Friday, September 6, 2013
2014 FIFA World Cup: A look at the CAF play-off pots scenarios
Standings can be found on FIFA.com.
Group A
Ethiopia - Won't be seeded.
Botswana - Won't be seeded.
South Africa - need to win against Botswana and hope Ethiopia don't defeat Central African Republic at a neutral venue.
They will be in the second pot with a total between 528 and 539 (depending on the outcome of their friendly against Zimbabwe).
Group B
Tunisia - need a draw at home vs. Cape Verde Islands (who need a win to advance).
If Tunisia get the draw they will have 601 points and they need two of these to happen:
Zambia to win in Ghana
Guinea not to lose in Egypt
Burkina Faso not to advance to the play-off OR (Burkina Faso to draw against Gabon AND lose their friendly against Nigeria)
Malawi to win in Nigeria
If Tunisia win, they will have 643 points and they will be seeded.
Cape Verde Islands - need to win away to Tunisia (who only need a draw to advance). Cape Verde Islands will be 100% seeded if they advance.
Group C
Côte d'Ivoire - already qualified. Will be 100% seeded.
Group D
Ghana - need a draw at home vs. Zambia (who need a win to advance). Ghana will be 100% seeded if they advance.
Zambia - need to win in Ghana (who only need a draw to advance). They would have 572 points.
In order to be seeded they need 3 of these 4 to happen:
Malawi to win in Nigeria
Burkina Faso to fail to qualify
Guinea not to lose in Egypt
Libya not to win in Cameroon
Group E
Congo - Won't be seeded.
Burkina Faso
They can advance with a draw, but need Niger to defeat Congo by at least 3 goals. They also have a friendly away to Nigeria on 10 September. Their total with a draw would be: 583 (loss vs. Nigeria), 590 (draw), 603 (win).
583: They need 3 of these 4 to happen (besides Niger defeating Congo by at least 3 goals)
Zambia to win in Ghana
Guinea not to lose in Egypt
Libya not to win in Cameroon
Malawi to win in Nigeria
590: They need 2 of these 3 to happen (besides Niger defeating Congo by at least 3 goals)
Zambia to win in Ghana
Guinea not to lose in Egypt
Malawi to win in Nigeria
603: They need 2 of these 4 to happen (besides Niger defeating Congo by at least 3 goals)
Tunisia not to defeat Cape Verde Islands
Zambia to win in Ghana
Guinea not to lose in Egypt
Malawi to win in Nigeria
They would advance with a win, but still Niger to get at least 1 point against Congo (thanks Pinyan!). Their total with a win would be: 607 (loss vs. Nigeria), 614 (draw), 628 (win).
607: They need 2 of these 4 to happen:
Tunisia not to defeat Cape Verde Islands
Zambia to win in Ghana
Guinea not to lose in Egypt
Malawi to win in Nigeria
614 or 628: They need 1 of these 3 to happen:
Zambia to win in Ghana
Tunisia not to defeat Cape Verde Islands
Malawi to win in Nigeria
Gabon - They currently have a goal difference of 0. The group leaders, Congo, have 3 points more and a GD of +4. Thus, Gabon need to win in Burkina Faso and hope Niger defeat Congo and their combined results help Gabon have a better GD than Congo.
They will have 533 points and will be in the second pot.
Group F
Nigeria - need a draw at home vs. Malawi (who need a win to advance). Nigeria will be 100% seeded if they advance.
Malawi - Won't be seeded.
Group G
Egypt - already qualified. Depending on their game vs. Guinea, their total could be: 540 (loss), 563 (draw), 611 (win).
540 or 563: Needs all 3 to happen:
Malawi to win in Nigeria
Burkina Faso to fail to qualify
Cameroon - Libya to end as a draw
611: Needs 2 of these 4 to happen:
Tunisia - Cape Verde Islands to end as a draw
Zambia to win in Ghana
Burkina Faso to fail to qualify OR Burkina Faso to qualify with a draw OR Burkina Faso to lose their friendly in Nigeria
Malawi to win in Nigeria
Group H
Algeria - already qualified. Will be 100% seeded.
Group I
Cameroon - need a draw at home vs. Libya (who need a win to advance).
With a draw Cameroon will have 514 points and will be in Pot 2.
