Brasileiro: our Brazilian scout

[GeoTav]

But still it's not a proper representation of the teams performing better during a period and the England example is perfect to show that. Nor can Holland be considered 8th if the current run is anything to go by.

Ballon D'Or is another trophy which I hold with little esteem, often feeling like a popularity contest more than anything. Again, the fact that we've got shouts for Casillas to win it shows this and is nothing short of a joke as he's not even the best performing keeper around at the moment.

Well, England won 2 games in this Euro and drawed twice ... Not that bad for a bad team !!
Then, it's logical that Netherlands don't become 16th or more, they had a lot of points as they were one of the best teams, and after one bad Euro, you can't make them lose 10 places or more, they lost 3 games, but they just lost 3 games. 3 games doesn't make you become the worst team, nor the best team. I think it's some kind of logics.

Anyway, I didn't take a look at the rules used to make the ranking so I won't comment more.

[ACM2023]

I agree with Dev that Ballon d'Or is certainly a popularity contest these days. I was happy (as a Milan fan who hates Merda) that Sneijder didn't win the 2010 version, but it was so unbelievably unfair that he wasn't even in the top 3 for that year.

[ZvonimirBoban]

But still it's not a proper representation of the teams performing better during a period and the England example is perfect to show that. Nor can Holland be considered 8th if the current run is anything to go by.

Ballon D'Or is another trophy which I hold with little esteem, often feeling like a popularity contest more than anything. Again, the fact that we've got shouts for Casillas to win it shows this and is nothing short of a joke as he's not even the best performing keeper around at the moment.

The rank is not only counting this year or the year before; it is an accumulation of several years. Holland won everything in qualifications of World Cup and Euro, they also won everything at World Cup except the final match. Had it not because of their bad Euro, they would've been higher.

[Snapster]

But still it's not a proper representation of the teams performing better during a period and the England example is perfect to show that. Nor can Holland be considered 8th if the current run is anything to go by.

That would depend on what you would define as a proper representation. From the sounds of it you want a ranking which is the best team at this exact moment in time, which at best would be highly subjective and would fluctuate rapidly.

How do you define who is best? One might define Holland and Ireland as equal 15th best team in Europe right now given their 0 point showing in Euro 2012. I think most sensible people would say that they are allot better than 15th and their current run of form is just temporary. If you think about qualifying? 9 wins 1 loss is a pretty solid display, and with their last WC Final runner up. I think the slow decline in the rankings is a fair result, rather than dropping 20 places after an unexpected 3 game collapse.

England in their last two tournament qualifying games have an usually strong record (played 17, won 14, drawn 2, lost 1), and did ok for such a bad team in the Euros. Italy in the same period have done slightly better (played 20, won 15, drawn 5, lost 0) and of course Euro runner up, hence their faster rise in the rankings and will shortly usurp England.

Overall I think the Fifa rankings are a good measurement a teams consistency over long period of time; 4 years if I recall. The formula does account for competition importance, current ranking of opponent played and the result of each game. Friendlies have to be counted to a degree otherwise host nations (Spain and Brazil) who don't play tournaments would fall out of rankings due to not playing any ranked matches. I think one thing that could be changed in regard to challenging the frequency of friendlies in order to limit any temporary rise by too many friendly matches, however given that most teams play the same amount the effect is mitigated. Most people wouldn't argue that Italy would currently beat England, and if they had the game and Italy won, the result would mean their places would swap. You have to remember the rankings are there as an overall measure, rather than who would beat who in games that have yet to be played.

[Gabriel426]

I think the FIFA ranking is just an indication of where teams stand over the past few years. It really does not mean much in terms of the current quality of the team. For example, Spain is #1 and Brazil is #11 as of today. It does not mean Spain will destroy Brazil in a match as they are 10 places ahead of Brazil. On top of that, these ranking also fail to address the quality of teams the team played. USA, Mexico, Aus, Japan and S. Korea will always have easier competitions to get points than Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Croatia, and Portugal due to their locations.

