Latest updates

Check the Important info page for latest updates! (18 July 2024)

Friday, September 14, 2012

FIFA Ranking: October 2012 preview (II)

Next update: 28 September 2012.

FIFA will publish the ranking on 3 October.

FIFA have removed the deadline information - it used to be on Thursday before the release of the rankings. I will still use it for this month, then I will most likely move the deadline for the calculation to Saturday.

15 matches left - only one of them involving team in the top 100: Brazil vs. Argentina on 19 September. Couple of friendlies and continental qualifiers. 15 teams involved in these matches and this an overview of minimum/maximum points and highest/lowest ranking possible for them:



Team - Minimum Points - Maximum Points - Lowest Ranking - Highest Ranking


Argentina 1208 1259 4 3
Brazil 956 1001 15 14
Dominican Republic 236 377 135 92
Tahiti 237 317 135 108
New Caledonia 271 297 127 113
Vietnam 184 221 148 136
Philippines 157 173 154 148
Aruba 119 336 168 103
Indonesia 101 142 171 154
Dominica 91 307 175 112
Barbados 85 229 176 136
Chinese Taipei 46 97 188 172
Guam 45 97 188 172
Macau 11 63 203 182
Brunei Darussalam 5 31 203 196

In the table below, the values displayed for these teams are the minimum possible, so their totals can't drop, even if they lose.

Colombia return to the top 10 after 10 years - they were 9th in July 2002 and they will be 9th in October.

Central African Republic break into the top 50 for the first time ever. They were 202nd in August 2010.

Montserrat leave the bottom of the ranking in style, after defeating British Virgin Islands 7 - 0. They will climb at least 25 places.

Best movers:

34 - Bulgaria
27 - Cyprus
25 - Montserrat

Cyprus and Montserrat are shown in the table below as climbing 29 and 27 places, but that's because I've considered the remaining 15 matches as losses for all teams involved.

Worst movers:

-35 - Luxembourg
-22 - Latvia
-17 - Libya

Best movers in the top 50:

15 - Central African Republic
14 - Peru
13 - Colombia and Venezuela

Worst movers in the top 50:

-17 - Libya
-12 - Hungary and Wales
-11 - Slovenia

 Korea Republic will overtake Australia and will be 2nd in Asia.

Ghana drop to 4th in Africa, with Mali climbing to 3rd. Egypt replace Libya as 5th in Africa.

Haiti replace Costa Rica as 5th in CONCACAF.

Argentina top of South America again, with Uruguay 2nd. Brazil drop to 4th and will be ranked lower than Colombia (now 3rd) for the first time ever. Ecuador drop out of the top 5.

Tahiti and New Caledonia will decide OFC's 2nd place in a friendly later this month. Samoa replace Fiji in the top 5.

Portugal 3rd in Europe, with England dropping to 4th. Netherlands replace Italy in the top 5.

Seven teams will improve their best ever ranking

Algeria (24 - 26 in December 2009)
Mali (27 - 35 in February 2007)
Panama (43 - 46 in June 2012)
Central African Republic (49 - 64 in September 2012)
Cape Verde Islands (51 - 57 in November 2011)
Haiti (60 - 62 in July 2012)
Montserrat (181 - 196 in July 2006)

Two teams will return to their best ever ranking:

Portugal (3 - 3 in April 2010)
Venezuela (39 - 39 in November 2011)

Israel will return to their worst ever ranking - 82nd - it first happened in July 2012.

Eleven teams will drop to new lows:

Brazil (14 - 13 in August 2012)
Cameroon (71 - 66 in February 2012)
Saudi Arabia (112 - 105 in September 2012)
Latvia (116 - 111 in July 2007)
Syria (149 - 148 in September 2012)
Kyrgyzstan (198 - 197 in Mau)
Mauritania (205 - 204 in December 2011)
Timor-Leste (206 - 205 in December 2011)
Bhutan (207 - 206 in August 2012)
Turks and Caicos Islands (207 - 206 in June 2012)
San Marino (207 - 206 in December 2011)

Brazil will drop to 15th if they don't win against Argentina.

