Latest updates

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

Friday, January 6, 2017

FIFA Ranking: January 2017 final preview

FIFA will publish the ranking on 12 January.

8 matches left before the deadline: 2 continental qualifiers and 6 friendlies.

This is how the points and ranks could change for the teams involved:


Team - Minimum points - Maximum points - Worst rank - Best rank


Slovakia 811 835 29 25
Côte d'Ivoire 716 743 36 33
Tunisia 713 746 36 33
Senegal 710 743 36 33
Egypt 688 726 38 33
Algeria 653 687 43 39
Sweden 652 687 43 39
Burkina Faso 571 611 60 53
Mali 544 571 64 60
Uganda 462 494 78 71
Trinidad and Tobago 421 478 84 72
Haiti 413 512 86 69
Libya 390 444 89 79
Mauritania 296 348 114 99
Suriname 245 360 128 95

In the table below I've used the minimum points.

Best movers:

22 - Suriname
11 - Nicaragua
9 - Maldives

Worst movers:

-5 - Afghanistan and Bangladesh
-3 - Burkina Faso, Canada, Georgia, Tajikistan, Luxembourg, Cuba


January 2017 rank - Team - January 2017 points - +/- Ranking - +/- Points


1 Argentina 1634 0 0
2 Brazil 1544 0 0
3 Germany 1433 0 0
4 Chile 1404 0 0
5 Belgium 1368 0 0
6 Colombia 1345 0 0
7 France 1305 0 0
8 Portugal 1229 0 0
9 Uruguay 1187 0 0
10 Spain 1166 0 0
11 Switzerland 1129 0 0
12 Wales 1121 0 0
13 England 1114 0 0
14 Croatia 1103 0 0
15 Poland 1087 0 0
16 Italy 1083 0 0
17 Costa Rica 1041 0 0
18 Mexico 1012 0 0
19 Peru 965 0 0
20 Ecuador 890 0 0
21 Iceland 889 0 0
22 Netherlands 887 0 0
23 Republic of Ireland 858 0 0
24 Turkey 851 0 0
25 Hungary 826 1 0
26 Bosnia and Herzegovina 825 1 0
27 USA 822 1 0
28 Iran 816 1 2
29 Slovakia 811 -4 -26
30 Ukraine 804 0 0
31 Austria 773 0 0
32 Northern Ireland 767 0 0
33 Côte d'Ivoire 716 1 -30
34 Tunisia 713 1 -25
35 Senegal 710 -2 -45
36 Korea Republic 699 1 0
37 Romania 690 2 0
38 Egypt 688 -2 -31
39 Paraguay 684 1 0
40 Greece 674 2 0
41 Czech Republic 671 2 0
42 Algeria 653 -4 -39
43 Sweden 652 -2 -23
44 Australia 649 3 8
45 Serbia 647 -1 0
46 Japan 644 -1 0
47 Denmark 643 -1 0
48 Saudi Arabia 641 6 36
49 Congo DR 630 -1 -8
50 Nigeria 619 1 3
51 Albania 618 -2 0
52 Slovenia 616 -1 0
53 Ghana 610 0 -1
54 Israel 595 1 0
55 Russia 592 1 0
56 Morocco 587 1 0
57 Panama 582 1 -2
58 Venezuela 581 1 0
59 South Africa 572 1 3
60 Burkina Faso 571 -10 -46
61 Uzbekistan 568 1 5
62 Cameroon 552 3 18
63 Montenegro 549 0 0
64 Mali 544 -4 -25
64 United Arab Emirates 544 0 2
66 Benin 531 0 0
67 Scotland 524 0 0
68 Guinea-Bissau 515 0 0
69 Guinea 507 0 0
70 Congo 504 0 0
71 Bulgaria 492 0 0
72 Belarus 470 2 0
73 Curaçao 467 2 0
73 Honduras 467 2 0
75 Jamaica 463 2 0
76 Uganda 462 -4 -28
77 Guatemala 451 2 1
78 Cape Verde Islands 449 2 6
79 St. Kitts and Nevis 443 1 0
80 China PR 424 2 -3
81 Faroe Islands 422 2 0
82 Trinidad and Tobago 421 -4 -30
83 Norway 418 0 -4
84 Qatar 416 3 5
85 Haiti 413 -12 -76
86 Armenia 412 0 0
87 Zambia 401 1 0
88 Kenya 396 1 1
89 Libya 390 -4 -27
90 Azerbaijan 386 0 0
90 Togo 386 1 1
92 Antigua and Barbuda 370 1 0
93 Finland 368 1 0
93 Rwanda 368 -1 -5
95 Bolivia 359 0 0
96 Sierra Leone 355 0 0
96 Syria 355 0 0
98 Kazakhstan 354 0 0
99 Swaziland 348 1 5
100 Namibia 345 -1 -2
101 Liberia 338 0 0
102 Zimbabwe 334 0 0
103 Malawi 332 0 2
104 Central African Republic 325 0 0
105 Lithuania 324 0 0
106 Mozambique 322 1 3
107 Jordan 318 -2 -6
108 Gabon 313 2 5
109 New Zealand 311 0 0
110 Latvia 304 1 0
111 Nicaragua 299 13 37
112 Ethiopia 297 0 1
113 Botswana 296 -1 0
113 Mauritania 296 -5 -21
115 Equatorial Guinea 293 -1 0
116 Cyprus 290 -1 0
117 Estonia 289 -1 4
118 Oman 287 3 15
119 Iraq 283 0 5
120 Canada 282 -3 0
121 Georgia 281 -3 0
122 Philippines 273 -2 0
123 Bahrain 268 0 4
124 Kyrgyzstan 265 -2 0
125 Korea DPR 263 0 6
126 Thailand 251 0 -3
127 Niger 248 0 2
128 Suriname 245 22 62
129 India 243 6 26
130 Dominican Republic 242 -2 0
131 Palestine 233 0 4
132 Tajikistan 231 -3 0
133 Luxembourg 230 -3 0
134 Guyana 221 -2 0
135 Madagascar 220 -2 0
136 Vietnam 218 -2 0
137 Sudan 217 -2 0
138 El Salvador 216 -1 0
139 Burundi 213 -1 0
140 Hong Kong 210 -1 0
141 Comoros 205 -1 0
142 Lesotho 202 -1 0
143 Turkmenistan 200 -1 0
144 Angola 199 -1 0
145 Maldives 194 9 20
145 Puerto Rico 194 -1 0
147 Mauritius 191 -2 0
148 Lebanon 189 -1 3
149 Tahiti 184 -1 0
149 Yemen 184 -1 0
151 Afghanistan 179 -5 -10
151 Chad 179 1 0
153 São Tomé e Príncipe 177 0 0
154 Cuba 175 -3 -5
155 Barbados 163 0 0
156 Tanzania 155 0 1
157 Chinese Taipei 153 0 0
158 Grenada 150 0 0
159 Myanmar 148 0 0
160 Aruba 147 0 0
161 Malaysia 143 0 0
162 FYR Macedonia 142 0 0
163 Belize 141 0 0
164 Moldova 138 0 0
165 Singapore 136 0 1
166 Kosovo 135 -1 0
167 Laos 134 0 0
168 Kuwait 123 3 3
168 New Caledonia 123 0 0
168 South Sudan 123 0 0
171 Papua New Guinea 122 -1 0
172 Cambodia 121 1 3
173 Indonesia 120 -2 0
174 Dominica 113 0 0
175 Nepal 112 6 16
176 Bhutan 110 1 7
177 Gambia 106 -2 0
177 Vanuatu 106 -2 0
179 St. Lucia 103 -2 0
180 Fiji 102 -1 0
180 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 102 -1 0
182 Guam 89 0 0
183 Malta 85 0 0
184 Macau 82 0 0
185 Seychelles 78 1 0
186 Bermuda 77 1 0
187 Solomon Islands 76 0 0
188 Liechtenstein 75 1 0
189 Brunei Darussalam 74 1 0
190 Bangladesh 69 -5 -12
191 American Samoa 64 0 0
191 Cook Islands 64 0 0
191 Samoa 64 0 0
191 Timor-Leste 64 0 0
195 US Virgin Islands 44 0 0
196 Sri Lanka 43 -1 -1
197 Pakistan 40 0 0
198 Mongolia 38 0 0
199 Montserrat 30 0 0
200 Cayman Islands 21 0 0
201 Turks and Caicos Islands 20 0 0
202 San Marino 17 0 0
203 Andorra 12 0 0
204 British Virgin Islands 11 0 0
205 Anguilla 0 0 0
205 Bahamas 0 0 0
205 Djibouti 0 0 0
205 Eritrea 0 0 0
205 Gibraltar 0 0 0
205 Somalia 0 0 0
205 Tonga 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.

By on
Labels: , ,

40 comments:

  1. AnonymousJanuary 7, 2017 at 12:32 AM

    I was reading that Infantino has told UEFA that Europe will only have 16 teams in the 2026 World Cup which means that the bulk of new spots will go to Asia and Africa. I crunched the numbers a little bit, used this ranking, and - predicting the U.S. as host - I come up with these groups (assuming all "best" teams qualify):

    A - United States, Hungary, Japan
    B - Argentina, Turkey, Saudi Arabia
    C - Brazil, Ireland, Congo DPR
    D - Germany, Australia, Nigeria
    E - Chile, Netherlands, Ghana
    F - Belgium, Algeria, Panama
    G - Colombia, Iceland, Morocco
    H - France, Egypt, Uzbekistan
    I - Portugal, South Korea, South Africa
    J - Uruguay, Italy, United Arab Emirates
    K - Spain, Cote d'Ivoire, Curacao
    L - Switzerland, Iran, Honduras
    M - Wales, Ecuador, China
    N - England, Peru, New Zealand
    O - Croatia, Mexico, Tahiti
    P - Poland, Costa Rica, winner Burkina Faso vs Jamaica

    Just my two cents: I hope UEFA realizes it is time to leave FIFA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2017 at 3:20 AM

      Yes, 1 Euro team in each group makes sense if FIFA are giving UEFA 16 spots. I'm not sure they would be generous enough to give Oceania 2 spots though, and nor should they. One would be enough, maybe 1.5 at a push.
      This would be a fair allocation in my opinion: Hosts = 1, UEFA = 16, Africa = 9, Asia = 8, Oceania = 1, Concacaf = 6, Conmebol = 6, Americas play-off = 1.
      Mind you, the 16x3 groups is an awful format, with too much opportunity for collusion, and one team having a huge rest advantage before the final match in each group.
      Plus, how do they resolve a tight group where each game finishes 1-1, for example? Even if they have penalties after a drawn game, one team could win a shoot-out each which still leaves everyone level.

      Delete
    2. UnknownJanuary 8, 2017 at 7:26 AM

      I think 12 groups x 4 teams is more likely to happen. And then 12 winners + 12 runners-up + 8 best 3rd-place go through next round. This can make a fantastic WC like 2016 Euro

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2017 at 7:30 PM

      The number of teams goes from 32 to 48 which means a 50% increase. I increased the teams by 50% for each confederation (except UEFA which is robbed of 4.5 teams), rounded up to get to a whole number (or half), and I was left with four more spots which I assigned to the minor confederations (all except Europa and South America). I get:

      UEFA - 16 teams
      Africa - 8.5 teams
      Asia - 8 teams
      S. America - 7 teams
      CONCACAF - 5.5 teams + host
      Oceania - 2 teams

      In other words, UEFA gets less spots than Africa and Asia combined, and all qualifications (except UEFA) are an absolute joke (70% of Conmebol teams go through).

      The two teams to Oceania are not a stretch if one considers what's happening in the under 20 World Cup. In 2015 FIFA gave two spots to Oceania (host New Zealand plus Fiji). Needless to say the OFC teams didn't do very well: NZ lost to the US 4-0 and Fiji lost 3-0 to Uzbekistan and 8-1 to Germany. And what did FIFA do for 2017? It took a spot from UEFA and gave it to Oceania. So in May we'll get to see the usual New Zealand and powerhouse Vanuatu (I'm looking forward a classic Vanuatu v Vietnam).

      The three teams per group is an absolutely awful idea - in particular if they go to penalty kicks for every game to settle ties. Personally I'm in favor of eight groups of six but with each team playing three games only:

      1. Rank all teams and divide them in six pots (A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2)
      2. Draw groups
      3. The two A teams, the two B teams, the two C teams play each other
      4. Each A team plays one B and one C team, and each B team plays one C team
      5. Top two teams advance to second round

      This system guarantees three games per team and only adds 8 games to the current Infantino's proposal.

      Of course, I'm still in favor of UEFA pulling out of FIFA after the 2018 WC. This ridiculous chase to votes from Africa, Asia, Concacaf, and Oceania needs to stop.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2017 at 7:30 PM

      That's an even worse format, and way too long. And Euro 2016 was rubbish anyway. They should switch back to 16 teams. The 2008 & 2012 editions were excellent.

      Delete
    5. UnknownJanuary 11, 2017 at 5:22 AM

      Group P wouldn't be allowed if Jamaica qualified but yeah the quality of the groups greatly changes - i know it wouldn't happen but imagine all 16 groups won by the European side!

      Delete
    6. andresf1984January 14, 2017 at 1:33 AM

      Uefa approved the changes - I have more faith in the ECA deciding it is the moment to stop allowing their players to participate in international football.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousJanuary 9, 2017 at 12:55 AM

    I just read that Infantino has approached the presidents of CONMEBOL and CONCACAF with the proposal of a combined qualification process for the Americas. CONMEBOL and CONCACAF have said they will accept if they receive more spots. So it is possible that all South American teams will qualify for the 2026 World Cup .........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. andresf1984January 14, 2017 at 1:31 AM

      Don't necessarily. Costa Rica, Mexico and the US can perfectly take three of the 12-13 spots, and Peru, Bolivia and Venezuela be left out.

      PS. This new format is a joke.

      Delete
  3. VitaliiJanuary 9, 2017 at 10:03 AM

    There should be no continental quota anymore.Qualification must be world-wide and 48 best qualifiers in the word proceed to Word Cup (or maybe let say 4 best nations per each last continental Championship except Oceania quialifies to World Cup automatically and all the rest nayions take part in world-wide qualification). But of course current FIFA ranking system cannot be used as a base of seeding for qualification, it must be more fair ranking system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. VitaliiJanuary 9, 2017 at 8:15 PM

    Non-mentioned above (and still not if Fifa.com roster) friendly Morocco vs Finland (0:1) has been played today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VitaliiJanuary 9, 2017 at 8:31 PM

      Oh, deadline for January ranking was yesterday, that's why...

      Delete
    2. VitaliiJanuary 12, 2017 at 1:53 PM

      Anyway seems not to be A match. No impact on rankings according to Fifa.com prognosis tool

      Delete
  5. EdJanuary 10, 2017 at 12:38 PM

    FIFA decided today on a new format for the World Cup starting in 2026: 16 groups of three teams with top two progressing to a 32-team knock-out stage.

    Terrible format: big chance of contrived matches on the third group-matchday. The team not playing on that day is f*cked up good.
    Heavy dilution of football-quality to be expected, a lot of groupmatches will be started with a draw in mind.

    Infantino's argument was to make the World Cup 'more inclusive'. I always thought that was what the complete qualifying competition was for. And that the finals were supposed to be an elite-tournament.
    Turns out, surprise, surprise, it's all about the money in FIFA-council and creating more votes for their own prolonged membership of that forum. Once again: sickening !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJanuary 10, 2017 at 4:55 PM

      This is a black day for football.

      The expansion favors greatly Africa, Asia, and Concacaf which means re-election for Infantino and his cronies.

      Very important: Italian media outlets report that UEFA has demanded that the FIFA Rankings be changed:
      1. change in the way the rankings are calculated
      2. three-month format
      3. no friendlies included in the calculations

      Delete
    2. UnknownJanuary 11, 2017 at 5:19 AM

      People talk about the 3rd match possibly involving collusion and penalties could be used - but surely the best way is to have the top seed play the first 2 games - they are more likely to gain enough points to qualify leaving the final game between the lower sides as a sort of ko match. Plus the top seed gets extra rest for the ko phase.

      Delete
    3. EdJanuary 11, 2017 at 9:04 AM

      Yeah, but if in that case the top seed doesn't quite perform conform expectations, the other two always have the chance to arrange a, for them, positive outcome of the last groupmatch.
      This format always leaves room for such circumstances and that is just not fair. This system is flawed beyond repair and shouldn't be used by FIFA at all.

      Delete
    4. EdJanuary 11, 2017 at 9:27 AM

      And I would like to add: It seemed FIFA had learned from the 1982 West-Germany - Austria disgrace at the WC in Spain by always installing groups of 4 teams with the last group matches always played at the same time.
      This would be a major step back and would prove that FIFA is at least not concerned with the fairness of the game...