As for individual awards, it is a show rather than given it to the those who deserves.

[WCmilan]

FIFA rankings is a collection of points depending on the opponent in which you face. It works like for example like gabriel said how the team stands over the past few years, for example germany must have a quite high ranking because of beating some hard opponents as well as making it far in the past few tournaments, where we, getting eliminated in the 2010 world cup so early really did some damage to our ranking

[ACMILAN1983]

To all who have put forward good arguments about the rankings (and notably to those who replied to me like Geotav, ZvonimirBoban and especially Snapster), I can see where you're coming from. Realistically, I don't think the FIFA rankings are necessary, or rather they are misleading as they're skewed in the way the represent the best team over a set period of time (I think it's 4 years for FIFA rankings). There are many factors which skew the results, as I previously mentioned friendlies do this as does the quality of opposition (I'm aware of the weighting system, which while correct isn't necessarily effective enough).

The biggest issue I have with it though is it statiscally tries to represent the best or most on form teams in the world, which isn't really possible as football is such an organic sport which is constantly changing where statistics can only represent so much (this is coming from someone who regularly looks at stats for players and teams).

Ultimately, if you use the FIFA rankings as they're intended to be used, as a tool to gauge the performance of teams over the past 4 years in all FIFA recognised matches, then it's fine but pointless, as it factors in data which is ultimately irrelavent and is already out of date when published as in football beyond trophies the past isn't important, but rather the present is, especially given the speed at which the game evolves. There are exceptions, like the Dutch side of the 70s that never won, but these are subjective matters and thus unrelated. The other problem with FIFA rankings is when they're published and the press pick up on them, then they're often used to incorrectly identify the best teams in the world.

[WCmilan]

the last sentence you said was perfect, hate that and ironically enough english press is the most bias towards italy thank god we eliminated them

[ACMILAN1983]

I'm from England, but most of the English press is stupid. It's a shame, because there are some fantastic English/British journalists around who know so much about football, but mostly it's the idiotic drivel that you'll see posted everywhere.

[GeoTav]

To all who have put forward good arguments about the rankings (and notably to those who replied to me like Geotav, ZvonimirBoban and especially Snapster), I can see where you're coming from. Realistically, I don't think the FIFA rankings are necessary, or rather they are misleading as they're skewed in the way the represent the best team over a set period of time (I think it's 4 years for FIFA rankings). There are many factors which skew the results, as I previously mentioned friendlies do this as does the quality of opposition (I'm aware of the weighting system, which while correct isn't necessarily effective enough).

The biggest issue I have with it though is it statiscally tries to represent the best or most on form teams in the world, which isn't really possible as football is such an organic sport which is constantly changing where statistics can only represent so much (this is coming from someone who regularly looks at stats for players and teams).

Ultimately, if you use the FIFA rankings as they're intended to be used, as a tool to gauge the performance of teams over the past 4 years in all FIFA recognised matches, then it's fine but pointless, as it factors in data which is ultimately irrelavent and is already out of date when published as in football beyond trophies the past isn't important, but rather the present is, especially given the speed at which the game evolves. There are exceptions, like the Dutch side of the 70s that never won, but these are subjective matters and thus unrelated. The other problem with FIFA rankings is when they're published and the press pick up on them, then they're often used to incorrectly identify the best teams in the world.

You're right, but I think the ranking is a bit more fair than what you think (even if it's far to be perfect, of course) ...

Brazil and France are out of Top 10 ? Isn't it normal regarding their results over the last few years ?
While everyone will be right by saying "this team should be above that team in the ranking" (you see, like England being 4th and Italy being 6th : subjectively, I'd say Italy is better than England, so Italy would deserve to have a better rank compared to England, but it's just a matter of one or two places), I think the ranking should be looked at for what it is : it just allows FIFA (or UEFA) to place the teams for the draws !!
If it was totally random, then you could have a Germany-Argentina-Spain-Brazil group in WC, which would be quite stupid ...

This ranking should be looked this way : you must read it by groups of 8 teams, no matter what is the place of the teams in each group.