With a win they will have 558 points and need all these to happen:
Egypt to lose at home vs. Guinea
Malawi to win in Nigeria
Burkina Faso to fail to qualify
Libya - need to win in Cameronn (who only need a draw to advance).
They will have 588 points and need three of these to happen:
Zambia to win in Ghana
Guinea not to lose in Egypt
Burkina Faso not to advance to the play-off OR (Burkina Faso to draw against Gabon AND lose their friendly against Nigeria)
Malawi to win in Nigeria
Group J
Uganda - need to win against Senegal in Morocco. Won't be seeded.
Senegal - need a draw against Uganda in Morocco. Won't be seeded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Edgar, an elaborate piece of work !
ReplyDeleteI hope for you Hossam doesn't have a question anymore :D
Great work Edgar !!
ReplyDeleteI Have a question about the qualification system of the 3rd Round, Will the seeded teams play the second leg at home?
Just as a quick correction, in Group E, you say of Burkina Faso: "They would advance with a win, not depending on Niger vs. Congo." Congo is a point ahead of them, so even with a win Burkina Faso would need a Congo loss/draw in order to advance.
ReplyDeleteThanks Pinyan! Fixed now.
DeleteAlready qualified were Cote d'Ivoire, Algeria and Egypt.
ReplyDeleteSo far yesterday and today Ghana, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso and Nigeria have qualified for the play-offs. Decisions to follow tonight in the matches Tunisia-Cape Verde and Senegal-Uganda and tomorrow in the match Cameroon-Libya.
Seeded:
Cote d'Ivoire
Ghana
Algeria
Nigeria
Unseeded:
Ethiopia
The picture has become much clearer already:
The winners of Cameroon-Libya and Senegal-Uganda will be unseeded. That leaves 3 teams fighting for one seeded spot:
the winner of Tunisia-Cape Verde, Egypt and Burkina Faso.
If Tunisia-Cape Verde does not result in a draw the winner is seeded. If Tunisia qualifies with a draw they will not be seeded.
In that case the fight will be between Egypt and Burkina Faso. At the moment Burkina Faso has 628 points for the September ranking. Egypt can only reach 611 points with a win Tuesday over Guinea.
Now on that same Tuesday there is that strange friendly between Nigeria and Burkina Faso, where Burkina Faso can only lose points. If they win they remain at 628 points. However, if they lose that friendly they could end below Egypt in the ranking.
If Tunisia qualifies tonight with a draw I wouldn't be too surprised when this friendly would not be played after all or when the result somehow would not count for the September ranking (7 subs probably).
With Cape Verde's win, it looks like we have the pots figured out.
ReplyDeleteSeeded: Algeria, Cape Verde, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria
Unseeded: Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ethiopia, Group I (Senegal/Uganda), Group J (Cameroon/Libya)
Yes. I worked this out on my own with the tool on the FIFA World Rankings site, I wish I'd seen this sooner, I came here to post it.
DeleteAnyone up for Cape Verde Islands vs. Ethiopia for a place in the World Cup?
No, please no... I used to be happy to see "small" teams make it to the world cup but remembering the past performances of Togo, Angola and even Tunisia on the world stage, i'd rather see the traditional African powerhouses make it. Won't even be rooting for Algeria...
DeleteI really hope for Côte d'ivoire, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon and Senegal to make it (Nigeria were disappointing at the confederations Cup). At least, those teams will instill a little bit of fear into their opponents. Nothing against Cape Verde or Ethiopia, but the world cup does come around only once every four years and i'm tired of seeing only one African team in the last 16 every time. So CAF,please, No Cape Verde vs. Ethiopia and absolutely no Cote D'Ivoire Vs Cameroon/Egypt
yeah.. I hope Cape Verde (also portuguese speaking) comes to Brazil next year :)
DeleteSenegal has a terrible defence.
DeleteNigeria dissapointing at the Confed Cup? Apart from the fact that they outplayed Uruguay and would have won were it not for horrendous finishing, you do remember they were missing 3 out of their 4 key players (Emenike, Moses, Onazi), which really made a world of difference regarding midfield control and attacking prowess.
I really hope Burkina Faso make it. Alain Traore and Bertrand Traore are something special. With Pitroipa and Nakoulma up front they may actually be a surprise team for 2014. Unlike Angola or Togo they have a lot of classy players to boast (Bakary Kone, Charles Kaboré, Abdou Razack Traoré, Wilfried Sanou), which means they won't be pushovers.
