1. Save 40-80% on great soccer jerseys. Shop today at BigSoccer Shop!

CONCACAF rankings thread

Discussion in 'CONCACAF' started by JYDA, Sep 15, 2010.

Moderators: IASocFan, Mexiwiso, Popol Vuh
  1. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    The fact that Guatemala is ranked below Suriname and Grenada says it all really. It's not Guatemala that needs to get their act together, it's FIFA with their crap ranking system.

    If it didn't influence things like seeding for future tournaments, nobody would give it a second look.

    Play Guatemala v Suriname over 2 legs next week, and I guarantee that Guatemala will win by at least 3 goals overall. Based on current playing strength, Guatemala is a top 10 team, as is El Salvador.
     


  2. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Again, but they haven't accumulated any points, or won enough matches, to prove it. The rankings aren't there to "predict" who would win a match, just tally up who has gained the most points over a set period of time.

    The Central American teams will all be playing a tournament in January, and teams that play well will move up. Caribbean Cup has just finished, so those teams (particularly those not going to Gold Cup) are at their height right now.

    And for my money, I can't stand all the diving/hacking that Guatemala and El Salvador are famous for. I'd love it if they both missed the GC, though that is probably unrealistic. Give me Costa Rica, Honduras, and Panama over those two any time.
     
  3. slaminsams

    slaminsams Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Yeah only Guatemala and El Salvador dive and hack in CONCACAF everybody else is always clean and honest. We have great refs in CONCACAF that never determine the outcomes of games so if we could just keep out the diving/hackers out then the gold cup would be a great regional tournament.:rolleyes:
     
  4. aguimarães

    aguimarães Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Club:
    LD Alajuelense
    :D

    You should have seen them 15-20 years back. It was a rare match that didn´t end in some kind of melee.
     


  5. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    If they played Anguilla and Montserrat, they would accumulate points - like the Caribbean 'powers' do. The rankings SHOULD be there to show the current playing strengths of teams. That is what rankings are for. If people want to tally up points, this is what league tables are for.

    In a league system, where every team plays all other teams in the league, a mediocre team racing to the top of the league by winning their first 5 games against very poor teams will be found out at the season's end.

    However, in international football, every team cannot play every other team - and this is why rankings are needed, not a league table. A league table generally shows what team is the best at the end of the season, the FIFA rankings don't. They give points to teams just for playing, and give more credit to a team for beating Montserrat 1-0 than if it were to lose 1-0 to Brazil.

    TEAM A 1-0 Montserrat
    TEAM B 0-1 Brazil

    Which team is better? TEAM A? By FIFA's ranking, yes it would be.

    I'm not sure what use any ranking is that would come to the conclusion that TEAM A is better than TEAM B in the above example. It certainly does not adhere to logic or common sense.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Yeah, but strength of opponent IS taken into account in the rankings, the fact that you don't seem to get this doesn't really make you a credible poster on the subject.

    The result you suggest is absurd, unless Team A ONLY beats Montserrat for YEARS, and Team B only loses to Brazil for the same period. Child, please. Team A won't get hardly any points for beating Montserrat, and the idea that you should get points for losing a game is just silly. IF Team B is in Brazil's league, then they'll beat a ton of mid level teams as the years go by, and if Team A is really only better than Montserrat, their results will show it, and the rankings will reflect it. One match isn't going to impact a team's ranking that much.

    The type of rankings you propose would be subjective, these are objective, based on actual results on the pitch. Imagine the whining about FIFA is the rankings where subjective instead of objective. If Guatemala is so good, I suggest they go out and actually, you know, play and beat some teams. To this point, they haven't done it.

    If they play will next month, they'll move up.
     
  7. Cody667

    Cody667 Member+

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Location:
    Sudbury, ON
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    England
    Can I just go out on a limb here and see ask why everyone seems to be so high on Guatemala. I'd just like to point out that they don't really have any stars and that everyone who played for them over the past year is in the Guatemalan league. They have no good players in Europe, or even Mexico, Brazil, or Argentina for that matter.
     
  8. slaminsams

    slaminsams Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Rating Guatemala over Suriname is hardly what anyone would call rating them high. I haven't seen anyone rate them high on this thread. Their star not that you really need one to be better then Suriname is Marco Pappa who doesn't play in Guatemala. Technically they do have Carlos Ruiz in Europe but I think he retired from international football. But I have no doubt Guatemala is better then Suriname who lost to Guyana and A & B in the Caribbean cup. Of course Guatemala could easily stay ranked below Suriname if they end up losing their 2 group games against Honduras and Costa Rica which is possible.
     
