▼

Friday, September 7, 2012

FIFA Ranking: October 2012 probable ranking

Next update: Sometime next week.

FIFA will publish the ranking on 3 October.

Probable results computed using the Elo Ratings. See the list of results used for this ranking.

Based on these probable results we could see Barbados jump 40 or more spots, Northern Ireland and Cyprus 30 or more, Bulgaria and Israel 20 or more, while Luxembourg could drop more than 40 places, with Iceland dropping around 26 places.

In the top 50, Scotland, Norway and Panama could jump 10 or more places, while Hungary, Ukraine and Algeria could do the opposite.



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


1 Spain 1611 0 -6
2 Germany 1459 0 22
3 Argentina 1276 4 155
4 Uruguay 1263 1 46
5 Portugal 1259 -1 27
6 England 1258 -3 -16
7 Italy 1143 -1 -31
8 Netherlands 1141 0 97
9 Chile 1051 5 67
10 Greece 1029 1 28
11 Croatia 1023 -2 3
12 Denmark 1019 -2 13
13 France 1011 2 46
14 Brazil 1001 -2 5
15 Russia 962 -2 -28
16 Côte d'Ivoire 947 0 35
17 Mexico 925 4 80
18 Switzerland 895 2 48
19 Sweden 859 -1 -16
20 Ecuador 853 -3 -37
21 Korea Republic 832 6 69
22 Norway 832 13 150
23 Czech Republic 825 -4 -44
24 Japan 818 -1 25
25 Colombia 806 -3 -37
26 Australia 768 -1 -10
27 Slovenia 758 -3 -26
28 Republic of Ireland 757 -2 -11
29 Paraguay 750 0 22
30 Bosnia-Herzegovina 740 0 23
31 USA 740 3 43
32 Ghana 737 -1 23
33 Scotland 719 14 109
34 Mali 717 -2 7
35 Libya 701 1 35
36 Turkey 689 -1 11
37 Serbia 672 5 48
38 Algeria 669 -10 -65
39 Tunisia 663 2 38
40 Panama 647 10 56
41 Belgium 645 -1 19
42 Egypt 642 -4 8
42 Gabon 641 1 24
44 Peru 641 8 54
45 Zambia 631 -3 7
45 Montenegro 623 2 17
47 Slovakia 608 -2 -8
48 Wales 601 -3 -15
49 Hungary 593 -12 -70
50 Ukraine 592 -11 -36
51 Iran 590 3 17
52 Poland 573 4 26
53 Israel 556 22 110
54 Romania 553 3 11
55 Venezuela 543 -3 -41
56 Nigeria 541 2 18
57 Cameroon 537 4 27
58 Austria 528 -9 -70
59 Jamaica 527 1 12
60 Haiti 524 17 85
61 Estonia 517 -6 -55
62 Central African Republic 511 2 19
63 Bulgaria 505 26 117
64 Armenia 503 -11 -72
65 Honduras 500 7 40
66 Senegal 492 -4 -16
67 Morocco 490 1 12
68 Guinea 489 1 17
69 El Salvador 466 -2 -15
70 Bolivia 465 -7 -36
71 Costa Rica 465 -4 -22
72 Sierra Leone 457 -13 -61
73 Uzbekistan 451 -3 -19
74 Canada 450 -1 -4
75 South Africa 448 -1 0
76 Belarus 445 0 2
77 Trinidad and Tobago 442 5 22
78 Iraq 439 0 2
78 Cape Verde Islands 438 -14 -52
80 Angola 435 0 2
81 Guatemala 431 10 47
82 Burkina Faso 416 3 10
83 Albania 414 1 4
84 Benin 414 -12 -54
85 China PR 413 -7 -24
86 Georgia 413 1 8
87 Korea DPR 411 -6 -18
88 Uganda 394 0 -7
89 Oman 376 4 0
90 Congo 374 -7 -39
91 Malawi 365 -1 -20
92 New Zealand 360 3 -6
93 Zimbabwe 360 6 2
94 Jordan 355 -7 -47
95 Northern Ireland 354 34 97
96 Sudan 351 7 19
97 Qatar 350 -5 -30
