SLV | 547.8 |
| 8-Sep-2004 | PAN | 242 |
| 9-Oct-2004 | SLV | 547.8 |
| 13-Oct-2004 | PAN | 726 |
| 17-Nov-2004 | JAM | 270.6 |
| 9-Feb-2005 | TRI | 726 |
| 9-Mar-2005 | COL | 521.73 |
| 19-Mar-2005 | HON | 332.64 |
| 27-Mar-2005 | MEX | 0 |
| 30-Mar-2005 | GUA | 891 |
| 28-May-2005 | ENG | 0 |
| 4-Jun-2005 | CRC | 1141.8 |
| 8-Jun-2005 | PAN | 778.8 |
| 7-Jul-2005 | CUB | 1227.6 |
| 9-Jul-2005 | CAN | 974.16 |
| 12-Jul-2005 | CRC | 451.44 |
| 16-Jul-2005 | JAM | 1164.24 |
| 21-Jul-2005 | HON | 1227.6 |
| 24-Jul-2005 | PAN | 638.88 |
| 17-Aug-2005 | TRI | 759 |
| 3-Sep-2005 | MEX | 1280.4 |
"0.3 time frame"
| 7-Sep-2005 | GUA | 275 |
| 8-Oct-2005 | CRC | 0 |
| 12-Oct-2005 | PAN | 831.6 |
| 12-Nov-2005 | SCO | 149.46 |
| 22-Jan-2006 | CAN | 111.76 |
| 29-Jan-2006 | NOR | 448.38 |
| 10-Feb-2006 | JPN | 430.77 |
| 19-Feb-2006 | GUA | 364.32 |
| 1-Mar-2006 | POL | 487.86 |
| 22-Mar-2006 | GER | 0 |
| 11-Apr-2006 | JAM | 127.6 |
| 23-May-2006 | MAR | 0 |
| 26-May-2006 | VEN | 367.455 |
| 28-May-2006 | LVA | 335.58 |
| 12-Jun-2006 | CZE | 0 |
| 17-Jun-2006 | ITA | 714.4 |
| 22-Jun-2006 | GHA | 0 |
"0.5 time frame"
| 20-Jan-2007 | DEN | 463.425 |
| 7-Feb-2007 | MEX | 456.45 |
| 25-Mar-2007 | ECU | 483.12 |
| 28-Mar-2007 | GUA | 93.5 |
| 2-Jun-2007 | CHN | 323.85 |
| 7-Jun-2007 | GUA | 864.45 |
| 9-Jun-2007 | TRI | 1017.45 |
| 15-Jun-2007 | SLV | 535.5 |
| 16-Jun-2007 | PAN | 1132.2 |
| 21-Jun-2007 | CAN | 1101.6 |
| 24-Jun-2007 | MEX | 1331.1 |
| 28-Jun-2007 | ARG | 0 |
| 2-Jul-2007 | PAR | 0 |
| 5-Jul-2007 | COL | 0 |
| 22-Aug-2007 | SWE | 0 |
"1.0 time frame"
| 9-Sep-2007 | BRA | 0 |
| 17-Oct-2007 | SUI | 438.45 |
| 17-Nov-2007 | RSA | 298.35 |
| 19-Jan-2008 | SWE | 493.95 |
| 6-Feb-2008 | MEX | 157.25 |
| 26-Mar-2008 | POL | 488.4 |
| 28-May-2008 | ENG | 0 |
| 4-Jun-2008 | ESP | 0 |
| 8-Jun-2008 | ARG | 183 |
| 15-Jun-2008 | BRB | 503.625 |
| 22-Jun-2008 | BRB | 503.625 |
| 20-Aug-2008 | GUA | 637.5 |
Adding it up:
Year - Points - Matches - Multiplier - Total
| -4 | 14449.49 | 21 | 0.2 | 137.6142 |
| -3 | 4644.185 | 17 | 0.3 | 81.95621 |
| -2 | 7802.645 | 15 | 0.5 | 260.0882 |
| -1 | 3704.15 | 12 | 1 | 308.6792 |
Total for the four years: 788.3377297, rounded to 788.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
FIFA Ranking: October 2008 preview (IV)
Point totals for teams from the top 20 of the October 2007 ranking should be 100% correct. For the others, there's the issue of historical rankings published before July 2006.