  9. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    There are a number of flaws in your argument. One of them is the tone you take. Not necessary and I'd appreciate it if you left it at home next time.

    I am well aware that strength is taken into account - but it's not taken into account in the right way. Caribbean teams can still move up the rankings by beating poor teams like Montserrat.

    The results are meant to be simplistic - so as to highlight the flaw more easily. "Child, please" - get down off your high horse and don't talk to me like that. Certain teams DO only play a certain selection of teams regularly - so Caribbean teams like Suriname, for example, play usually against other Caribbean teams, which are significantly poorer in playing quality than Central American nations (who make up the majority of, say, Guatemala's games). The example isn't so ridiculous. The problem is - if Team B doesn't win any games against mid-level teams, while Team A continues to rack up wins against low-level teams (which Team B does not get the chance to play) - Team A will end up higher in the rankings.

    The idea of gaining points for losing a match is not so silly if you care to explore the logic.

    Imagine this situation (again, intentionally simplified to illustrate the point).

    Brazil plays a 3-match tour of Cuba and comes away with three 1-0 victories.

    Do Brazil deserve to gain points (no matter how few) for winning these games? Do Cuba deserve to lose points? You may think that is logical. But it's not. The fundamental purpose of a monthly updated ranking should be to show the rank of teams in relation to each other - i.e. their current playing strength. Let's say Brazil is expected to beat Cuba 3-0 or 4-0.

    With FIFA's (and many others') rankings system, the difference in ranking points between Brazil and Cuba would increase after these 3 matches - when in actual fact (reality) - the series of matches shows that the difference in rankings points should be decreasing, as Cuba are either getting better or Brazil are getting worse. This should be reflected by Cuba GAINING points for their narrow losses against much higher-ranked opposition and Brazil LOSING points for their poor performance against much lower-ranked opposition.

    This is one main reason why you see San Marino rooted to the bottom of the rankings - they are NOT in the same league as American Samoa. They are at the bottom because they play strong teams (UEFA) and never win. American Samoa play considerably weaker teams and also never win. There is a big difference in quality between the two, but this is not reflected in the ranking. Therefore, it is fundamentally flawed in that the bottom half of it makes no real sense.

    The rankings I propose are a lot better at showing national teams' current strength than FIFA's rankings - no argument. I have been running a national team ranking for years, and I know what I'm talking about. They consistently outperform FIFA's on predicting the outcome of games. And I'd consider my rankings to have far fewer subjective elements than FIFA's rankings. No ranking can be perfect, but it should at least contain a good deal of reality.

    Deciding that a win automatically deserves a gain in points and a defeat deserves a reduction in points or no points at all is in itself highly subjective.

    Your example about Guatemala is, again, sadly flawed. Guatemala wouldn't need to be 'so good' to go out and beat Dominica and suchlike (as Suriname have done to get above Guatemala). How about if Suriname is 'so good' they go out and play Central American nations?

    Let Guatemala play against the same sides that Suriname has played, and I guarantee you that Guatemala will get the wins you think they need to prove their worth. This is what a ranking should be able to show - what people who follow international football all 'know' but cannot show because teams have different schedules. FIFA's ranking is not able to do this, and therefore, as a method of showing the current strength of national teams, fails. Teams are able to manipulate the rankings by playing against teams who are artificially high. For example, if Dominica had a few good results in Caribbean qualifying, they'd shoot up the rankings above teams like Guatemala. Then Guatemala could arrange a friendly match with Dominica (who they know they could thrash) and promptly thrash them and gain points for beating a supposedly higher-ranked team.

    Now, I've presented my argument - I realise you may not agree, but I have no need to resort to condescension to get my point across. I would urge you to re-evaluate your view of what a ranking should do and what FIFA's can do.