98 Bermuda 347 4 14
99 Congo DR 345 11 34
100 Togo 340 -1 -16
101 Finland 339 -5 -26
102 Dominican Republic 330 1 -2
103 Equatorial Guinea 328 4 4
103 Antigua and Barbuda 324 -3 -16
105 Cyprus 321 30 89
106 Namibia 318 9 19
107 Tahiti 315 12 33
107 Kuwait 313 -8 -35
109 Lithuania 311 7 21
110 Saudi Arabia 303 -5 -25
111 FYR Macedonia 292 -14 -72
112 Bahrain 291 0 -17
113 Ethiopia 284 1 -19
114 Latvia 284 -19 -91
115 Mozambique 281 -6 -31
116 Azerbaijan 278 -9 -46
116 Botswana 277 6 2
118 St. Kitts and Nevis 276 -5 -30
119 Liberia 275 -8 -35
120 Rwanda 272 0 -6
120 United Arab Emirates 269 -1 -9
122 Chad 266 -6 -24
123 Turkmenistan 266 5 0
124 Kenya 262 1 -6
125 Guyana 253 -3 -23
126 Lebanon 247 -2 -24
127 New Caledonia 243 1 -18
128 Suriname 243 11 36
128 Gambia 242 0 -15
130 Sao Tome e Principe 240 3 0
131 Tanzania 240 2 -3
132 Grenada 234 7 28
133 Burundi 232 1 -6
134 Barbados 229 41 148
135 Tajikistan 220 7 24
136 Niger 218 -10 -49
137 Nicaragua 210 7 15
138 Thailand 206 -7 -38
139 Vietnam 197 7 14
139 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 190 -4 -35
141 Belize 188 4 0
142 Moldova 187 -1 -17
142 Puerto Rico 185 -6 -25
144 Iceland 184 -26 -99
145 Cuba 179 2 4
146 Kazakhstan 178 -4 -18
147 Palestine 170 4 9
148 Syria 169 0 -1
149 Curacao 166 12 37
150 Philippines 166 1 -1
151 Luxembourg 165 -45 -161
152 Malta 156 -13 -50
153 Solomon Islands 153 0 3
154 Liechtenstein 150 -5 -18
155 Singapore 144 6 15
156 Yemen 141 -4 -13
157 Aruba 137 1 3
158 Faroe Islands 135 -4 -12
159 Lesotho 135 -1 0
160 Hong Kong 133 -1 0
160 Maldives 133 -1 0
162 Malaysia 132 -6 -4
163 Samoa 124 1 0
164 Afghanistan 122 1 0
165 Fiji 121 -10 -25
166 Nepal 121 1 0
167 Indonesia 119 1 8
168 India 114 1 9
169 Dominica 109 5 25
170 Madagascar 106 -7 -21
171 Bangladesh 103 -1 0
172 British Virgin Islands 100 17 60
172 Vanuatu 99 -6 -14
174 Guinea-Bissau 98 -3 0
175 Chinese Taipei 97 1 18
176 Tonga 87 -4 0
177 American Samoa 85 -4 0
178 Pakistan 72 -1 0
179 US Virgin Islands 70 -1 0
180 Sri Lanka 68 -1 0
181 Bahamas 66 -1 0
182 Cayman Islands 65 -1 0
183 Mongolia 55 -1 0
184 St. Lucia 55 1 5
185 Myanmar 51 -2 -1
185 Cambodia 50 2 8
187 Eritrea 45 -2 0
188 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 Cook Islands 28 0 0
196 Djibouti 25 0 1
197 Kyrgyzstan 20 0 0
197 South Sudan 20 0 0
199 Andorra 13 0 -2
200 Mauritius 13 1 0
200 Macau 11 -1 -2
202 Brunei Darussalam 5 0 0
203 Anguilla 4 0 0
204 Mauritania 3 0 0
205 Timor-Leste 2 0 0
206 Bhutan 0 0 0
206 Montserrat 0 0 0
206 San Marino 0 0 0
206 Turks and Caicos Islands 0 0 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.

on

36 comments:

  1. AnonymousSeptember 7, 2012 at 12:30 PM

    How many points Thailand will have in FIFA ranking november?? (if win Laos in september and october didn't have any match) ??