      Delete
    5. nogometJanuary 11, 2017 at 10:41 AM

      I think a better way would be to give the best 8 group winners a direct passage to last 16 and let the worst 8 group winners and best 8 runners-up play an elimination round for a place in last 16. That way there would be very little room for 1982 Germany - Austria scenario.

      Delete
    6. EdJanuary 11, 2017 at 11:56 AM

      The problem I have with the determination of 'best' runners-up or winners over a number of groups is that the result depends heavily on the composition of each group.
      In a group with a real minnow the winner or runner-up of the group probably has an advantage regarding their points and especailly their goal difference in comparison to winners or runners-up of other, more balanced groups. The luck of the groupstage draw will then play an extra big role in which teams eventually advance to the knock-out stages.
      So ideally I would like to avoid such constructions.

      In this specific case you are probably right. It will be the preferable option of two evils.

      Delete
    7. UnknownJanuary 11, 2017 at 5:59 PM

      I can understand your concern Ed but if the top seed do underperform then it could be that the final match wont matter as both would advance. I agree a group of 3 isnt good but since its what we have, putting the best side in the first 2 matches reduces a risk. Plus I don't want penalties in group games.

      Delete
    8. DennisJanuary 11, 2017 at 7:06 PM

      One thing that could help with collusion in the last group match is if you gave teams a reward for winning the group as opposed to finishing second. Maybe in the second round if the match was still tied after 120 minutes there would be no penalties, the group winner would win the match. This wouldn't eliminate all collusion but it would incentivize teams to try and win the group. I realize it also just helps teams that get drawn with a very easy group, but it seems like the lesser of two evils.

      Delete
  6. VitaliiJanuary 12, 2017 at 10:34 AM

    Fifa rank today's update:
    Slovakia 837
    Uganda 476
    Seems that friendly between them has not been taken into account

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2017 at 10:44 AM

    Both Slovakia matches (v Uganda and Sweden) are not A matches.

    Also, Ivory Coast-Uganda on 11 Jan is not an A match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nogometJanuary 12, 2017 at 11:13 AM

      That's just bollocks. Croatia played against Chile yesterday with their D-team (not even the strongest team of domestic league players) and it's been considered as an A match. FIFA ranking once again in its full glory.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousJanuary 13, 2017 at 6:58 PM

    Two possible ways the European qualifiers could run for 2026:

    A. Groups of 5 or 6 teams (like now) - group winners and best two second placers qualify; other second placers to play-off

    1. Germany, Austria, Northern Ireland, Finland, Kazakhstan, Gibraltar
    2. Belgium, Ukraine, Romania, Azerbaijan, Lithuania
    3. France, Slovakia, Greece, Armenia, Latvia, Andorra
    4. Portugal, Bosnia, Czech Republic, Norway, Cyprus
    5. Spain, Hungary, Sweden, Faeroe Islands, Estonia, San Marino
    6. Switzerland, Turkey, Serbia, Belarus, Goergia
    7. Wales, Ireland, Denmark, Bulgaria, Luxembourg
    8. England, Netherlands, Albania, Scotland, Macedonia, Liechtenstein
    9. Croatia, Iceland, Slovenia, Montenegro, Moldova
    10. Poland, Italy, Israel, Russia, Kosovo, Malta

    B. Groups of 6 or 7 teams - top two from each group qualify:

    1. Germany, Hungary, Bosnia, Montenegro, Scotland, Macedonia, Moldova
    2. Belgium, Turkey, Slovakia, Russia, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Kosovo
    3. France, Ireland, Ukraine, Israel, Belarus, Georgia, Malta
    4. Portugal, Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia, Faeroe Islands, Estonia, Liechtenstein
    5. Spain, Iceland, Northern Ireland, Albania, Norway, Cyprus, San Marino
    6. Switzerland, Italy, Romania, Denmark, Armenia, Latvia, Andorra
    7. Wales, Poland, Greece, Serbia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania
    8. England, Croatia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland, Kazakhstan, Gibraltar

    In my opinion:
    - second format is much more straightforward but requires four more rounds (two come from play-off which are not necessary)
    - qualifying in European remains very difficult
    - second tier European teams don't have a much easier path to qualification

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownJanuary 14, 2017 at 12:24 AM

      Its more straightforward but I don't think they want that many qualifiers plus they like playoffs. I think option 1 is likely.