October 2012 rank - Team - October 2012 points - +/- Ranking - +/- Points


1 Spain 1611 0 -6
2 Germany 1459 0 22
3 Portugal 1259 1 27
4 Argentina 1208 3 87
5 England 1196 -2 -78
6 Netherlands 1141 2 97
7 Uruguay 1140 -2 -77
8 Italy 1106 -2 -68
9 Colombia 1102 13 259
10 Greece 1029 1 28
11 Croatia 1023 -2 3
12 Russia 1014 1 24
13 France 1011 2 46
14 Switzerland 983 6 136
15 Brazil 956 -3 -40
16 Côte d'Ivoire 951 0 39
17 Chile 948 -3 -36
18 Denmark 944 -8 -62
19 Mexico 925 2 80
20 Ecuador 902 -3 12
21 Sweden 859 -3 -16
22 Czech Republic 837 -3 -32
23 Japan 818 0 25
24 Algeria 802 4 68
25 Korea Republic 776 2 13
26 Norway 764 8 82
27 Mali 759 5 49
28 Republic of Ireland 757 -2 -11
29 Bosnia-Herzegovina 740 1 23
30 Belgium 723 10 97
31 Ghana 722 0 8
32 USA 720 1 23
33 Serbia 706 9 82
34 Australia 702 -9 -76
35 Slovenia 694 -11 -90
36 Turkey 689 -1 11
37 Peru 681 14 94
38 Paraguay 665 -9 -63
39 Venezuela 635 13 51
40 Egypt 634 -2 0
41 Zambia 631 1 7
42 Ukraine 630 -3 2
43 Panama 625 7 34
44 Montenegro 623 4 17
45 Tunisia 620 -4 -5
46 Romania 619 11 77
47 Gabon 610 -3 -7
48 Slovakia 608 -3 -8
49 Central African Republic 593 15 101
49 Hungary 593 -12 -70
51 Cape Verde Islands 587 14 97
52 Jamaica 583 8 68
53 Libya 578 -17 -88
54 Poland 573 2 26
55 Bulgaria 565 34 177
56 Scotland 556 -9 -54
57 Wales 551 -12 -65
58 Iran 549 -4 -24
59 Austria 528 -10 -70
60 Haiti 524 17 85
61 Canada 516 12 62
62 Guinea 515 7 43
63 Nigeria 511 -5 -12
64 Armenia 503 -11 -72
65 Georgia 501 21 96
66 Honduras 500 6 40
67 Sierra Leone 499 -8 -19
68 Senegal 492 -6 -16
69 Estonia 485 -14 -87
70 Uzbekistan 479 0 9
71 Cameroon 475 -10 -35
72 Bolivia 465 -9 -36
72 Costa Rica 465 -6 -22
74 Benin 453 -3 -15
75 Morocco 451 -7 -27
76 South Africa 448 -2 0
77 Trinidad and Tobago 442 5 22
78 El Salvador 441 -11 -40
78 Jordan 441 9 39
80 Iraq 439 -2 2
81 Guatemala 431 10 47
82 Israel 423 -7 -23
83 Angola 419 -3 -14
84 Albania 414 0 4
85 China PR 413 -7 -24
86 Korea DPR 411 -5 -18
87 Belarus 410 -11 -33
88 Finland 407 8 42
89 Zimbabwe 396 9 38
90 Uganda 394 -2 -7
91 Burkina Faso 392 -6 -14
92 New Zealand 390 3 24
93 Togo 377 6 21
94 Oman 376 -1 0
95 Congo 374 -12 -39
96 Malawi 365 -6 -20
97 Iceland 362 21 79
98 Liberia 357 13 47
99 Mozambique 352 10 40
100 Sudan 351 3 19
101 Qatar 350 -9 -30
102 Congo DR 345 8 34
103 FYR Macedonia 334 -6 -30
104 Equatorial Guinea 328 3 4
105 Antigua and Barbuda 324 -4 -16
106 Cyprus 321 29 89