    ReplyDelete
  2. LorricSeptember 7, 2012 at 1:13 PM

    Over 100pts to 8th for England? That'll do me. That'll do me just fine.

    Confederations Cup can't come soon enough for Brazil.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LorricSeptember 7, 2012 at 10:44 PM

    If I had a pound for every moron I saw that said Hodgson would play for a draw in Moldova...

    Those people need to take a look at themselves and get a grip. Final score, Molova 0 England 5.

    Good for the UEFA coefficient. Hopefully England can farm Moldova and San Marino for more goal bonus points.

    Portugal, looks like you had a bit of a rough ride in Luxembourg. You always seem to have it tough with the little ones. Come over here. If you teach us how to beat the big ones, we'll show you how to beat the little ones. Sound like a good deal? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IvanSeptember 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM

      Yeah, as long as England never prevails against Portugal when it matters :P
      I wouldn't mind losing 3-0 in games like those in 1998, hahahahaha.

      Delete
    2. LorricSeptember 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

      I wondered what you were referring to. I see it was the qualifying group for Portugal. Two draws with the Germans, but lots of points dropped elswhere and finished third in the group. However, that was really before the advent of Portugal as an elite national side. I'm not sure what you mean about losing 3-0 though.

      Meanwhile England did the opposite, 4pts dropped to Italy, but still won the group thanks to better consistency against the lesser sides.

      Delete
    3. IvanSeptember 9, 2012 at 5:47 PM

      No, silly, I was referring to the 3-0 friendly loss to England in 1998, in the old Wembley still. That was the last time England beaten Portugal, though we only "defeated" you once since then, in 2000. The penalty-shootout wins in 2004 and 2006 don't really count, as there's a big factor of "luck" involved. I'd like a new game between England and Portugal, but please, take out all the foreigners that swarm your NT, since they're obviously not English. I'd also like for my NT to get rid of non-portuguese like Pepe, Nani, Varela, etc. I simply can't stand watching players on the field that obviously aren't of that nationality. Do you honestly watch those players and think you can identify with them?

      Back in those times Portugal had lots of talent, but poor coaching and piss poor finishing (well, it's not like today the finishing is much better), which is why they faltered against the smaller side. So while they stood up reasonably well to the big sides, it wasn't enough to compensate for the unforgivable sins commited against the "inferior" bunch.
      As a matter of fact, I'm also aware that England has had far more consistent qualifying campaigns over the years, which is why you often rank higher than Portugal, though our superior final tournament performance sometimes comes out on top.

      Delete
    4. LorricSeptember 9, 2012 at 10:56 PM

      Ah.

      I'm glad you agree with the penalty shootout thing. It's a close run thing between Portugal and England. Portugal won 2 shootouts, and in the other match Figo essentially won a duel with Beckham, with everyone else just extras in their own private show.

      Foreigners? Every player in the England team without exception was born in England. You just try googling it if you don't believe me. You won't find a single player that wasn't born in England. I've never had to confront the issue with that as we've never had a foreign player.

      The qualifiers have always been enjoyable for me. Even the 2008 failure wasn't total misery, as there was a very enjoyable streak of 3-0 wins in the middle of it. I was fortunate I guess to miss the last failure in 1994. The 1994 World Cup itself was my introduction to International football and I loved it, even with no England there.

      Delete
    5. IvanSeptember 10, 2012 at 2:25 AM

      "Foreigners? Every player in the England team without exception was born in England. You just try googling it if you don't believe me. You won't find a single player that wasn't born in England. I've never had to confront the issue with that as we've never had a foreign player."