I do however hope we don't get an Ethiopia vs Cape Verde draw, because that really would be a waste of a World Cup slot.
And no need for 'conspiracy theories' about the friendly Nigeria - Burkina Faso this Tuesday.
DeleteAbout the draw: I think all the seeds want to avoid Egypt and all the unseeds would like to draw Cape Verde. Although, if you are capable of beating Tunisia at home in a do-or-die match... They are evidently no push-overs.
I agree with the anonymouses above: Africa needs a strong delegation with experience (preferably Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Algeria and Egypt), no debutants please.
Awww, no one wants Cape Verde Islands vs. Ethiopia?
DeleteAlright, next question. Anyone up for Algeria vs Egypt? 2010 all over again, it'll be a great spectacle!
Rooting for Ethiopia and Burkina Faso. Too bad for Cape Verde Islands. Incredible management blunder.
DeleteCameroon just beat Libya (1-0).
ReplyDeleteI really cannot see any African team with a competitive edge at the next WC except maybe for Ghana and, to a lesser degree, Algeria ...
ReplyDeleteNigeria. Full strength they look tremendous and almost without a weakness. Plus Mikel is majestic. If they had an efficient striker at the Confed Cup they would have beat Uruguay easily.
DeleteCote d'Ivoire. Still a top shelf team, just need a less deadly draw.
As for Algeria... don't think much of them. Place higher chances on Egypt, Cameroon, Senegal or even Burkina Faso.
I really hope Cape Verde will be at the World cup. I mean they have beaten Cameroon in the qualifiers for Africa cup 2013 and reached quarter finals in that tournament (to be beaten by Ghana in a quite equal match). Now they have knocked out Tunisia wich also is a big name in African football.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they should draw a big name again (Cameroon again maybe?) and advance.
From the unseeds Burkina Faso is possibly the best team, followed by Senegal, Egypt, Cameroon and Ethiopia
Cote d'Ivoire - Ethiopia;
ReplyDeleteGhana - Egypt;
Algeria - Burkina Faso;
Nigeria - Senegal;
Cape Verde - Cameroon;
If one of the debutants makes it through, they will certainly not run the risk of being underestimated.
I really hope Egypt will make it to the WC. I mean, we won the african cup of nations three times in a row ( 2006, 2008 , 2010 ) yet we can't qualify to WC. We always beat Cameeron and Cote d'ivoire in CAN but we they always qualify and we don't.
ReplyDeleteCape Verde out of the play-offs for fielding an ineligible player. Tunisa wins the match 3-0. From FIFA:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/news/newsid=2172738/index.html
And another awarded match: Tunisia - Cape Verde. That makes 8 awarded matches in Africa in this qualifying campaign so far. Unique !
ReplyDeleteTunisia now qualified for the play-offs and seeded. Very disappointing (and stupid) for Cape Verde.
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/news/newsid=2172738/index.html
Hello everyone
ReplyDeleteI'm going to propose an exercise, especially those that can calculate the FIFA ranking (Edgar, Jeroen, Ed). Believe me, the result is at least curious.
This is the current ranking of African teams in the race for Brazil 2014:
# NT 100%
1 Ivory Coast 902
2 Ghana 815
3 Algeria 762
4 Nigeria 707
5 Tunisia 643
6 Egypt 611
7 Burkina Faso 607
8 Senegal 534
9 Cameroon 494 (there is an error but never mind)
10 Ethiopia 386
where the top 5 were seeded for the draw for the third round
As you may know, in January 2013 was played African Nations Cup. But suppose you had played in July 2012, ie more than 1 year. What would the current FIFA ranking? To do this, simply change the weight of championship matches. Pass from 100% to 50% and redo the calculations. But before doing the calculations, I suggest you to imagine what would happen. Since the points obtained in the CAF2013 matches are depreciated by 50%, it is expected that teams that had good results in the CAF 2013 would have a lower ranking, no? Now yes, let's see the results. (Feel free to make their own calculations.)
Based on Jeroen excel I obtained these results (http://www.football-rankings.info/2013/09/2014-fifa-world-cup-final-seeding_13.html?showComment=1379268480362#c3189659684078119617).