However, since many matches were played on October 8th in previous years, do take it with a fair bit of salt.
Only 6 matches left until the rankings are released.
Germany miss out on second place after failing to get the win in Helsinki.
Six nations will improve their best ever ranking:
Israel (16th, their previous best ranking was 19th achieved in September 2008)
Lithuania (37th - 42nd in August 1997)
Macedonia (46th - 49th in March 2007)
Congo (57th - 79th in April 2007)
Montenegro (117th - 136th in September 2008)
Chad (118th - 127th in July 2008).
Lebanon will return to their worst ever ranking - 150th, first achieved in July 2008.
Seven countries will have their worst ever ranking:
Congo DR (86th - 85th in April 2008)
United Arab Emirates (112th - 111th in October 2003)
Jamaica (115th - 108th in August 2008)
Kuwait (123rd - 121st in November 2007)
Estonia (137th - 135th in February 1996)
Malta (146th - 144th in September 2006)
Liberia (153th - 146th in November 2007).
New Zealand will be the highest climbers - 57 places from 111th to 54th, followed by Congo (43 places from 100th to 57th) and Luxembourg (30 places from 152nd to 122nd). The worst movers will be Equatorial Guinea (down 32 places from 87th to 119th), New Caledonia (down 26 from 95th to 121st) and Suriname (down 24 from 84th to 108th).
Best movers in the Top 50:
10 - Ecuador, Macedonia and Honduras
7 - Ukraine
6 - Denmark
5 - USA and Australia
Worst movers in the Top 50:
-16 - Moldova
-12 - Hungary
-10 - Scotland
-7 - Serbia and Morocco
-6 - Côte d'Ivoire and Mali
-5 - Romania and Norway
5 countries can still change their ranking: South Africa, Malawi, Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis and British Virgin Islands.
Rank and points as of today, September 25th, 2008.
Next update - probably on October 1st.
However, since many matches were played on October 8th in previous years, do take it with a fair bit of salt.
Only 6 matches left until the rankings are released.
Germany miss out on second place after failing to get the win in Helsinki.
Six nations will improve their best ever ranking:
Israel (16th, their previous best ranking was 19th achieved in September 2008)
Lithuania (37th - 42nd in August 1997)
Macedonia (46th - 49th in March 2007)
Congo (57th - 79th in April 2007)
Montenegro (117th - 136th in September 2008)
Chad (118th - 127th in July 2008).
Lebanon will return to their worst ever ranking - 150th, first achieved in July 2008.
Seven countries will have their worst ever ranking:
Congo DR (86th - 85th in April 2008)
United Arab Emirates (112th - 111th in October 2003)
Jamaica (115th - 108th in August 2008)
Kuwait (123rd - 121st in November 2007)
Estonia (137th - 135th in February 1996)
Malta (146th - 144th in September 2006)
Liberia (153th - 146th in November 2007).
New Zealand will be the highest climbers - 57 places from 111th to 54th, followed by Congo (43 places from 100th to 57th) and Luxembourg (30 places from 152nd to 122nd). The worst movers will be Equatorial Guinea (down 32 places from 87th to 119th), New Caledonia (down 26 from 95th to 121st) and Suriname (down 24 from 84th to 108th).
Best movers in the Top 50:
10 - Ecuador, Macedonia and Honduras
7 - Ukraine
6 - Denmark
5 - USA and Australia
Worst movers in the Top 50:
-16 - Moldova
-12 - Hungary
-10 - Scotland
-7 - Serbia and Morocco
-6 - Côte d'Ivoire and Mali
-5 - Romania and Norway
5 countries can still change their ranking: South Africa, Malawi, Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis and British Virgin Islands.
Rank and points as of today, September 25th, 2008.
| 1 | Spain | 1643 | 0 | 78 |
| 2 | Italy | 1365 | 0 | 26 |
| 3 | Germany | 1336 | 0 | 7 |
| 4 | Brazil | 1280 | 2 | 28 |
| 5 | Netherlands | 1258 | -1 | -37 |
| 6 | Croatia | 1223 | -1 | -43 |
| 7 | Argentina | 1200 | 0 | -30 |
| 8 | Czech Republic | 1111 | 0 | -23 |
| 9 | Russia | 1076 | 3 | 63 |
| 10 | Portugal | 1075 | -1 | -45 |
| 11 | France | 1035 | 0 | 16 |
| 12 | Cameroon | 1027 | 2 | 28 |
| 13 | Turkey | 1023 | -3 | -10 |
| 14 | England | 982 | 1 | -9 |
| 15 | Bulgaria | 968 | 1 | -8 |
| 16 | Israel | 957 | 3 | 83 |
| 17 | Greece | 945 | 1 | 24 |
| 18 | Romania | 927 | -5 | -80 |
| 19 | Ukraine | 892 | 7 | 93 |
| 20 | Uruguay | 887 | 2 | 70 |
| 21 | Egypt | 864 | 0 | 23 |
| 22 | Paraguay | 863 | 3 | 62 |
| 23 | USA | 861 | 5 | 73 |
| 24 | Ghana | 844 | -4 | -20 |
| 25 | Mexico | 841 | -1 | 34 |
| 26 | Scotland | 820 | -10 | -156 |
| 27 | Nigeria | 818 | 0 | 27 |
| 28 | Sweden | 791 | 3 | 18 |
| 29 | Côte d'Ivoire | 776 | -6 | -38 |
| 30 | Denmark | 764 | 6 | 68 |
| 31 | Poland | 763 | -1 | -16 |
| 32 | Japan | 746 | 3 | 39 |
| 33 | Colombia | 743 | -4 | -42 |
| 34 | Australia | 737 | 5 | 82 |
| 35 | Northern Ireland | 722 | -3 | -39 |
| 36 | Chile | 715 | 4 | 61 |
| 37 | Lithuania | 706 | 17 | 161 |
| 38 | Republic of Ireland | 702 | 0 | 40 |
| 39 | Norway | 681 | -5 | -52 |
| 40 | Serbia | 671 | -7 | -75 |
| 41 | Guinea | 669 | 0 | 19 |
| 42 | Ecuador | 661 | 10 | 105 |
| 43 | Finland | 645 | -1 | -4 |
| 44 | Morocco | 643 | -7 | -28 |
| 45 | Switzerland | 639 | -2 | -5 |
| 46 | FYR Macedonia | 636 | 10 | 117 |
| 47 | Tunisia | 624 | -3 | -19 |
| 48 | Iran | 617 | -2 | 3 |
| 49 | Senegal | 615 | -4 | -8 |
| 50 | Honduras | 602 | 10 | 100 |
| 51 | Saudi Arabia | 591 | -3 | 18 |
| 52 | Belgium | 589 | 3 | 59 |
| 53 | Mali | 587 | -6 | -17 |
| 54 | New Zealand | 583 | 57 | 267 |
| 55 | Korea Republic | 551 | -4 | -7 |
| 56 | Algeria | 542 | 20 | 119 |
| 57 | Congo | 536 | 43 | 181 |
| 58 | Peru | 532 | 15 | 94 |
| 59 | Belarus | 524 | -2 | 6 |
| 60 | Slovakia | 520 | 7 | 46 |
| 60 | Wales | 520 | -7 | -29 |
| 62 | Hungary | 507 | -12 | -54 |
| 63 | Burkina Faso | 502 | 1 | 24 |
| 64 | Moldova | 501 | -16 | -72 |
| 65 | Latvia | 499 | -2 | 20 |
| 66 | Venezuela | 484 | -5 | -12 |
| 67 | Angola | 481 | -9 | -32 |
| 67 | Gabon | 481 | -5 | -4 |
| 69 | Costa Rica | 475 | 4 | 37 |
| 70 | Zambia | 474 | -1 | 18 |
| 71 | Bahrain | 466 | -5 | -9 |
| 72 | Uzbekistan | 461 | -13 | -44 |
| 73 | Slovenia | 459 | 6 | 44 |
| 74 | Bolivia | 455 | -3 | 12 |
| 75 | Bosnia-Herzegovina | 448 | 0 | 13 |
| 76 | Iraq | 445 | -4 | 6 |
| 77 | Kenya | 433 | 9 | 38 |