      My issue is not whether they're born in England or not, but rather the blood and DNA they inherit from their parents, which is unaffected by where the birth is given. They obviously are sons of immigrants, which means that while they are officially given the English nationality, they don't have the English genes and do not possess the physical characteristics of the English. Assuming you're an Englishman born from native English people and have a neighborhood of true English people, you find that they have physical characteristics that are all similar to your own when compared to some of those that represent your NT and your Olympic Team. They're English only in name, and probably, very deep in your heart, you find that there's something odd when they're on the field defending the country, since they don't look like the local population they are supposed to represent.

      To prove my point: who do you think the dutch are? North African short brown people descendant from Morocco or tall and generally blonde natives from the country that is known as Netherlands? Now apply the same logic for the english and jamaicans.

      What I also mean to say is that nationality can't be "bought" or "acquired", it can only be given in a label form. Furthermore, allegiance and faith of some to England doesn't change the fact that you still have roots that originate outside of England. They're not English and could never be regardless of what they and others do, because it's genetic, something established forever and without possibility of change from birth.

      I know you'll most likely disagree with my view, but I hope you at least see where I'm coming from.

      Delete
    6. IvanSeptember 10, 2012 at 2:45 AM

      I forgot to say that the issue gets more complicated when you take into account an English marrying a Jamaican, for example, which usually creates a mixed child, who'd only be partially English. And if you take into account one or two mixed parents giving birth to a child, it gets even messier, creating someone who barely looks English and has difficulty identifying with any group (meaning he has no real identity).
      So what I want to say is: nationality should only be given jus sanguinis, which would eliminate all the non-english looking players from representing England. I don't think it'll happen due to the horrible ethnic cleansing your country is suffering, but that's beside the point here...

      Delete
    7. LorricSeptember 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM

      I'm not liking where this is going...

      I once told you your name sounds more Russian than Portuguese, and you're starting to sound like some of these thugs, these skinhead racists they've got over there and that were brawling through Euro 2012.

      It's proven that a genetic mix of different races is actually healthy for a person you know. It's the opposite of inbreeding.

      But going back to these players, I am white, and towards the whiter side of white too, if that makes sense. These black players when I see them talk in interviews and stuff, they seem "English" to me. I don't think foreigner when I see them, they talk like English people talk because they were born and raised here. And they play the way English players are expected to play. Football culture in England is a very ingrained thing in itself, and I imagine alien cultures just wouldn't fit into it anyway, wouldn't want anything to do with it. England is a leader in the football World when it comes to tackling racism in football and that's something I feel proud of.

      However, I am against anything which threatens English culture. I do not see these players as a threat. Muslims on the other hand, that's something I can have a problem with. Not all of them sure, some of them will mix with whites and be open minded but plenty are not bothered about integration. People coming over from the Caribbean or Africa, you rarely get any trouble there, with the exception of Somalia. Way too often when a black man is on the news it's a Somali. You will of course get some scum from elswhere, but we already have plenty of white scum already here. The Middle East though, there's a threat there. They're trying to impose their culture on us and the people in power are just rolling over and allowing them to do it. Iran and Saudi Arabia are spending vast amounts of money funding this cultural domination.

      Delete
    8. IvanSeptember 10, 2012 at 6:39 PM

      "Racism" is an extremely overused term and can mean just about everything. It's usually used when people hearing a different opinion about ethnicities than the one that's being held for a long time use as an emotional response to a likely cognitive dissonance on the subject. Therefore, when you use that word, please point out what exactly and why what I'm writing is racist. We can't hold emotional debates, we should be promoting logical ones.

      I also see that you have a very different opinion about the subject than me, so let's just drop it. At least here.

      If you do want to continue the discussion, here's my mail: dnla@sapo.pt

      Delete
    9. LorricSeptember 10, 2012 at 7:43 PM

      I will give you my definition of racism. Will you give me yours? My definition of racism simply is judging someone by their race not how they conduct themselves as an individual. Emotion never comes into it.