# TN 100% 50% Difference Pos CAF 2013
1 Ivory Coast 902 838 65 5
2 Ghana 815 763 52 4
3 Algeria 762 783 -21 13
4 Nigeria 707 651 56 1
5 Tunisia 643 613 30 9
6 Egypt 611 611 0 NQ
7 Burkina Faso 607 636 -29 2
8 Senegal 534 534 0 NQ
9 Cameroon 494 494 0 NQ
10 Ethiopia 386 399 -13 16
Now, let us analyse the results. First, teams (Egypt, Senegal, Cameroon) who didn't played the CAF2013, have the same ranking. Other teams (Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Tunisia) would have a worse ranking (less points), which is logical given that the good results obtained (average in the case of Tunisia) were depreciated. Other teams, Ethiopia and Algeria have a better ranking. This would be logical because of the poor results obtained (1D, 2L). The most interesting thing is to analyse the case of Burkina Faso. When their CAF 2013 results were depreciated, they have a better rank (636 points). This means that in the case of Burkina Faso, when their CAF2013 results (was 2º, with 2W, 3D (1 PK W), 1L; matches points; 382, 697, 415, 952, 898, 0) are depreciated a 50%, their current ranking improved 29 points! Burkina Faso goes from 7 to 5 place, becoming a seeded team.
This analysis suggests that the Fifa ranking has an error. Who wants to know more about why this occurs, I suggest reading this post:
http://www.football-rankings.info/2013/09/2014-fifa-world-cup-final-seeding_13.html?showComment=1379261733339#c1345403102919573979
my calculations: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bmgs7juu38bt6q3/Ranking_CAF.xlsx
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFederico,
DeleteCurrent september ranking for BFA:
1st tf: 415.994 per match
2nd tf: 46.118 per match (* 0.5 weight) = 23.059
3rd tf: 285.827 per match (* 0.3 weight) = 85.748
4th tf: 413.351 per match (* 0.2 weight) = 82.670
sum 607.47
If you move the 6 CAN 2013 matches to the 2nd time frame:
1st tf: 359.480 per match
2nd tf: 216.505 per match (* 0.5 weight) = 108.253
3rd tf: 285.827 per match (* 0.3 weight) = 85.748
4th tf: 413.351 per match (* 0.2 weight) = 82.670
sum 636.15
The average per match in the second time frame was very low (46.118). The six CAN 2013 matches lifted that average to 216.505 per match, while the first time frame average dropped 56.5 points. Even the applied half weight for the second time frame resulted in an increase of 85.2 points for that time frame. Net result for the FIFA points: -56.5 + 85.2 = +28.7 points.
While you expect that the FIFA points will always drop if you shift high value matches to the next time frame (with a lower weight), that is actually dependent on what the match average of the next time frame was before the shift. When that average is very low a shift of high value matches can contribute enough to even lift the total FIFA points.
And it has nothing to do with a first time frame with 21 matches and a second time frame with 12 matches (before) and respectively 15 and 18 (after), because it all comes down to average points per match.
I don't see the error in the ranking, your expectations are just not correct. What is your point exactly ?
Hi Ed, my points is that the matches that were played more time ago, should have less weight in the actual ranking, according to the idea of FIFA weight factor (100% last year, 50%, 30% and 20%). So always, no matter what, when a match enter in an older period, it should have less influence in the current ranking, than the recent matches. And the formula should reflex that idea. As I we could see in the case of Burkina Faso, this is not happening.
DeleteAnother example is Panama. Is you see their current ranking (601 points according to my data), each of the matches played during the fourth year (2009; 20%) have a bigger contribution (4 % each) to the current ranking than the matches of the two following years (1,43 % each match of the 30% and 3,85% each of the 50%). So, at the end, the 5 matches of the 20% period have more contribution than matches played in 30% and 50% periods. For me, this in unfair. The logical would be that older matches would have less contribution. If this was not make on purpose, I think that the FIFA Ranking formula should be revised. In the other post a suggest an alternative method.
OK, I understand your point.
ReplyDeleteBut the ranking works with average points per match in a time frame and only that average is weighted, not each match seperately. The number of matches over which the average in a time frame is determined doesn't play any role in the weighting. There is no weight per match, only a weight per time frame for the average performance.