| 77 | Libya | 433 | 13 | 47 |
| 77 | Qatar | 433 | 4 | 21 |
| 80 | Cyprus | 431 | -15 | -45 |
| 81 | Benin | 427 | 23 | 78 |
| 82 | Austria | 420 | 19 | 66 |
| 83 | Albania | 418 | 19 | 66 |
| 84 | Canada | 414 | -3 | 2 |
| 85 | Rwanda | 410 | 0 | 10 |
| 86 | Congo DR | 409 | -18 | -52 |
| 86 | South Africa | 409 | -16 | -38 |
| 88 | Trinidad and Tobago | 405 | -8 | -9 |
| 89 | Guatemala | 395 | 10 | 39 |
| 90 | Togo | 391 | -12 | -29 |
| 91 | Gambia | 388 | -1 | 2 |
| 92 | Zimbabwe | 385 | -9 | -21 |
| 93 | Panama | 383 | 3 | 18 |
| 94 | Uganda | 377 | -7 | -15 |
| 95 | Oman | 374 | -3 | -9 |
| 96 | Georgia | 372 | -19 | -49 |
| 97 | China PR | 370 | -3 | -5 |
| 98 | Cuba | 366 | -6 | -17 |
| 99 | Mozambique | 355 | 4 | 4 |
| 100 | Armenia | 351 | -2 | -7 |
| 101 | Syria | 350 | -4 | -14 |
| 102 | Ethiopia | 346 | 6 | 22 |
| 103 | Iceland | 345 | 4 | 13 |
| 104 | Cape Verde Islands | 340 | -15 | -51 |
| 104 | Haiti | 340 | 13 | 50 |
| 106 | Malawi | 327 | 4 | 10 |
| 106 | Sudan | 327 | 0 | -6 |
| 108 | Korea DPR | 311 | 8 | 15 |
| 108 | Suriname | 311 | -24 | -94 |
| 110 | Tanzania | 308 | 7 | 18 |
| 110 | Thailand | 308 | 4 | 3 |
| 112 | United Arab Emirates | 307 | -3 | -16 |
| 113 | Jordan | 298 | 0 | -8 |
| 114 | Botswana | 296 | 1 | -3 |
| 115 | Jamaica | 295 | -10 | -44 |
| 116 | Montenegro | 294 | 20 | 96 |
| 117 | Guyana | 290 | -5 | -25 |
| 118 | Chad | 288 | 9 | 52 |
| 119 | El Salvador | 285 | 12 | 65 |
| 119 | Equatorial Guinea | 285 | -32 | -107 |
| 121 | New Caledonia | 275 | -26 | -93 |
| 122 | Luxembourg | 273 | 30 | 128 |
| 123 | Kuwait | 271 | -4 | -14 |
| 124 | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 262 | 23 | 89 |
| 125 | Barbados | 259 | 9 | 57 |
| 125 | Namibia | 259 | -4 | 2 |
| 127 | Kyrgyzstan | 253 | -3 | 0 |
| 128 | Burundi | 252 | -2 | 15 |
| 129 | Bermuda | 251 | -4 | 6 |
| 129 | Hong Kong | 251 | -7 | -5 |
| 131 | Kazakhstan | 247 | -11 | -23 |
| 132 | Singapore | 234 | -3 | 5 |
| 133 | Sierra Leone | 233 | 12 | 52 |
| 134 | Antigua and Barbuda | 231 | -12 | -25 |
| 135 | Liechtenstein | 227 | -5 | 2 |
| 136 | Madagascar | 221 | 5 | 31 |
| 137 | Estonia | 218 | -9 | -16 |
| 138 | Fiji | 217 | 5 | 32 |
| 139 | Indonesia | 213 | -7 | 3 |
| 140 | Eritrea | 199 | -5 | 0 |
| 141 | Azerbaijan | 192 | -3 | -1 |
| 141 | Grenada | 192 | -2 | 0 |
| 141 | Swaziland | 192 | 0 | 2 |
| 144 | Puerto Rico | 180 | 2 | 0 |
| 145 | Mauritania | 178 | -5 | -13 |
| 146 | Malta | 175 | -13 | -34 |
| 146 | Vanuatu | 175 | 4 | 4 |
| 148 | India | 173 | 3 | 7 |
| 148 | Niger | 173 | 23 | 95 |
| 150 | Lebanon | 170 | -3 | -3 |
| 151 | Netherlands Antilles | 169 | -4 | -4 |