107 Namibia 318 8 19
108 Lebanon 314 16 43
109 Lithuania 311 7 21
110 Azerbaijan 309 -3 -15
111 Kuwait 308 -11 -40
112 Saudi Arabia 303 -7 -25
113 Bahrain 291 -1 -17
114 United Arab Emirates 288 6 10
115 Northern Ireland 287 14 30
116 Ethiopia 284 -2 -19
116 Latvia 284 -22 -91
118 Bermuda 277 -16 -56
118 Botswana 277 5 2
120 Guyana 276 2 0
120 St. Kitts and Nevis 276 -7 -30
122 Rwanda 272 -2 -6
123 New Caledonia 271 5 10
124 Chad 266 -8 -24
124 Turkmenistan 266 3 0
126 Kenya 262 -1 -6
127 Puerto Rico 244 10 34
128 Suriname 243 10 36
129 Gambia 242 0 -15
130 Sao Tome e Principe 240 3 0
130 Tanzania 240 2 -3
132 Tahiti 237 -13 -45
133 Dominican Republic 236 -30 -96
134 Grenada 234 5 28
135 Burundi 232 -1 -6
136 Tajikistan 220 6 24
137 Niger 218 -11 -49
138 Nicaragua 210 6 15
139 Thailand 206 -8 -38
140 Solomon Islands 202 13 52
141 Luxembourg 191 -35 -135
142 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 190 -6 -35
143 Belize 188 2 0
144 Moldova 187 -3 -17
145 Vietnam 184 1 1
146 Cuba 179 1 4
147 Kazakhstan 178 -5 -18
148 Palestine 170 3 9
149 Syria 169 -1 -1
150 Curacao 166 11 37
151 Philippines 157 -1 -10
152 Malta 156 -13 -50
153 Liechtenstein 150 -4 -18
154 Yemen 141 -2 -13
155 Faroe Islands 135 -1 -12
155 Lesotho 135 2 0
157 Hong Kong 133 2 0
157 Maldives 133 2 0
159 Malaysia 126 -3 -10
159 Singapore 126 2 -3
161 Samoa 124 3 0
162 Afghanistan 122 3 0
163 Fiji 121 -8 -25
163 Nepal 121 3 0
165 Aruba 119 -7 -15
166 India 114 3 9
167 Madagascar 106 -4 -21
168 Bangladesh 103 2 0
169 Indonesia 101 -1 -10
170 Vanuatu 99 -3 -14
171 Guinea-Bissau 98 0 0
172 Dominica 91 2 7
173 Tonga 87 -1 0
174 American Samoa 85 -1 0
174 Barbados 85 1 4
176 Pakistan 72 1 0
177 US Virgin Islands 70 1 0
178 Sri Lanka 68 1 0
179 Bahamas 66 1 0
179 Montserrat 66 27 66
181 Cayman Islands 65 0 0
182 Myanmar 60 1 8
183 Mongolia 55 -1 0
183 St. Lucia 55 1 5
185 Cambodia 50 3 8
186 Chinese Taipei 46 -10 -33
187 Eritrea 45 -2 0
187 Guam 45 -2 0
189 Somalia 43 -2 0
190 Comoros 39 0 0
190 Seychelles 39 0 0
190 Swaziland 39 0 0
193 Laos 38 0 0
193 Papua New Guinea 38 0 0
195 British Virgin Islands 34 -6 -6
196 Cook Islands 28 -1 0
197 Djibouti 25 -1 1
198 Kyrgyzstan 20 -1 0
198 South Sudan 20 -1 0
200 Andorra 13 -1 -2
200 Mauritius 13 0 0
202 Macau 11 -2 -2
203 Brunei Darussalam 5 -1 0
204 Anguilla 4 -1 0
205 Mauritania 3 -1 0
206 Timor-Leste 2 -1 0
207 Bhutan 0 -1 0
207 San Marino 0 -1 0
207 Turks and Caicos Islands 0 -1 0