If the ranking shouldn't work with an average performance over a period of time but instead with each match result seperate then a country that plays more matches has automatically an advantage, because it can accumulate more points.
The explanation of the ranking procedure never said that the result of individual matches is becoming less important over the years:
"A team’s total number of points over a four-year period is determined by adding:
· the average number of points gained from matches during the past 12 months;
and
· the average number of points gained from matches older than 12 months (depreciates yearly)."
It's true that the explanation of the ranking procedure never said that the result of individual matches is becoming less important over the years. But I think that's the idea of the weight factor. Older matches should have less contribution to the actual ranking. For me seems very logical. I don't know which is Ranking FIFA goal. But if FIFA shares my idea, then the ranking method has a flaw (as we see in the case of Burkina Faso). And if it has a flaw, then another method should be used. I agree with you that is wrong simply add the results of the matches, because it would favor teams play more games. Therefore it is necessary to average the results somewhat.
DeleteIn this post ( http://www.football-rankings.info/2013/09/2014-fifa-world-cup-final-seeding_13.html?showComment=1379261733339#c1345403102919573979 ) I suggest that the average matches played per year should be use (it's just an idea). With this method I do the maths, and always the older matches have less contribution than recent matches.
Under normal conditions where each time frame average of a team lies in the same order of magnitude, your fair wish will come true. Each match that shifts to the next time frame will get a lower weight (per match). And most teams act under these normal conditions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are some exceptions, like Burkina Faso and Panama and surely some others. I agree with you that your assumption is the ideal case. In practice, FIFA's assumptions apparently have some peculiar consequences in very specific cases.
I think with the last revamp of the calculation method FIFA's main objective was to create a simple calculation with a simple weighting mechanism. Your proposal makes it more complicated again, just to cater for some specific cases.
I wouldn't go so far to call it a 'flaw' of the method. It is a consequence of the assumptions, made to create a, above all, simple calculation method.
Federico, I would consider this an exception, not a flaw. I think your point is that FIFA contradicts their own premise. But like Ed said, some years ago people were complaining because the ranking was too complicated (considered home/away condition, number of goals scores, 8 year time frame), and FIFA was trying to make it simple so people could easily grasp the idea (but even now, the majority of people don't have a clue about how it works haha).
DeletePerhaps, instead of tackling the procedure so that it meets with the premise, maybe you should question the premise itself. As discussed in other posts, what about no weights on the 4 periods? This way, the discrepancy you are mentioning would go away and the ranking calculation would be even simpler!