| 152 | Yemen | 167 | -16 | -31 |
| 153 | Liberia | 159 | -9 | -24 |
| 154 | Maldives | 156 | 1 | 23 |
| 155 | Tajikistan | 155 | -1 | 19 |
| 156 | St. Kitts and Nevis | 132 | 3 | 19 |
| 157 | Turkmenistan | 114 | 1 | 0 |
| 158 | Lesotho | 113 | -2 | -6 |
| 159 | Myanmar | 112 | 1 | 0 |
| 160 | Malaysia | 109 | 1 | 1 |
| 161 | St. Lucia | 108 | 0 | 0 |
| 162 | Cayman Islands | 101 | 22 | 65 |
| 163 | Solomon Islands | 100 | -10 | -40 |
| 164 | Seychelles | 97 | -7 | -20 |
| 165 | Vietnam | 90 | 1 | -2 |
| 166 | Philippines | 89 | 1 | 0 |
| 167 | Pakistan | 87 | 1 | -1 |
| 168 | Sri Lanka | 86 | -4 | -9 |
| 169 | Turks and Caicos Islands | 83 | -6 | -13 |
| 170 | Bahamas | 81 | -5 | -13 |
| 171 | British Virgin Islands | 77 | -1 | -2 |
| 172 | Mauritius | 74 | -3 | -8 |
| 173 | Guinea-Bissau | 72 | -1 | 0 |
| 174 | Belize | 71 | -1 | 0 |
| 174 | Chinese Taipei | 71 | 1 | 3 |
| 176 | Nepal | 68 | 1 | 4 |
| 177 | Dominican Republic | 66 | -1 | 0 |
| 178 | Samoa | 64 | -1 | 0 |
| 179 | Bangladesh | 56 | 0 | -6 |
| 180 | Palestine | 50 | -7 | -21 |
| 181 | Nicaragua | 45 | -1 | 0 |
| 182 | Afghanistan | 43 | 0 | 3 |
| 182 | Cambodia | 43 | -1 | 0 |
| 184 | Andorra | 37 | 2 | 4 |
| 185 | Brunei Darussalam | 36 | -1 | 0 |
| 186 | Djibouti | 35 | -4 | -5 |
| 187 | Bhutan | 32 | 0 | 0 |
| 187 | Tahiti | 32 | 0 | 0 |
| 187 | Tonga | 32 | 0 | 0 |
| 190 | Laos | 28 | 0 | 1 |
| 191 | Dominica | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| 192 | Mongolia | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| 193 | Aruba | 22 | 0 | 0 |
| 194 | US Virgin Islands | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| 195 | Comoros | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| 196 | Macau | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| 197 | Somalia | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| 198 | Faroe Islands | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| 199 | Central African Republic | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| 200 | American Samoa | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 200 | Anguilla | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 200 | Cook Islands | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 200 | Guam | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 200 | Montserrat | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 200 | Papua New Guinea | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 200 | San Marino | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 200 | Timor-Leste | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Next update - probably on October 1st.