      You judged the black England players as such and fell foul of my definition, after I'd established that you didn't think we were nationalising players like France and Germany do. I countered that with a feeling that they are as "English" as any white player. By their actions. I can't think of any scandals involving a black player who plays for the England national team, nor any black player who I feel is unworthy of being selected for the team.

      By the way, I have a Croatian friend, and his favourite player is Eduardo. So I had a similar discussion with him. Eduardo is Brazilian born, and I think moved to Croatia at about age 16. I'd had a bit of a chip on my shoulder about Eduardo, but he convinced me Eduardo is "Croatian" not Brazilian, because Eduardo has learned to speak Croatian, has taken a Croatian wife, lives in Croatia and plans to live out his life in Croatia. Eduardo has made himself as Croatian as any Croatian and the Croats love him.

      Delete
    10. IvanSeptember 10, 2012 at 8:44 PM

      Did you miss the mail part? I said that if you want to continue the discussion, it should be done there. This is getting off-topic.

      Delete
    11. LorricSeptember 10, 2012 at 8:58 PM

      No. I agreed with stopping the discussion, but I thought I 'd answer the question you asked me, and wondered what your view was.

      Delete
    12. IvanSeptember 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM

      Fine, then let's put it this way:
      "My definition of racism simply is judging someone by their race not how they conduct themselves as an individual."

      First, "judging" means to evaluate a person based on its actions. I wasn't evaluating those persons' actions because they hadn't done any. I was merely saying they weren't entitled to be called English because, well, they aren't, as that's something that's established without them having a choice in it. They could be sons or descendants of south-africans, algerians, haitians, etc, and you didn't see me discriminating or attacking them in any way. I merely said that that's the entire reason they can't be called English, because in my opinion nationality should only be given jus sanguinis. How they act, feel and mimic the English culture is irrelevant to me, because the english people have always had defined physical characteristics, one of which was being white and usually having red-colored parts in the face, but the mass immigration beginning from 1960s started gradually making people feel they're "English", simply because they came there and their sons, grandsons, etc, were born and raised in that culture en masse. Never in the history of England (until the 2nd half of 20th Century) would those people be called English, otherwise they would just laugh at you! How does the fact that a massive influx of immigrants started arriving in England change who's English and who's not? Apparently, officially they do. I, however, disagree completely.

      Second, you just said that maybe I was being racist, and your definition of the word is "judging someone by their race". In other words, you just admitted that they're of a different race than the English, meaning they can't be called English at all! If they were of the same race (and ethnicity) you would have to tell me that I was being racist towards the local white-skinned English people as well!

      You want to hear my definition of racism? For me, it's any act, law or policy, done individually, or in group(s), that harms another race's member(s), be it verbally, physically or financially.

      Since you didn't want to take the discussion where it belongs better, this is my last post here on this. I won't answer this here anymore, though I will if you talk with me via mail.

      Delete
    13. IvanSeptember 10, 2012 at 10:04 PM

      *It's any act, law or policy, done individually, or in group(s), that deliberately harms another race's member(s) and his/their dignity, be it verbally, physically or financially, or any other way.

      Delete
    14. LorricSeptember 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM

      Right then. But I must point out you made a mistake. English is not a race, it's a nationality.

      In other news, I just watched England U21s beat Norway U21s 1-0. And everyone's moaning because "oh, the Norway players are more technical and more comfortable on the ball, wah wah wah..."

      They were in the match in Norway as well. And England won that match as well. I think I'd rather have our players than theirs.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousSeptember 9, 2012 at 9:25 PM

    hahahahaha hachak algeria 38 you can say 23 because algeria has win lybia 1-0
    jirdan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LorricSeptember 9, 2012 at 11:01 PM

      That's a good boost for Algeria. Up to 802pts.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousSeptember 11, 2012 at 12:09 PM

    Desert warriors, the sons of martyrs, children Algeria won the NATO rebels score 1/0 and therefore next category will be between positions 23 and .27

    ReplyDelete
  6. TobcoachSeptember 12, 2012 at 1:52 PM

    After the last days WorldCup-qualifying games, the ranking is being reshuffled a bit.