Ed, I don't know well what happened in most cases. But, the lower weight (per match) depends on how many matches were played in each time frame. I have calculated the weight for each match by time frame (Factor 1). As you will see, there are many cases were older matches have bigger weight, than recent matches (in the list I excluded NT that played less than 5 matches in at least one year). I don't think that are few cases. I agree that Burkina Faso is an exceptional case (that is why I mentioned at the beginning). In their case, they were "disadvantage" because of the good results of the last year, in relationship with the previous. In another cases, is the other way around.
DeleteNT 20% 30% 50% 100% Mean St Dv 20% 30% 50% 100%
Panama 5 21 13 22 15,25 6,9 4,0% 1,4% 3,8% 4,5%
Nigeria 17 8 13 21 14,75 4,8 1,2% 3,8% 3,8% 4,8%
Costa Rica 11 20 15 22 17 4,3 1,8% 1,5% 3,3% 4,5%
Algeria 16 5 8 13 10,5 4,3 1,3% 6,0% 6,3% 7,7%
Ghana 20 9 15 17 15,25 4,0 1,0% 3,3% 3,3% 5,9%
Honduras 15 20 11 21 16,75 4,0 1,3% 1,5% 4,5% 4,8%
Mexico 22 18 12 21 18,25 3,9 0,9% 1,7% 4,2% 4,8%
Peru 5 15 12 12 11 3,7 4,0% 2,0% 4,2% 8,3%
Ecuador 6 16 10 11 10,75 3,6 3,3% 1,9% 5,0% 9,1%
Côte d'Ivoire 16 7 15 14 13 3,5 1,3% 4,3% 3,3% 7,1%
Japan 21 13 13 18 16,25 3,4 1,0% 2,3% 3,8% 5,6%
Venezuela 12 19 14 10 13,75 3,3 1,7% 1,6% 3,6% 10,0%
Tunisia 12 8 14 17 12,75 3,3 1,7% 3,8% 3,6% 5,9%
Paraguay 17 18 13 10 14,5 3,2 1,2% 1,7% 3,8% 10,0%
USA 15 15 15 22 16,75 3,0 1,3% 2,0% 3,3% 4,5%
Brazil 13 13 14 20 15 2,9 1,5% 2,3% 3,6% 5,0%
Egypt 16 11 18 12 14,25 2,9 1,3% 2,7% 2,8% 8,3%
Netherlands 17 10 14 11 13 2,7 1,2% 3,0% 3,6% 9,1%
Spain 18 11 17 16 15,5 2,7 1,1% 2,7% 2,9% 6,3%
Mali 12 7 11 14 11 2,5 1,7% 4,3% 4,5% 7,1%
Denmark 16 9 12 13 12,5 2,5 1,3% 3,3% 4,2% 7,7%
Germany 17 12 15 11 13,75 2,4 1,2% 2,5% 3,3% 9,1%
Italy 13 11 15 17 14 2,2 1,5% 2,7% 3,3% 5,9%
Portugal 13 9 15 11 12 2,2 1,5% 3,3% 3,3% 9,1%
Iran 12 17 12 12 13,25 2,2 1,7% 1,8% 4,2% 8,3%
Argentina 16 17 12 13 14,5 2,1 1,3% 1,8% 4,2% 7,7%
England 13 8 13 11 11,25 2,0 1,5% 3,8% 3,8% 9,1%
Greece 13 11 14 9 11,75 1,9 1,5% 2,7% 3,6% 11,1%
Uruguay 14 15 11 16 14 1,9 1,4% 2,0% 4,5% 6,3%
Czech Republic 9 11 14 10 11 1,9 2,2% 2,7% 3,6% 10,0%
Colombia 8 12 8 11 9,75 1,8 2,5% 2,5% 6,3% 9,1%
Slovenia 12 10 7 10 9,75 1,8 1,7% 3,0% 7,1% 10,0%
Russia 8 11 12 9 10 1,6 2,5% 2,7% 4,2% 11,1%
France 14 12 15 11 13 1,6 1,4% 2,5% 3,3% 9,1%
Austria 7 11 8 10 9 1,6 2,9% 2,7% 6,3% 10,0%
Croatia 9 10 13 10 10,5 1,5 2,2% 3,0% 3,8% 10,0%
Switzerland 12 8 10 9 9,75 1,5 1,7% 3,8% 5,0% 11,1%
Sweden 11 10 14 12 11,75 1,5 1,8% 3,0% 3,6% 8,3%
Serbia 14 11 12 10 11,75 1,5 1,4% 2,7% 4,2% 10,0%
Turkey 9 9 12 11 10,25 1,3 2,2% 3,3% 4,2% 9,1%
Hungary 9 11 8 10 9,5 1,1 2,2% 2,7% 6,3% 10,0%
Romania 9 12 11 10 10,5 1,1 2,2% 2,5% 4,5% 10,0%
Norway 8 10 9 11 9,5 1,1 2,5% 3,0% 5,6% 9,1%
Ukraine 10 11 13 11 11,25 1,1 2,0% 2,7% 3,8% 9,1%
Chile 15 15 13 13 14 1,0 1,3% 2,0% 3,8% 7,7%
Albania 8 10 10 8 9 1,0 2,5% 3,0% 5,0% 12,5%
Belgium 8 10 10 10 9,5 0,9 2,5% 3,0% 5,0% 10,0%
Montenegro 8 7 9 7 7,75 0,8 2,5% 4,3% 5,6% 14,3%
Bosnia-Herzegovina 10 10 11 9 10 0,7 2,0% 3,0% 4,5% 11,1%
I agree that the method should be simple but I do not think my proposal is too complicated. In fact, I could calculated the alternative ranking. In the table, I post the top 50 NT. The first 4 columns corresponds to the factor 2 (my proposal) that is the weight (per match) by time frame. In all cases the weight matches have the same relationship with
Deleteof the 100% time frame (20% for the 4th year, 30% for the 3rd year, 50% for the 2nd year).
As you can see, in all cases, the older matches have less weight. Burkina Faso, in that alternative ranking, would be in CAF top 5 teams (Tunisia out). Notice also, that when a NT tends to play the same number of matches per year factors 1 and 2 are more similar.
NT 20% 30% 50% 100% Ranking Current Ranking Alternative # Rnk Alternative Difference
Spain 1,3% 1,9% 3,2% 6,5% 1514 1552 1 -38
Argentina 1,4% 2,1% 3,4% 6,9% 1263 1177 7 86
Germany 1,5% 2,2% 3,6% 7,3% 1261 1218 4 43
Italy 1,4% 2,1% 3,6% 7,1% 1199 1307 2 -108
Colombia 2,1% 3,1% 5,1% 10,3% 1180 1211 5 -31
Belgium 2,1% 3,2% 5,3% 10,5% 1159 1207 6 -48
Uruguay 1,4% 2,1% 3,6% 7,1% 1126 1156 9 -30
Brazil 1,3% 2,0% 3,3% 6,7% 1067 1229 3 -162
Netherlands 1,5% 2,3% 3,8% 7,7% 1058 1006 12 53
Croatia 1,9% 2,9% 4,8% 9,5% 1051 1067 10 -16
Portugal 1,7% 2,5% 4,2% 8,3% 1029 1044 11 -15
Greece 1,7% 2,6% 4,3% 8,5% 1016 954 15 62
USA 1,2% 1,8% 3,0% 6,0% 996 1169 8 -173
Switzerland 2,1% 3,1% 5,1% 10,3% 992 954 16 38
Russia 2,0% 3,0% 5,0% 10,0% 968 980 13 -12
Chile 1,4% 2,1% 3,6% 7,1% 967 933 17 34
England 1,8% 2,7% 4,4% 8,9% 947 966 14 -19
Bosnia-Herzegovina 2,0% 3,0% 5,0% 10,0% 934 891 19 43
Côte d'Ivoire 1,5% 2,3% 3,8% 7,7% 902 929 18 -27
Ecuador 1,9% 2,8% 4,7% 9,3% 851 860 26 -8
Mexico 1,1% 1,6% 2,7% 5,5% 836 822 27 13
Sweden 1,7% 2,6% 4,3% 8,5% 835 864 24 -29
Denmark 1,6% 2,4% 4,0% 8,0% 825 810 28 15
Ghana 1,3% 2,0% 3,3% 6,6% 815 866 22 -51
France 1,5% 2,3% 3,8% 7,7% 809 793 31 16
Ukraine 1,8% 2,7% 4,4% 8,9% 799 805 29 -6
Montenegro 2,6% 3,9% 6,5% 12,9% 766 734 40 32
Algeria 1,9% 2,9% 4,8% 9,5% 762 797 30 -34
Slovenia 2,1% 3,1% 5,1% 10,3% 754 751 38 3
Hungary 2,1% 3,2% 5,3% 10,5% 744 770 35 -27
Romania 1,9% 2,9% 4,8% 9,5% 738 732 41 6
Czech Republic 1,8% 2,7% 4,5% 9,1% 738 771 34 -33
Peru 1,8% 2,7% 4,5% 9,1% 732 780 32 -48
Panama 1,3% 2,0% 3,3% 6,6% 727 886 20 -159
Costa Rica 1,2% 1,8% 2,9% 5,9% 723 863 25 -140
Venezuela 1,5% 2,2% 3,6% 7,3% 707 632 48 75
Nigeria 1,4% 2,0% 3,4% 6,8% 707 865 23 -158
Mali 1,8% 2,7% 4,5% 9,1% 704 768 37 -65
Norway 2,1% 3,2% 5,3% 10,5% 692 718 42 -26
Honduras 1,2% 1,8% 3,0% 6,0% 680 770 36 -90
Japan 1,2% 1,8% 3,1% 6,2% 671 654 45 17
Serbia 1,7% 2,6% 4,3% 8,5% 666 629 49 37
Tunisia 1,6% 2,4% 3,9% 7,8% 643 743 39 -100
Austria 2,2% 3,3% 5,6% 11,1% 640 663 44 -23
Turkey 2,0% 2,9% 4,9% 9,8% 613 638 47 -25
Burkina Faso 1,7% 2,6% 4,3% 8,7% 607 879 21 -272
Armenia 2,4% 3,6% 6,1% 12,1% 592 624 50 -32