About me:

Christian, husband, father x 3, programmer, Romanian. Started the blog in March 2007. Quit in April 2018. You can find me on LinkedIn.

By on
Labels: , ,

41 comments:

  1. AnonymousSeptember 14, 2012 at 2:35 PM

    Does anybody think this "regional strength multiplier" is unfair?

    I like to see multiplier = 1 when 2 teams from same confederation play against each other.

    And when teams are from different confederation, you get multiplier from opponent confederation.

    I mean, If african team win europe team, multiplier = 1 but if europe team win they get only 0,86

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdgarSeptember 14, 2012 at 2:49 PM

      Here's a possible answer:

      FIFA Ranking: Why the need for confederation weightings?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 14, 2012 at 3:15 PM

      hah, I knew I read it before but not remember where. Ofcourse it was here, thanks.

      But how about that other I wrote, don't take avarage from conferations for multiplier, just take multiplier who you win?

      I think that would be fair.

      Delete
    3. EdgarSeptember 14, 2012 at 3:17 PM

      It would be fairer, but I'm sure FIFA could come up with a ranking that doesn't use the confederation weightings.

      Delete
    4. LorricSeptember 14, 2012 at 6:42 PM

      It is necessary. Africa, Asia and CONCACAF all have more competitive matches than CONMEBOL and UEFA. And Oceania needs it to stop their teams from getting overrated, like they do in ELO due to the bubble they live in.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousSeptember 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM

      The current weighting system is dumb. If Argentina beats Brasil they get more points for it then when for example Japan beats Brasil. Absolutely ridiculous.

      Delete
    6. LorricSeptember 15, 2012 at 1:46 PM

      But there's more points up for grabs for those teams in competitive matches. It wouldn't be an issue if FIFA didn't use an average based system, but they do, so there is.

      Egypt were able to get up to 9th in the World by winning two ACONs without even qualifying for the World Cup. If you remove the weighting they'd be higher.

      Delete
    7. Best PokemonSeptember 16, 2012 at 8:02 AM

      I agree with Anon, the weighting is dumb. An example, both Zambia and Serbia are ranked 42. England would get more points for beating Serbia than Zambia. European teams are more likely to play each other so teams from Europe will have better rankings. Zambia had to perform better than Serbia in order to gain the same ranking (Zambia earns less points for beating African opponents ranked similarly to European teams).

      Delete
    8. LorricSeptember 16, 2012 at 1:47 PM

      But African teams get two continental tournaments to play in per cycle while European teams only get one.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousSeptember 20, 2012 at 4:32 PM

      If I understand the ranking system correctly the stupidest thing about the FIFA ranking system isn't the federation weighting per se but the fact that if, for example, Ghana beat Brasil at the World Cup (weighting 0,93) they would get less points than England or Uruguay (weighting 1,0). And why the hell does CONCACAF hava a better weight than Africa or Asia?

      Absolutely absurd and unfair system.

      Delete
    10. LorricSeptember 20, 2012 at 5:01 PM

      Because CONCACAF teams perform better at the World Cup, thanks to the US and Mexico.

      Perhaps it would be better if the weighting applied to playing those teams. So everyone gets downgraded points for playing an African team and everyone gets full points for playing a European team. However, that would make it very hard for teams with a low weighting to get friendlies against European or South American opposition, people wouldn't want to take the points hit. Maybe that's why it works the way it does.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousSeptember 21, 2012 at 1:16 AM

      Maybe. But such a system still sucks. If you beat Brasil you should get the same amoint of points irregardless of which confederation you are from.

      Delete
    12. YouxSeptember 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM

      Us and Mecixo perform better because they are Sure to play the World Cup. There are 3 places for 2 countries .... + an Island. (I don't count Canada when talking about football) ...

      Even Jamaica has more chances to play the WC than any other african country

      Delete
  2. LorricSeptember 14, 2012 at 6:34 PM

    Edgar, do you know why there is such a disparity between FIFA and ELO for Algeria? For a long time now, for months and months and months Algeria have been easily in the top 5o for FIFA and nowhere near the top 50 in ELO, latest Elo has them up 5 places to 73rd. Every month in your article about who you'd like to see face each other, there's Algeria up against somebody, and always well up there in the list of biggest disparity between ELO and FIFA. It's obvious it's not a quirk of FIFA's fast shifting positions, because Algeria have been there a long time, usually around the 30s while they're stuck around the 70s and 80s in ELO all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdgarSeptember 21, 2012 at 10:06 AM

      They main problem are shock results. For FIFA, losing to San Marino or Brazil - it's still 0 points. Elo will punish you if you lose to team much weaker than you.

      Algeria got (close) to 1500 points in June 2009, when they defeated Egypt in the 2010 WCQ (3 - 1 at home). They got past 1500 with they win away to Zambia (2 - 0). They peaked at 1581 points after defeating Urugay (friendly at home 1 - 0), Zambia (home WCQ 1 - 0), Rwanda (home WCQ 3 - 1) and Egypt (WCQ in Sudan 1 - 0). Only one defeat - away WCQ in Egypt 0 - 2. They also peaked in the FIFA ranking - 26th in December 29.