    Spain will still lead with Germany 2nd, but Portugal will be the new number 3 of the world. Argentina will be joined 3rd if they win their friendly against Brazil next week, else they will be 4th.

    England will be 5th, Netherlands 6th and because of their slip-ups Uruguay will be 7th and Italy 8th.

    Big surprise in the top 10 is Colombia on 9th, because of their two wins against Uruguay and Chile. Greece completes the top 10. Croatia drops from 9th to 11th.

    Begium has a good chance of re-entering the top 30 again (last time they were there was September 2004) and Algeria could be as high as 24th.

    There are still 16 games to be played until the deadline, but I didn't look if there will be any high profiled teams involved (apart from Brazil and Argentina).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LorricSeptember 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM

      Interesting. England were predicted to win both games and be 6th. They drew against Ukraine and get 5th! Bow down to the ranking masters.

      Ukraine ruined my plans to put the result of that match if it had been a win next to the wins over Moldova and Italy and declare them a set of results worthy of the third best team on the planet.

      As for the match, I am satisfied with it, and pleased that England were not booed by the home crowd at any point or at the end. Ukraine played like a team with a chip on their shoulder and met England head on for the whole game. And why not when England dumped them out of their own tournament. England have played 4 games in recent times against Ukraine, and Ukraine have been stronger with each successive game. I hope that trend reverses or they might win the next one and the group.

      Colombia destroyed their opponents. They look dangerous. It looks like it's time for Colombia to return to the World Cup. The thing is they have an amazing player in Falcao, but they're far from a one man band, and that makes them very dangerous.

      Greece doing what they do and grinding out 2 wins.

      Portugal is amusing. Normally beating Luxembourg and Azerbaijan would downgrade your average.

      Delete
    2. IvanSeptember 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM

      If Argentina wins against Brazil, they will have 1259 points, the same as Portugal. I think they'd be put ahead because of being first in the alphabetic order :)

      Having said this, some of the surprises of this round are Scotland drawing at home with Macedonia 1-1. I knew the Scots aren't in exactly the best shape, but I still expected them to defeat the Macedonians. Heh, I know this is weird coming from a Portuguese fan, but that 0-0 with Macedonia in pre-Euro 2012 was still a friendly. I've come to not value pre-major tournament friendlies' results anymore.

      I also was a little surprised with Italy only defeating Malta 2-0 at home, with the second goal coming late in the game.

      No huge surprises in Group C.

      It seems that the Netherlands are getting back in shape, after defeating Turkey 2-0 they went to Hungary and smashed the locals 4-1. Maybe van Gaal was a good choice after all, let's see the rest of the campaign.

      I forgot to comment on the Norwegians' first game, where they lost 2-0 away to Iceland. They must really have a hard time with the islanders. However, they bounced back 4 days later with a injury-time winner against Slovenia.

      Portugal had trouble scoring, but then a super-sub Varela appeared and set the motion for the comfortable 3-0 win against Azerbaijan. I was positively surprised by Russia's result in Israel. Fabio Capello seems to be doing a good job, the game in Moscow between Russia and Portugal won't be easy at all for the Portuguese.
      Another thing, it's funny how after two rounds Russia and Portugal lead the group alone with 6 points, while the rest of the group is stuck with 1 point, with Luxembourg, Northern Ireland, Azerbaijan and Israel all having a different negative goal-scoring record :D

      Bosnia and Greece continue the good start in their group, with Bosnia being the more impressive side, but Greece also showing stability in their ranks. Slovakia trails behind, but I don't see them having much of a chance. Maybe I'll be wrong again, like I've been so many times with football.