      In either case England are screwed in those groups ;)

      Delete
  9. VitaliiJanuary 27, 2017 at 4:21 PM

    No February preview today?
    Egypt is in top-30 and Senegal, Tunisia, Congo DR, as well as other Africa Cup of Nations qurterfinalists may enter it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VitaliiJanuary 29, 2017 at 7:18 PM

      3 of 4 mentioned above are out. Will Egypt be the fourth?

      Delete
  10. VitaliiJanuary 29, 2017 at 6:01 PM

    Senegal missed the chance to enter top-30 and will lose position #1 among CAF nations. Tunisia as well. If Egypt proceeds to semifinal it probably will have the highest rank in Africa. Even if the winner is some other team.

    ReplyDelete
  11. VitaliiJanuary 29, 2017 at 10:03 PM

    Egypt won and reached #20 in the rankings at the moment over Netheralnds and Equador. I wonder if the draw AET and defeating by penalties in semifinal will be enough for them to keep this spot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdJanuary 30, 2017 at 9:29 AM

      A pso-loss against Burkina Faso will keep Egypt at 926 points at spot 20. A straight loss in the semi-final however will drop them to 878 points at spot 23.

      Delete
    2. VitaliiJanuary 30, 2017 at 5:39 PM

      895 (but still 20-th) and 868 according to fifa.com prediction tool

      Delete
  12. EdJanuary 30, 2017 at 6:35 PM

    FIFA's prognosis tool is no good, because you can't insert the PSO result in case of a draw (it is a knock-out match after all). A PSO-win doubles the matchpoints compared to the matchpoints gained with a draw.

    My 926 is in case of a PSO-loss (and subsequent a 3rd place play-off win against Cameroon). Also my 878 is in case of a straight loss, followed by a win against Cameroon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VitaliiJanuary 31, 2017 at 5:37 PM

      You are right, I haven't kept in mind 3rd place play-off

      Delete
  13. Egyptian FanJanuary 31, 2017 at 8:06 PM

    Ed , May you please tell us the based on each of those assumptions how many points will Egypt be and what possible ranking in february?

    1-Straight win again Burkina and Straight win against Ghana
    2-Straight win again Burkina and Straight win against Cameroon


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EdJanuary 31, 2017 at 9:20 PM

      win BFA and win GHA: 980 points on spot 18
      win BFA and win CMR: 976 points on spot 18
      win BFA and pso-win GHA: 955 points on spot 19
      win BFA and pso-win CMR: 953 points on spot 19

      pso-win BFA and win GHA: 955 points on spot 19
      pso-win BFA and win CMR: 951 points on spot 19
      pso-win BFA and pso-win GHA: 930 points on spot 20
      pso-win BFA and pso-win CMR: 928 points on spot 20

      Egypt will be CAF-nr 1 in the February ranking no matter what may happen the coming days. Good luck !

      Delete
    2. Egyptian FanFebruary 2, 2017 at 7:14 AM

      Thanks Ed.
      May you please tell us those 4 possibilties in points and ranking for Egypt after the CAN final after the PSO win on BFA.

      Straight Loss against (ghana or Cameroon)
      PSO Loss against (ghana or Cameroon)

      Delete
    3. EdFebruary 2, 2017 at 6:51 PM

      win GHA: 955 points on spot 19
      pso-win GHA: 930 points on spot 20
      pso-loss GHA: 905 points on spot 20
      loss GHA: 881 points on spot 23

      win CMR: 951 points on spot 19
      pso-win CMR: 928 points on spot 20
      pso-loss CMR: 904 points on spot 20
      loss CMR: 881 points on spot 23

      Delete
  14. Egyptian FanFebruary 2, 2017 at 10:11 PM

    Thanks Ed.
    So it's Egypt vs Cameroon in the final
    Egypt straight win 951 pts 19th ranking
    Egypt PSO win 928 pts 20th ranking
    Egypt PSO loss 904 pts 20 th ranking
    Egypt straight loss 881 pts 23th ranking

    Yallakora plz Refer to this website before Posting ;)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)