      So before the 2010 African Cup of Nation, they had 1581 points. What did they do in the first match? 3 - 0 loss to Malawi (1433 Elo points). They lost 68 points in that match.

      They did gain 29 points for defeating Mali, 4 for drawing the hosts Angola and 40 for defeating Ivory Coast. However, they quickly lost 39 points for losing 4 - 0 to Egypt and 1 - 0 to Nigeria. They came out of the ACN with a minus of 44 points, although they did reach the semifinals. They also dropped 5 places in the FIFA ranking.

      They lost another 10 points after losing at home to Serbia 0 - 3 in March 2010. Another 5 over the pre-World Cup friendlies and the actual tournament. They dropped to 1532 points in Elo and 33rd in the FIFA ranking.

      At the end of 2010 after losing at home to Gabon in a friendly, drawing Tanzania at home and losing to CAR away in CAN preliminaries and then drawing Luxembourg away in a friendly they dropped to 1459 points in Elo and 55th in the March 2011 FIFA ranking.

      They returned to the top 30 of the FIFA ranking in November and December 2011, but Elo still had them with 1479 points.

      In 2012 they've played only one friendly and won all their qualifiers with the exception of a defeat to Mali on neutral ground. Now they have 1542 points in Elo.

      Delete
  3. LorricSeptember 14, 2012 at 6:37 PM

    Oh and still on Africa, the rise of the Central African Republic is astonishing. They're on the cusp of qualifying for the ACON.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousSeptember 14, 2012 at 7:44 PM

    Hi Edjar.really we are happy in jordan after winning over australia in amazing game,which enhance our chance to go world cup.In this match we got our highest ever points.l believe that if we planned well for our friendly matches,we will go top 50.our pain point that we degrade our average pts by not planned well friendly matches,which affects Wcq official matches.thanks for your continous efforts.
    Tarek/jordan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdgarSeptember 21, 2012 at 10:08 AM

      You're welcome Tarek. Good luck in your campaign!

      Delete
  5. LorricSeptember 14, 2012 at 9:58 PM

    Hey everyone. I'm just throwing this out there.

    I really wish Europe had less groups and more games.

    I created a 6 group format from the WC 2014 seedings. Top 2 and the top runner up would go to the World Cup, 5 groups of 9, one group of 8. Just eliminate friendlies to accomodate it.

    This is what I got, plus some thoughts if the groups were real. I'd love this format. It would be nice if people offered opinions on the format or the hypothetical groups.

    Group A: England, Russia, Slovenia, Belgium, Belarus, Albania, Moldova, Liechtenstein, San Marino

    Ooooh. An instant chance for Capello to have a crack at his old team. I wouldn't like that. However it doesn't look too difficult to actually qualify out of. Russia could challenge England, and it would all be about if Belgium can harness their talent whether places would be in danger I feel. I think Slovenia have regressed quite a bit and wouldn't be a factor, and neither would anyone else.

    Group B: Germany, Croatia, Denmark, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Romania, Austria, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Andorra

    Germany top no problem. Croatia, Denmark and Bosnia-Herzegovina to have a real scrap for the second spot. Maybe Romania and Austria in another group could push in, but here I couldn't see one of them surpass all three.

    Group C: Portugal, Norway, Turkey, Switzerland, Ukraine, Poland, Cyprus, Iceland, Malta

    This group really shines a harsh light on Norway. I have to believe Turkey, Switzerland and Ukraine would all finsih above them, with a good chance Poland would too. Maybe a chance Portugal could be put in trouble, but I couldn't see them finishing behind two teams. Turkey, Switzerland and Ukraine would be going after the second spot.

    Group D: Netherlands, Greece, Sweden, Republic of Ireland, Hungary, Northern Ireland, Latvia, FYR Macedonia,
    Luxembourg

    A group with four teams who were at Euro 2012. It's a familiar story with a trio in Greece, Sweden and Republic of Ireland going for 2nd and Netherlands surely not losing to two of them. Interesting, we have in real life Sweden and Ireland looking like they're going for the playoff place. Here they're here, but Greece are thrown into the mix as well...

    Group E: Italy, Montenegro, Serbia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Scotland, Finland, Wales, Kazakhstan

    This group looks to me like Italy and Czech Republic's group, although Serbia's big 6-1 win over Wales may mean they could challenge too, I took them for a team in decline until that. Montenegro are there of course, but I'd be surprised if they repeated their Euro 2012 heroics to grab a place.

    Group F: Spain, France, Slovakia, Israel, Georgia, Lithuania, Armenia, Faroe Islands

    Hmph. Okay, so Spain and France would probably be favourites to advance no matter where they ended up, but that is a smooth, smooth road. They even get to play 2 games less. 2 games less and a couple of glamour games against each other. No way could those teams trouble them surely. At first I thought it would mean the other teams really have nothing to play for, but probably all of them are capable of taking points off each other, though Lithuania and Faroe Islands are a step down from the rest, but it's a chance to move up the seeding pecking order for some teams at least.

    Would you enjoy this? Would you like the tough competition at the top of some of the groups? Or would you rage at 4 or 6 games against minnows having to be played? What do you think of the group your team has been placed in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdgarSeptember 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM

      Remember EURO 2008 qualifying? That was boring for me. Too many dead games.

      Delete
  6. AnonymousSeptember 15, 2012 at 3:48 AM

    Algeriaaaa! Gloryyyy Gloryyyy

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousSeptember 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM

    Why the attack on Algeria in everything

    Category take another four years

    After September 2008: Algeria beat Gambia and Senegal and Liberia in crucial matches to qualify for the final round of World Cup qualifiers and the African Cup

    In 2009: Algeria qualified for the World Cup and African Cup ... Algeria beat Rwanda and Zambia back and forth and beat Egypt back in the playoff and won over Uruguay and a draw with Mali ... Very positive results and was second team after Brazil "Confederations Cup champions" in order to achieve points in the season

    In 2010: played Algeria African Cup and the World Cup. Beat Mali draw with Angola and beat Ivory Coast and stepped up to the semi-finals of the African Cup ... Tied in the World Cup with England .. Won the United Arab Emirates in a friendly draw with Tanzania ...

    2011: Central African beat, Tunisia, Morocco, and tied with Tanzania ...

    In 2012: beat Gambia back and forth and Libya won away from home and beat Rwanda, Niger and Tunisia ... Very positive results

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdgarSeptember 21, 2012 at 10:10 AM

      Who's attacking Algeria? Lorric was mentioning the disparity between Elo and FIFA for Algeria.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousSeptember 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM

    Algeria will complete its march towards global:

    Win on Libya in return and qualify to the African Cup in 2013 and then win in the friendly matches Month in November 2012 and then wins in friendly matches preparations for the African Cup in 2013 the months of December 2012 and January 2013 and then win the African Championship of Nations and the intervention of the top 10 list teams in the world.

    Then win the boys back and forth and win over Mali and Rwanda in the World Cup qualifiers and qualify for the extension and win and go up to the 2014 World Cup and also win all friendly matches Stlabha

    And thus will become Algeria team is not invincible

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdgarSeptember 21, 2012 at 10:11 AM

      We'll see about that. Hats off if they do win the 2013 AFCON.

      Good luck!

      Delete
  9. RyanSeptember 19, 2012 at 1:33 AM

    Edgar,
    Do you have an explanation for your Ivory Coast point value of 951 vs the 947 expected on FIFA's website?

    My calculations are showing 951 as well, but I am getting 915 for last month's point total, but you and FIFA agreed with 912. My disagreement with the FIFA value from last month is in this year's numbers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdSeptember 20, 2012 at 9:53 AM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. EdSeptember 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM

      Ryan,

      At first I thought I would have to agree with FIFA on this one, but then I saw that the friendly against Mali (CIV-MLI 2:1 27/5/2012 played in France) no longer appears in the FIFA results-list. With that the FIFA points for Ivory Coast becomes 951, as Edgar already knew of course ;-)

      Delete
    3. EdSeptember 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM

      FIFA removed this match apparently after the September ranking was calculated. Your 915 points for CIV in September did already include the removal of this friendly.

      So a match played in May is removed in September..... FIFA's ways are unfathomable.

      Delete
    4. EdSeptember 20, 2012 at 10:29 AM

      And my last reply on this matter:

      It's funny (or is it sad ?) that FIFA's prognosis tool apparently still includes this friendly, while another FIFA-department has already removed the match from THE LIST. It must be a really big organisation !

      And it's clear that this prognosis tool needs some more work to become reliable.

      Delete
    5. LorricSeptember 20, 2012 at 3:54 PM

      I would guess you were right the first time with the department thing. I bet they took that result out and didn't bother to tell whoever's feeding new results into the tool. The tool must be flexible in that regard as new results are being fed in and dropped out and moved to lower % brackets every month, so it surely must be flexible enough to just cut out a result.

      Still, we're talking about an organisation which gives World Cups to Russia and Qatar here.

      Delete
    6. RyanSeptember 20, 2012 at 8:42 PM

      That did the trick for my numbers as well (I am just building a database now). It is almost like the matches between Denmark, Poland, Singapore, and Thailand back in January 2010 that took me a while to figure out. The Denmark matches (at least) didn't show up until March and used the February rankings to calculate matches played in January.
      Wonderful FIFA...

      Delete
    7. EdgarSeptember 21, 2012 at 10:13 AM

      Good to see you guys figured it out. I did say I have smart readers :)

      Delete
  10. AnonymousSeptember 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM

    Hi Ed,

    I have a question. The FIFA ranking will be issued on October 3rd, and the latest games to be included this month will be played on September 27th. When I use the yearly coefficient, does it work this way?

    1.0 for games between 28/09/2011 and 27/09/2012 (366 days)
    0.5 for games between 28/09/2010 and 27/09/2011 (365 days)
    0.3 for games between 28/09/2009 and 27/09/2010 (365 days)
    0.2 for games between 28/09/2008 and 27/09/2009 (365 days)

    For the continental strength, I used different coefficients if games were played before or after July 11, 2010 which is the FIFA World Cup final after which FIFA has changed coefficient for some continents (like Africa).

    For the opponent strength, I took the game date and refer to the earliest FIFA ranking. What happened for games played the same day when FIFA publish the ranking?

    Points total are float numbers for every game and are weighted by the yearly coefficients above and averaged over the number of games (a minimum of 5 games per year in needed) and summed together. The nearest integer is then taken as the points total for a given country.

    I got differences in total points up to 50 points in the top 30 teams. Did I miss anything there?

    Can you please make a simulation for total points for Spain through the 4 last years with details (game date, opponent, yearly coefficient, FIFA rank of opponent) and make a summary of the yearly totals.

    Thanks for the good work.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSeptember 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM

      I just add this too:
      * During African zone world cup qualifiers 2010, that was made a qualifier for both the FIFA World Cup and the African Cup of Nations 2010 too. Have you used 2.5 or a different game weight?

      Delete
    2. EdSeptember 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM

      Hi Anonymous,

      Your approach seems OK on most points. There are however two relevant and sometimes difficult aspects where your calculations might go wrong:
      - determine the ranking used to take the opponents strength/position from. For a reasonably in-depth discussion see:
      http://www.football-rankings.info/2012/04/fifa-ranking-may-2012-probable-ranking.html?showComment=1334604350714#c2042887419657215240

      - determine the timeframe a match belongs to. For a discussion see:
      http://www.football-rankings.info/2012/06/fifa-ranking-june-2012-final-preview.html?showComment=1338805874385#c7499194880680319041

      As an example I will give you the detailed points-totals for Spain for the calculation of the October 2012 ranking. In this overview you see the match points for each match Spain has played in the last 4 years. From these match points you should be able to derive the opponents position.