      After England having an impressive start with a 5-0 win in Moldova, they struggled a lot with Ukraine. When I was watching the scores on Flashscore, it actually showed the result "England 0-1 Ukraine" as a finished game. I thought "Holy s***, the Ukrainians actually defeated the English away!". But some minutes later, when I looked again, it showed "England 1-1 Ukraine". I was pissed off at the site for faking a shock result. But I imagine Lorric was a little happier :P
      Poland also had its first competitive win since March 2009, when they won over San Marino 10-0. They had a series of 8 games in a row with only losses and draws. Good for them.

      Finally, France did revenge over Belarus for stealing 5 points from them in the Euro 2012 qualifying campaign. Spain had a lot of trouble in Georgia, and were in danger of actually losing their first qualifying points since September 2007, when they drew 1-1 with Iceland away, but Soldado continued the impressive record, so Spain now has won the 23 last qualifying games. Will their record stop at the hands of France?

      Delete
    3. LorricSeptember 12, 2012 at 6:37 PM

      I'm not surprised at Russia at all. Capello did a great job for me, and the FA were idiots to alienate him. And I think Fabio Capello is made for Russia. I've heard that Russia lack discipline. Capello will solve that problem. I'm not surprised at all that they came exploding out of the blocks, and I wouldn't be surprised if Portugal are in the playoffs again.

      The 4-0 win in Israel is magnificent, especially when Russia had 3 players injured and were forced to use all their subs with the last one just after the start of the second half.

      I watched the first match, and while they wasted loads of chances, they utterly dominated Northern Ireland for the whole match, NI barely got out of their half.

      Delete
  7. brahimSeptember 13, 2012 at 1:20 AM

    algeria won libya 1/0 and instead of going up it went down
    hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhow comes . and libya still in the same position ( 35 ) and the winner (38).
    this is the weirdest ranking i have ever seen .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TobcoachSeptember 13, 2012 at 9:02 AM

      The ranking above is a ranking based on a prediction of the outcome of games. See the link to the list of results at the top of the article.

      In that prediction, Libya was predicted to win against Algeria. But Algeria won instead.

      This means that the ranking as posted here is outdated, and I'm sure Edgar will post a new one in few days time.

      So please be patient, Algeria will rise on the rankings...

      Delete
  8. MVSeptember 13, 2012 at 4:03 PM

    wow,...seems colombia could climb as far as 3rd place in december, should all of their competition falter

    ReplyDelete
  9. RandolfSeptember 13, 2012 at 9:35 PM

    FIFA's website is giving points to Haiti, Bermuda and Puerto Rico for victories over St. Martin (not a FIFA member, while Surinam is not getting any points for the 2 - 2 result against Martinique (not a FIFA member.
    They will probably correct that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdSeptember 13, 2012 at 10:09 PM

      Randolf,

      The fixtures & results list on FIFA.com does not contain those matches involving St. Martin and Martinique. This list is leading (AFAIK) in the calculation of the FIFA-ranking.
      And it would be the first time ever that matchpoints are awarded for a match where one of the teams is a non FIFA-member.

      Pffff, this prognosis tool doesn't really make a reliable impression when it presents this kind of nonsense.

      Delete
  10. AnonymousSeptember 14, 2012 at 2:38 AM

    How many points will Ecuador have in November with the different possible results against Chile and Venezuela in October? And if it's possible to know, what will its probable ranking in each case be?

    ReplyDelete
  11. EdSeptember 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM

    ECU-CHI (12/10) and VEN-ECU (16/10). Ranking points for ECU in November:

    win CHI and win VEN: 1033 pts
    draw CHI and win VEN: 941 pts
    loss CHI and win VEN: 895 pts

    win CHI and draw VEN: 952 pts
    draw CHI and draw VEN: 860 pts
    loss CHI and draw VEN: 814 pts

    win CHI and loss VEN: 912 pts
    draw CHI and loss VEN: 820 pts
    loss CHI and loss VEN: 774 pts

    Resulting ranking position is always a lot harder to predict, especially when there are so much high-valued matches played at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. EdgarSeptember 14, 2012 at 9:10 AM

    @brahim

    Here's the updated ranking:

    FIFA Ranking: October 2012 preview (II).

    @Ed @Lorric

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete