How are the FIFA rankings allocated?

darkman2

......because in the latest farce ROI beat Columbia and go down to 42nd whilst NI, a team which has not played a game last month and lost to Bulgaria has gone up to 32nd.....there is something fundamentally wrong with this.


Take England for example - they are back in the top 10 despite not qualifying for Euro 2008 after beating those titans of world football the USA and T&T. What a joke.

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html

DSB

Well its relative to the sides around them I guess?

Helix

its based on your last 5 years results innit?

so obviously this month 5 years ago, norn iron did better than we did, wheras last month 5 years ago we did great (but then lost the points from that month as it disappeared into the past)

darkman2

Helix wrote: »

its based on your last 5 years results innit?

No, its done on a simple monthly basis I think. Hence why most teams who dont play dont gain or lose points.

Helix

sorry, i looked it up

its over 4 years, not 5

estebancambias

But then how did Greece shoot up the rankings when they won Euro 2004?

CHD

estebancambias wrote: »

But then how did Greece shoot up the rankings when they won Euro 2004?

because they WON it

Helix

theres higher weightings lent to winning tournaments, so if you win one youll shoot up a good bit due to getting a load of points for the win, as well as the competitive games won on the way to winning it

take san marino for example, theyve been rubbish for all their history. if they start winning every game theyll still be stuck down low for ages, until they reach 2 or 3 years into the cycle whereby theres only 1 or 2 rubbish years full of defeats being counted in scores. so theyll start to shoot up then, as with each passing month theyre wiping off points lost due to being rubbish, and replacing them with points won for being good, resulting in a positive swing of at least double the points they had lost as each bad month gets scrubbed off the record

Vokes

Its not just about results. Marks are also awarded according to the strength of the opponent you are playing and the strength of your opponent's Confederation.

Bulgaria > Colombia (according to the rankings) and presumably, UEFA > CONMEBOL.

DerekD Goldfish

Number 73

CHD

This system is alot better imo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings

leninbenjamin

chdpoker wrote: »

This system is alot better imo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings

definitely. FIFAs system is utterly daft.

Helix

i prefer the unofficial world champions system lol

ArmaniJeanss

leninbenjamin wrote: »

definitely. FIFAs system is utterly daft.

Doesn't seem to be that much differences between the FIFA rankings and the ELO rankings (in the top 20 anyway) that you could label either as 'daft'.
Biggest difference I can spot is Greece being 6 places higher in FIFA, and I think FIFAs ranking is more accurate here.

Helix

it should only be over a 2 year period anyway imo

thats the length of a qualifying campaign and a tournament which is as good a timeframe to judge an international team as any