      timeframe date opponent type pts
      4 11-10-2008 EST 2.5 472.500
      4 15-10-2008 BEL 2.5 1117.500
      4 19-11-2008 CHI 1 490.050
      4 11-2-2009 ENG 1 576.000
      4 28-3-2009 TUR 2.5 1417.500
      4 1-4-2009 TUR 2.5 1417.500
      4 9-6-2009 AZE 1 180.000
      4 14-6-2009 NZL 3 982.350
      4 17-6-2009 IRQ 3 1023.975
      4 20-6-2009 RSA 3 1065.600
      4 24-6-2009 USA 3 0.000
      4 28-6-2009 RSA 3 1065.600
      4 12-8-2009 MKD 1 441.000
      4 5-9-2009 BEL 2.5 990.000
      4 9-9-2009 EST 2.5 645.000
      3 10-10-2009 ARM 2.5 562.500
      3 14-10-2009 BIH 2.5 1155.000
      3 14-11-2009 ARG 1 576.180
      3 18-11-2009 AUT 1 426.000
      3 3-3-2010 FRA 1 579.000
      3 29-5-2010 KSA 1 371.850
      3 3-6-2010 KOR 1 424.575
      3 8-6-2010 POL 1 426.000
      3 16-6-2010 SUI 4 0.000
      3 21-6-2010 HON 4 1798.200
      3 25-6-2010 CHI 4 2162.160
      3 29-6-2010 POR 4 2364.000
      3 3-7-2010 PAR 4 2007.720
      3 7-7-2010 GER 4 2328.000
      3 11-7-2010 NED 4 2352.000
      3 11-8-2010 MEX 1 164.500
      3 3-9-2010 LIE 2.5 442.500
      3 7-9-2010 ARG 1 0.000
      2 8-10-2010 LTU 2.5 1185.000
      2 12-10-2010 SCO 2.5 1147.500
      2 17-11-2010 POR 1 0.000
      2 9-2-2011 COL 1 450.000
      2 25-3-2011 CZE 2.5 1267.500
      2 29-3-2011 LTU 2.5 1095.000
      2 4-6-2011 USA 1 501.960
      2 7-6-2011 VEN 1 396.000
      2 10-8-2011 ITA 1 0.000
      2 2-9-2011 CHI 1 567.000
      2 6-9-2011 LIE 2.5 607.500
      1 7-10-2011 CZE 2.5 1200.000
      1 11-10-2011 SCO 2.5 1110.000
      1 12-11-2011 ENG 1 0.000
      1 15-11-2011 CRC 1 129.720
      1 29-2-2012 VEN 1 462.000
      1 26-5-2012 SRB 1 504.000
      1 30-5-2012 KOR 1 471.510
      1 3-6-2012 CHN 1 373.860
      1 10-6-2012 ITA 3 564.000
      1 14-6-2012 IRL 3 1638.000
      1 18-6-2012 CRO 3 1728.000
      1 23-6-2012 FRA 3 1674.000
      1 27-6-2012 POR 3 1140.000
      1 1-7-2012 ITA 3 1692.000
      1 15-8-2012 PUR 1 174.840
      1 7-9-2012 KSA 1 265.050
      1 11-9-2012 GEO 2.5 855.000

      timeframe pts MP avg_pts weight w_avg
      1 13981.980 17 822.47 1 822.47
      2 7217.460 11 656.13 0.5 328.07
      3 18140.185 18 1007.79 0.3 302.34
      4 11884.575 15 792.31 0.2 158.46
      ESP 1611.33

      I hope you have enough information now to improve your calculations.

      The game weight for a WC Qualifier and for a continental cup Qualifier is the same: 2.5.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousSeptember 20, 2012 at 4:20 PM

      Thank you Ed for the excellent listing. I belive that it is the opponent ranking is the cause for these difference. I will redo thing and come back to you.

      Regards.

      Delete
  11. AnonymousSeptember 20, 2012 at 4:35 PM

    Question: Apparently the Liberia - Ghana game had Liberian referees. Someone told me that because of this the game probably won't count in the rankings. Is this true?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdSeptember 20, 2012 at 5:01 PM

      At the moment this game still appears in the results list on FIFA.com and thus counts for the rankings.

      As you can see in this post above (http://www.football-rankings.info/2012/09/fifa-ranking-october-2012-preview-ii.html?showComment=1348128183732#c6649798275673656564) FIFA can remove matches at any time they like and without giving a reason for it. A home-referee sounds to me like a good reason to remove the match, but let's wait and see.

      Delete
  12. AlexSeptember 20, 2012 at 5:40 PM

    In a friendly match, a home referee is not a problem as long as both teams agree. (See this discussion)

    Neutral referees are used in competitive matches usually because the tournament's regulations require it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. jonnySeptember 21, 2012 at 12:07 PM

    Yes, home referee is ok as long as they agreed about that before the match, but all referees must be FIFA referees ! Laos- Philippines was removed because not all referees were not FIFA referees.

    Baltic Cup matches did not count because fourth (!) official was not FIFA referee,

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)