    One final example - I realise that friendly matches and competitive matches have different weightings - but Antigua & Barbuda got 752 points for beating Guyana 1-0 12 days after Guatemala got only 301 for beating them 3-0. That is a huge difference and reflects no sort of reality whatsoever. Meanwhile, Grenada gets absolutely nothing for holding Jamaica 1-1 in the Caribbean Cup semi-final, and losing 2-1 in extra-time. Show me the logic in giving Antigua & Barbuda 752 more points for their match and I'll listen to judgments of credibility. Until then, don't judge me.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. slaminsams

    slaminsams Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Thats an interesting way of ranking kind of like college football. Do you have website for your ranking system?
     
  11. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    Well, I believe it's a better way of ranking international teams than the current method. It may also lend itself well to college football.

    My website is http://www.roonba.com

    The system can be adapted to any set of results for any sport - at the moment I've just collected archives of results for 5 sports which were of interest to me, and created rankings for each of these (football, futsal, beach soccer, ice hockey, rugby union), but if anyone else has an archive of results for any other sports (or any other teams), I'd be happy to provide a ranking for that for interest's sake.
     
  12. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location:
    Nassau County, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Country:
    United States
    Thank you for the rankings. You have many more national teams than the FIFA Rankings have. Where do you get game results for Niue, Saint Pierre & Miquelon, Alderney, etc. from? Can you tell me what San Marino, Anguilla, Montserrat, American Samoa, and Papua New Guinea have done to get points in your rankings? Those teams all have 0 points in the FIFA Rankings. Also how many years of results do your rankings use?
     
  13. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    I'll send you a PM - don't want to go off topic in this thread.
     
  14. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Again, I apologize for the tone, you caught me on a bad day. For some, we have a fundamental disagreement. Again, the FIFA rankings aren't there to measure the strength (necessarily) of a team, but just to measure how many points they have accumulated. It is a reflection of past performance, not a predictor of future performance. And it is, for good reason, entirely OBJECTIVE.

    First, as a whole, they do a pretty good job of placing teams, especially within each continental federation, and picking out the best, and worst of the bunch. I'd note how similar they are to your own.

    As for San Marino, it is entirely speculative. If they wanted to move up the rankings, they could just play some other minnow, and beat them. But you are assuming just because they are from UEFA, they are better than some of the other minnows. It may be true (especially in the case of the Oceanic minnows), but is entirely SUBJECTIVE.

    Again, FIFA are in enough trouble with double dealing right now, imagine if seedings were based on subjective criterion like how good a team played in a loss or how poorly they played in a win. Imagine if league tables were decided on your system. Sorry ManU, but your wins and draws were less impressive than Arsenal's, we're giving them the title, even though they have less points.

    Yes, 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss has a subjective element in the decision to award those points for those results (instead of 1 for a win against a "poor" team, and 2 for a loss to a "good" team), but the system itself is entirely objective. Your system is subjective in operation, and in the value judgments made in setting it up, FIFA's is entirely objective in operation. And thus, far easier to defend, which is a necessary part in setting up a system everyone has to agree on. Bluntly, it is fairer for everyone involved, and thus, for it's purpose, superior, because everyone knows how many points will be awarded given a certain outcome.

    Yes, of course there are value judgments (subjective) in any decision, but don't confuse that with the system itself. FIFA's rankings, are, in point of fact, objective, while your system has many more subjective elements in the actual rankings (though I think you make a valid point about matches that end as a draw after 90 minutes, those should be treated as a draw).

    Lastly, you immunize your system from your own criticism. How far do you take it? How about a 3-0 loss where a poor PK decision gave one goal, and the last two goals were late (maybe one offside) and the losing team hit the post three times? Shouldn't that be worth more to the loser, and less to the winners, than a 2-0 win where the team scores early, & takes their foot off the gas, and the loser never threatens? Of course it should. This is what I'm saying, your system, while making some good distinctions, is a VERY slippery slope.
     
  15. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    It is a reflector of past performance - yes. So is my ranking. It is based only on past results.

    FIFA's ranking is not entirely objective - in fact nowhere near it. So it's really not valid to say that it is entirely objective.
    Let me explain:

    1) - 3 points -1 points – 0 points - their allocation of points for win/draw/defeat is entirely subjective. Why should a win be worth 3 times more than a draw?

    My system removes the need to allocate points for the outcome of a match.

    2) - Importance of match - 1 (friendly match) to 4 (FIFA World Cup
    Certain tournaments are treated as friendly matches, when they are anything but. There are regional tournaments in Asia and Africa which are competitive tournaments (CECAFA Cup, Gulf Cup), where teams have something to play for - why aren't they given more importance than friendly matches? And why is a World Cup match worth 4 times more than a friendly match - SUBJECTIVE

    My system is also subjective in this regard - but only distinguishes between 2 match types - friendly and competitive (worth twice as much).

    3) - Strength of opponent
    Position in world ranking (no. 1 = 2.00, no. 30 = 1.70, no. 118 = 0.82 etc.)
    Formula: [200 - Position] /

    This ignores the (important) fact that there may be a huge gap between, say no.30 and no.31. Using positions rather than points is flawed.

    My system uses points rather than positions in the calculations. Points differences between teams are more indicative of relative strength than positional difference.

    4) - Regional strength
    Based on results in last three FIFA World Cups (wins per confederation per match)

    Not a good idea - it doesn't take into account who the wins came against. So, for example, Iran beating New Zealand is worth the same as Iran beating Spain. It doesn't show regional strength - it shows luck of the draw. It also assumes that World Cup Finals matches are the only ones that matter. It takes the results of a select few teams, and assigns the outcome of these matches to all teams from that confederation. So, for example, if New Zealand have a great World Cup, all Oceania teams will benefit - when in actual fact, NZ's performance may be showing nothing more than their own improvement (not Oceania's as a whole).

    My system removes the need for a regional strength factor - which is actually quite artificial. If you're going to make a global ranking, all teams should be treated equally.

    5) - Period
    Last four years, gradual decline in importance of results: 100%- 50% - 30% - 20%

    Completely subjective - from the choice of the number of years (4) to the weighting of the results. What is the logic behind 100/50/30/20?

    My system again removes the need for this arbitrary weighting of results. It does have some subjectivity though - I give more importance to the last 15 matches.

    About San Marino - I am not assuming they are better than the Oceania minnows - I am CERTAIN. American Samoa would not be capable of holding the Netherlands to a 5-0 defeat. There is no argument. That FIFA's ranking fails to show this is a FLAW.

    If FIFA's ranking is just to measure past performance and not the strength of teams - then why don't they just call it a league table? A ranking is for the purpose of measuring the relative strengths of teams. Otherwise, what use is it? If it doesn't measure strength - then it doesn't tell teams how they stand in global terms and it doesn't tell them if they are progressing.

    And about immunising my system - if the result of a match is objective, then so too is the difference in goals between the winning team and the losing team. This is what my system uses as one of the factors for deciding the points outcome for a match. In my opinion, it is important. That FIFA would award the same points for beating Spain 1-0 and beating Spain 8-0 is patently ridiculous. One performance is clearly more deserving of points than the other. There is no need to go down any slippery slope of deciding how badly a team played/how well a team played in defeat. My system goes on the hard facts of the goals difference in the match, just as FIFA's goes on the hard facts of the outcome of the match (win, draw or defeat).
    The same could be said of choosing the outcome of a match - should a lucky 1-0 win be treated as a win? What about a 1-0 defeat where the losing team deserved to win? These considerations are forgotten by FIFA - a win is a win/ a defeat is a defeat. Likewise, in my system, a goal is a goal. There is no difference in that respect.

    So, I have shown how FIFA's system is subjective by analysing their system, and showing that almost every part of it is subjective. I have also shown how my system removes this subjectivity on a few occasions.

    Bluntly, FIFA's is not fairer to everyone involved, and it is not superior. You are quite mistaken in this assertion. I can see you are willing to defend FIFA's system to the hilt, but from a ranking - I would place a bet that most people want something that shows the relative strength of teams. FIFA's rankings do on some occasions get it right - but there are far too many glaring exceptions.

    Antigua & Barbuda is not better than Guatemala.
    American Samoa is not equal to Papua New Guinea
    Taiwan is not better than Lebanon.
    Egypt is NOT ranked 9th in the world - not by any stretch of the imagination.

    I see no point defending any of the above from a footballing point of view, as they are all completely ridiculous. The fact of the matter is - FIFA has a ranking system, they use it, it's reasonably good at predicting some of the top teams - win the World Cup and you'll be top - it's quite simple to calculate. However, it's not particularly good at ranking football teams. It actually suffers (terribly) from its simplicity. There are plenty other ranking systems out there that do a much better job than FIFA's system. Most people are aware of this, but there a select few who for some reason hang on to the belief that FIFA's system actually means something. It only means something because it's FIFA's system, and they can use whatever system they want at the end of the day. If it wasn't for the fact that it decides things like seedings and future groupings for major tournaments, nobody would give it the time of day.
     
  16. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Let's just say we have a fundamental disagreement.

    And you apparently don't understand what the terms objective/subjective mean. And I think you have subjective confused with arbitrary. I let it go last time, but the more you talk, the more obvious it is.

    Just because something is arbitrary, doesn't make it subjective. To wit: 1 point for draw, 3 points for a win, zero for a loss = arbitrary (the decision) but objective in operation. NOT subjective.

    If you win, you get three points. Period. That's objective. If you win and don't get three points, or do sometimes, depending on how you interpret the play of the team, that is a subjective decision (and will also appear to be more arbitrary, as well). Go get a dictionary. Same thing for the strength of tournament. While it may be an arbitrary decision to make WC matches worth 4 times more than a friendly (instead of 2 or 10), is it objective within the system.

    Again, since you seem to have a flawed understanding of the terms we are using, I find it hard to have a meaningful conversation with you.

    Again, you are CERTAIN San Marino is better than teams they've never played or beaten, but your system isn't subjective? And a system where you get a set amount of points for certain outcome isn't objective, but one where you get varying results for the same outcome based on subjective elements is less subjective?

    Again, you are back into "child, please" territory here. And this time I mean it.
     
  17. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    First of all, don't try to be clever. It doesn't suit you. "I let it go last time". God, really, get down off that high horse. You might fall.
    Look up the dictionary yourself and you will see arbitrary as one of the many synonyms of subjective. Most words have more than one nuance or interpretation - in case you haven't noticed.

    In any case - the distinction is not important to the question of "is FIFA's ranking any good?" - your point just unravels your whole argument for defending the ranking - you are saying FIFA's ranking is not based on subjective elements, but instead on arbitrary elements. That makes it all better does it?

    You are avoiding the key points of my argument - and all illustrated with nice little examples. This is the hallmark of a bad debater. Sorry, but I don't think you've convinced anyone here that the FIFA rankings are good.

    And just to make your point look even more sillier than it already does - I could go make some arbitrary decisions to award teams 100 points for a win, 5 for a draw and 3 for a defeat. As long as I am consistent - then my system is all objective and hunky dory and beyond criticism.

    The fact is - there is a decision made about how much the outcome of a match is worth - 3 points, 1 point or zero. My system has a different decision - the difference in goals scored in a match, which ultimately tells you a lot more about the difference in quality between 2 teams.

    Compare the following 2 statements:
    "Brazil beats Fiji".
    "Brazil beats Fiji 10-0"

    Which gives you more information? And therefore which will give you a more realistic output concerning the relative strengths of the teams? If this is subjective, then so be it - it works better. Period. If factoring in home-field advantage is subjective, then so be it. It's been proven through actual results that statistically, it DOES give an advantage to the home team. Any system that refuses to recognise this is lacking. Likewise, it's been proven through results that margin of victory generally tells you something about the relative ranking of teams. If Team A beats Team B 10-0 and then beats Team C 1-0, you can bet your bottom dollar that Team B is worse than Team C. With FIFA's ranking - they would be equal.

    Come on, answer me - all the examples I have given illustrate how poor the ranking system is - so if it is all as objective as you say, why is it so crap? If you cannot see for yourself that the examples I have given show how poor the ranking system is - then you know nothing about football and should not be arguing about the subject. Child, please? I'll give you child, please you cheeky condescending bastard. I don't think you have a leg to stand on - you are defending a system that millions criticise for being so out of touch with reality that it makes even you look like you're talking sense.

    I would be more confident that San Marino are better than American Samoa than equal, as shown on FIFA's ranking. We can never be truly certain. So, apologies - ALMOST certain. The difference is, I CAN do so with a lot more than 50% certainty, and results will back me up. FIFA's ranking does not allow you to do this. In fact, from the current rankings, it would appear that Guam, whose most recent result was a 12-0 defeat to that world powerhouse, Hong Kong (146th-ranked), are 17 points better off than San Marino. The closest UEFA team to Hong Kong in the rankings is Liechtenstein.
    Are you going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Liechtenstein would beat San Marino 12-0? (Helpful hint, San Marino have played Liechtenstein twice in 2003 and 2004, winning one match 1-0 and drawing the other 2-2). And before you say "But FIFA's ranking is not meant to show the relative strengths of teams", I will pour water on your pitiful excuse for a fire by saying "Then what exactly IS it meant to show?" - the majority of people are looking to see how good teams are when they look at a ranking. Perhaps you look at a ranking for other reasons.

    Whatever your views on the subject, we cannot look at the ranking and make any real observations about teams. My ranking allows this to be done, and therefore, in my opinion, is better in this respect. I'm plucking examples at random here, there are hundreds more to choose from. Another quick one - Suriname is ranked ahead of El Salvador -
    lest we forget, in ACTUAL real World Cup qualifying matches just 2 years ago, El Salvador beat Suriname home and away (3-0 and 2-0). Since then Suriname's only wins have been against Netherlands Antilles, Saint Lucia and Dominica. El Salvador, meanwhile, have beaten Costa Rica twice, and all their defeats have come against powerful CONCACAF teams such as Mexico, USA, Honduras. Suriname, meanwhile, has lost to Guyana (twice) and Antigua & Barbuda.

    "Oh but Suriname's wins have been more recent" - this will be your objective response. But El Salvador is better than Suriname, and they have shown it on the pitch, which is what matters. Don't you get it? Suriname's wins have all been against lowly-ranked teams. Your previous argument that teams like El Salvador could just arrange matches with these lowly-ranked teams if they were 'so good' is futile. Teams generally arrange friendly matches with opponents who are at a similar level to them (in reality, not in FIFA's ranking). So El Salvador is not likely to arrange a match with Dominica any time soon.

    So, instead of me being forced to defend what I am saying - you go on and show me how good the ranking is with examples, please. I've given you plenty, you've given me none. Unless you can do so, shut up. You're a shining example of one of those annoying people that just argues for the sake of it. Get a grip.

    [HINT - Forget your pedantic urge to correct my English and concentrate on the above, please - this is the crux of the argument

    I'm highlighting a very real concern shared by many people that FIFA's rankings are not all that good - I'm providing examples as to why people may feel this way.

    You are arguing by saying nothing more than FIFA's ranking is objective. If objectivity makes Egypt the 9th best team in the world, and you are defending this system as the best way to rank teams - then you have serious issues with your brain that you should probably get fixed pronto.

    "Let's just say we have a fundamental disagreement" = "I can't answer your points without sounding like an idiot". If I'm banned for this rant, so be it. It felt good and strangely necessary. I'd like to think I only said what other people were thinking. The reason you find it hard to have a meaningful conversation with me is not because I do not understand the difference between subjectivity and arbitrariness, it's because your responses are largely devoid of meaning.

    Again, I will drive home the point of this argument so you might actually respond to it - if you cannot show to me that Guam is better than San Marino, or that Antigua & Barbuda is better than Guatemala - then don't try to defend the ranking.
     
  18. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    If you can actually stick to the point - and justify why, for example, American Samoa deserve to be ranked equally to San Marino, then it might be a worthwhile response.

    QUESTION
    American Samoa takes part in Euro 2012 qualifying - can you sit and believe that they would outperform San Marino? (by outperform, I mean lose the games by a smaller margin).

    If you answered yes to this question - what are you smoking?

    If you answered no, then we are in agreement, and there is no need to discuss further.

    (Please PM me your response if you have any, as this argument does not really belong on this thread)
     
  19. Cody667

    Cody667 Member+

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Location:
    Sudbury, ON
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    England
    American Samoa for Brazil 2014!
     
  20. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    I'd love to be wrong just to see that happen.
     
  21. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Well, for anyone who cares, new FIFA rankings are out for January. Not much change anywhere. No movement of more than 1 spot in the top 50, and no movement beyond +/- 3 in CONCACAF.

    Should be some movement next month, a our Central American Cup matches are factored in, along with Asian Cup.

    In terms of individual movers: Up: Honduras +3 (to 56), Antigua & Barbuda +3 (to 103), Bermuda +3 (to 172), T&T +2 (to 87), Puerto Rico +2 (to 131). Down: Panama -3 (to 67), Guyana -2 (to 111), St. Vincent & the Grenadines -2 (to 144).

    Not much of a change in terms of where our teams stand. In terms of groups of 50 or 25, there was no movement, save for Netherland's Antilles moving up 1 spot to 150. We still have 2 teams in the top 50 (USA top 25, Mexico just outside), 5 more in the top 75, and 4 more from 76-100. Six from 101-125, and now there are 5 from 126-150 with NA moving up. Everything else is the same.

    Anyway, here are the FIFA standings within CONCACAF, with lines for the WCQ Pots coming in May.

    FIFA, Zonal, Team, PTS, +/- Rank, +/- Points
    18 1 USA, 867, 0, 0
    27 2 Mexico, 795, 0, 0
    56 3 Honduras, 531, +3, +15
    59 4 Jamaica, 522, -1, 0
    62 5 Cuba, 512, 0, 0
    67 6 Panama, 475, -3, -26
    69 7 Costa Rica, 467, 0, 0
    84 8 Canada, 411, 0, 0
    ---------------------------------------------
    87 9 Trinidad and Tobago, 373, +2, 0
    90 10 Haiti, 358, 0, -9
    94 11 Grenada, 349, 0, 0
    103 12 Antigua and Barbuda, 299, +3, 0
    111 13 Guyana, 275, -2, 0
    115 14 Suriname, 257, 0, 0
    116 15 El Salvador, 251, +1, 0
    117 16 Guatemala, 247, +1, 0
    ------------------------------------------------
    121 17 St. Kitts and Nevis, 242, 0, +3
    129 18 Dominica, 196, 0, 0
    130 19 Barbados, 187, +1, 0
    131 20 Puerto Rico, 184, +2, 0
    144 21 St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 132, -2, 0
    150 22 Netherlands Antilles, 107, +1, 0
    156 23 Cayman Islands, 88, +1, 0
    157 24 Nicaragua, 86, +1, 0
    --------------------------------------------------
    167 25 Dominican Republic, 66, +1, 0
    172 26 Bermuda, 55, +3, +6
    173 27 Belize, 54, -1, 0
    177 28 British Virgin Islands, 41, -1, 0
    181 29 St. Lucia, 37, 0, 0
    --------------------------------------------------
    186 30 Turks and Caicos Islands, 19, +1, 0
    194 31 Bahamas, 13, 0, 0
    199 32 Aruba, 7, 0, 0
    200 33 US Virgin Islands, 5, 0, 0
    203 34 Anguilla, 0, 0, 0
    203 35 Montserrat, 0, 0, 0

    Pot 1: USA, Mexico, Honduras, Jamaica, Cuba, Panama, Costa Rica, Canada
    Pot 2: T&T, Haiti, Grenada, Ant & Barbuda, Guyana, Suriname, El Salvador, Guatemala
    Pot 3: St. Kitts & Nevis, Dominica, Barbados, Puerto Rico, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Nethrlands Antilles, Cayman Islands, Nicaragua
    Pot 4: Dominican Republic, Bermuda, Belize, British VI, St. Lucia
    QR1: Turks & Caicos Islands, Bahamas, Aruba, US VI, Anguilla, Montserrat
     
  22. TBR

    TBR Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Location:
    DMV
    Club:
    CD Aguila
    Country:
    El Salvador
    ES can make up for a bad year with this upcoming tournament as far as ranking go...we must do well!
     
  23. mcdwg76

    mcdwg76 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Location:
    OKinawa, Japan
    Club:
    Alianza FC
    Country:
    El Salvador
    Grenada, Ant & Barbuda, Guyana, Suriname rank better than El Salvador and Guatemala? Ridiculous, and didn't El Salvador beat Haiti 5-0 last time and they are better ranked? Well it's FIFA ranking, expected I guess.
     
  24. trekky76

    trekky76 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Location:
    Stockholm
    Considering El Salvador lost 7 matches in a row..what the heck did you expect??
    People expect FIFA to put certain teams above others just because they might have beaten those teams in an eventual head-to-head. But if they don't play each other or lose, then it's down to simple maths.
    And El Salvador drew 0-0 last time they played Haiti.
     
  25. mcdwg76

    mcdwg76 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Location:
    OKinawa, Japan
    Club:
    Alianza FC
    Country:
    El Salvador
    Still the fact remains El Salvador and Guatemala are better than those teams, maybe they'll be in a group just like the one above for the WCQ, at least the average goals per game will be nice.
     
Moderators: IASocFan, Mexiwiso, Popol Vuh

Share This Page