OT : USA soccer FIFA rankings ?

[ucjoet]

As of early June the USA Mens team was ranked 27th in the world. They then beat Germany and The Netherlands ( top 5 teams) and they just beat Honduras. I checked the rankings today and they are ranked 34th. Don't understand this. Anyone with more soccer knowledge then I , please let me know your thoughts.

 

[ucjoet]

Sorry about posting here. Should have posted on Soccer board.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

There's an article on it if you search USMNT on Google. I'm m a huge soccer fan myself and i was confused as well. Simply put, our past wins and the past wins of other CONCACAF teams aren't valued the same anymore. If you look at the rankings, Costa Rica who was ranked like 14th fell almost 30 spots, and Mexico also fell quite a bit. We are the highest ranked CONCACAF team as of right now, but the ranking system seems a bit flawed

 

[Husky25]

Do you mean to suggest that something is rotten in Denmark when it comes to FIFA? I've never heard that. I've thought this particular organization was the picture of integrity.

 

[sammydabiz]

The German squad we beat was their B squad I think, but with Deutschland whether it's A or B it's still a good win,

 

[CardiacAndre7]

The German squad we beat was their B squad I think, but with Deutschland whether it's A or B it's still a good win,

We didn't have our best team either though. We were missing Dempsey, Jozy, etc.

 

[stamfordhusky]

The German squad we beat was their B squad I think, but with Deutschland whether it's A or B it's still a good win,

Partly A team, partly B team. Iirc, five of their starters in the game with the U.S. were the same as the players they started in their first Euro qualifier the next week.

As for the ranking, the system is deeply flawed in several ways. The model used for the women is different and better.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

From late 2013 up until this past October we were consistently ranked in the teens. The ranking formula changed sometime within the past year and it affected us and CONCACAF alot

 

[Gurleyman]

Do friendlies even count? They aren't played with normal FIFA rules (substituion-wise). I wouldn't think what amounts to exhibition games would go into official rankings.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Do friendlies even count? They aren't played with normal FIFA rules (substituion-wise). I wouldn't think what amounts to exhibition games would go into official rankings.

They count, but you don't get the same number of points for a win. FIFA rankings are horrible flawed. The system is rigged to favor the UEFA and CONMEBOL teams.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

The FIFA rankings have always been pretty garbage. I actually prefer the World Football ELO ratings and think the ELO system works a little better than FIFA. It matches the eye test a lot better.

Also, whoever said that Germany used their 2nd string team... I mean, it wasn't their 1st string, but any team that has Gotze, Ozil, Kheidra, Schweinsteiger, and Schurrle is hardly 2nd string compared to the Americans. It was still a big win for us against top competition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings#Top_60_ranking

ELO ratings have us at 14, which makes a heck of a lot more sense than 34.

 

[UConn Esq]

Soccer fan here... keep in mind a few factors..:

1) The rankings span a 4 year period so while we may have recent wins its hard to know what wins were dropped out of the ranking formula from 4 years ago
2) How "important" the match is weighs heavily so a friendly is weighed considerably less than a qualifier and considerably less than a confederation final match and considerably less than a world cup final match (in that order)
3) Strength of opposing team is important and strength of confederation is important
4) The result matters.. obviously a win is worth more than a draw or loss but a shootout win is also worth less than an outright win and a shootout loss is worth more than an outright loss
5) Overall your confederation strength is determined by looking at the total wins in last THREE world cup which severely hurt the CONCACAF and with that being said its not "rigged" to favor UEFA/CONMEBOL they just do considerably better as a whole and have more teams in that get further

And again allllll of these factors are spanning 4 years so 1 friendly victory is not going to make a dent

 

[ucjoet]

Soccer fan here... keep in mind a few factors..:

1) The rankings span a 4 year period so while we may have recent wins its hard to know what wins were dropped out of the ranking formula from 4 years ago
2) How "important" the match is weighs heavily so a friendly is weighed considerably less than a qualifier and considerably less than a confederation final match and considerably less than a world cup final match (in that order)
3) Strength of opposing team is important and strength of confederation is important
4) The result matters.. obviously a win is worth more than a draw or loss but a shootout win is also worth less than an outright win and a shootout loss is worth more than an outright loss
5) Overall your confederation strength is determined by looking at the total wins in last THREE world cup which severely hurt the CONCACAF and with that being said its not "rigged" to favor UEFA/CONMEBOL they just do considerably better as a whole and have more teams in that get further

And again allllll of these factors are spanning 4 years so 1 friendly victory is not going to make a dent

Understand that friendlies do not count as much as other matches. But the system is obviously flawed when you beat the top team in world, the 5th ranked team in world and get 2 other wins and you drop 7 spots. Also Wales in now the 10th ranked team in world, partly because they have not played any friendlies which would actually hurt their ranking.

If the USA did not play any games this past month they would be ranked higher then the current 34 ranking. So a system that rewards you more for not playing as opposed to winning 4 games in a month ( 2 vs top 5 teams), is definitely flawed.

 

[UConn Esq]

Understand that friendlies do not count as much as other matches. But the system is obviously flawed when you beat the top team in world, the 5th ranked team in world and get 2 other wins and you drop 7 spots. Also Wales in now the 10th ranked team in world, partly because they have not played any friendlies which would actually hurt their ranking.

If the USA did not play any games this past month they would be ranked higher then the current 34 ranking. So a system that rewards you more for not playing as opposed to winning 4 games in a month ( 2 vs top 5 teams), is definitely flawed.

I hear what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree but to play devil's advocate.. without knowing what results we had four years ago you can't really say we don't deserve to drop in rankings. You need to see what matches are no longer being counted that could have had a more positive effect than the ones we are playing today. Plus, you need to look at CONCACAF as a whole, as a whole the confederation could be worse today than it was four years ago and that could hurt the overall ranking. And obviously even if we do well it doesn't mean other teams can't drop into the rankings to push us back i.e. things we would have no control over regardless of whether we win or lose. Bottom line is USA is winning matches that don't matter regardless of who they are against - even the name of the match a FRIENDLY suggests its not exactly important. So its not OBVIOUS that the system is flawed, you're just assuming it is because we have beaten a few good teams in matches that have no significance to the football community.

And Wales is better than the US - they have one of the best players in the world. Plus, they just beat the #3 team in the world in a match that is actually worth something according to the calculation.

 

[Doheny]

Soccer fan here... keep in mind a few factors..:
s

So what you are saying is that the rankings are like RPI, confusing and subject to conference bias. America in CONCACAF is like UConn in AAC.

 

[UConn Esq]

So what you are saying is that the rankings are like RPI, confusing and subject to conference bias. America in CONCACAF is like UConn in AAC.

Yep definitely true except that while the AAC had UConn finish 5th last year and Memphis 6th... in the CONCACAF that would put us in line with Trinidad & Tobego and Jamaica, respectively. Thus... the bias against CONCACAF is significantly more deserved.

 

[ucjoet]

I hear what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree but to play devil's advocate.. without knowing what results we had four years ago you can't really say we don't deserve to drop in rankings. You need to see what matches are no longer being counted that could have had a more positive effect than the ones we are playing today. Plus, you need to look at CONCACAF as a whole, as a whole the confederation could be worse today than it was four years ago and that could hurt the overall ranking. And obviously even if we do well it doesn't mean other teams can't drop into the rankings to push us back i.e. things we would have no control over regardless of whether we win or lose. Bottom line is USA is winning matches that don't matter regardless of who they are against - even the name of the match a FRIENDLY suggests its not exactly important. So its not OBVIOUS that the system is flawed, you're just assuming it is because we have beaten a few good teams in matches that have no significance to the football community.

And Wales is better than the US - they have one of the best players in the world. Plus, they just beat the #3 team in the world in a match that is actually worth something according to the calculation.

I also hear what you are saying and I also am not disagreeing with you. But it seems like the US can never be ranked as a premier team because of how the rankings are determined. If we never lost a game , we still would not be ranked as a top 5 - 10 team, because of who we play and are associated with. As someone mentioned before this almost always puts us in a situation where we are in the " Group of Death" in World Cup.

Also I understand that what was dropped from 4 years ago counts, but I believe it is valued at approximately 20% of this years results. So even though I do not know those results, I find it hard to believe that 20% of whatever we did 4 years ago can compare to winning 4 games ( 2 vs top 5 teams) this past month.

Not trying to get in an argument with anyone, just find this ranking system to be flawed and frustrating.

 

[SubbaBub]

The FIFA rankings have always been pretty garbage. I actually prefer the World Football ELO ratings and think the ELO system works a little better than FIFA. It matches the eye test a lot better.

Also, whoever said that Germany used their 2nd string team... I mean, it wasn't their 1st string, but any team that has Gotze, Ozil, Kheidra, Schweinsteiger, and Schurrle is hardly 2nd string compared to the Americans. It was still a big win for us against top competition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings#Top_60_ranking

ELO ratings have us at 14, which makes a heck of a lot more sense than 34.

14 sounds about right. Anywhere between 11-16.

 

[UConn Esq]

14 sounds about right. Anywhere between 11-16.

Strongly disagree. I would say they would be lucky to break the top 25 realistically. We are just not that good, realistically we are not that good. Theres a reason why we get no where in the world cup every year even if we survive the opening rounds.

 

[Brochacho]

Strongly disagree. I would say they would be lucky to break the top 25 realistically. We are just not that good, realistically we are not that good. Theres a reason why we get no where in the world cup every year even if we survive the opening rounds.

If Haiti was a real team or wasn't so unlucky, U.S. would have lost by multiple goals.

 

[Jaker]

The rankings mean nothing, so who cares.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

Strongly disagree. I would say they would be lucky to break the top 25 realistically. We are just not that good, realistically we are not that good. Theres a reason why we get no where in the world cup every year even if we survive the opening rounds.

Really, you can think of 25 better teams than the U.S.? How many teams realistically sniff a World Cup final? 10? Less?

Who, behind us, is so deserving of a higher ranking? Mexico? Costa Rica? Croatia? Ecuador?

I don't buy it. 14 sounds about right to me. We're as good as any of those teams. Not the best, but certainly a dangerous team.

 

[UConn Esq]

Really, you can think of 25 better teams than the U.S.? How many teams realistically sniff a World Cup final? 10? Less?

Who, behind us, is so deserving of a higher ranking? Mexico? Costa Rica? Croatia? Ecuador?

I don't buy it. 14 sounds about right to me. We're as good as any of those teams. Not the best, but certainly a dangerous team.

The US is so far behind the rest of the world don't be a delusional American soccer fan that thinks because the US is so outwardly successful in other sports that we are "close" in soccer. We simply arent. Theres a reason why the MLS is where Europeans go to retire i.e. Lampard, Villa, Kaka, Gerrard. The United States doesn't have the infrastructure to develop talent like Europe does. Are you familiar with the Soccer Academy structure? What these kids do at just age 8 is so far advanced from what we do in the states. So to answer your question can I think of 25 teams better than the US? Easily:

All of these teams are no question better than us:
Argentina
Germany
Belgium
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Brazil
Columbia
Portugal
England
Italy
France
Spain
Uruguay
Denmark
Belgium
Sweden
Wales

All of these teams slightly better:
Chile
Croatia
Ghana
Russia
Hungary
Austria

You can make an argument still for:
Ecuador
Mexico
Cameroon
Greece
Ivory Coast

 

[progrocks]

I think our team is better than a few from that first group, never mind the groups below.

And Wales is not good. Yes they have Bale, but they figured out how to schedule (or rather not schedule) to game the system.

The US is so far behind the rest of the world don't be a delusional American soccer fan that thinks because the US is so outwardly successful in other sports that we are "close" in soccer. We simply arent. Theres a reason why the MLS is where Europeans go to retire i.e. Lampard, Villa, Kaka, Gerrard. The United States doesn't have the infrastructure to develop talent like Europe does. Are you familiar with the Soccer Academy structure? What these kids do at just age 8 is so far advanced from what we do in the states. So to answer your question can I think of 25 teams better than the US? Easily: All of these teams are no question better than us: Argentina Germany Belgium Czech Republic Netherlands Brazil Columbia Portugal England Italy France Spain Uruguay Denmark Belgium Sweden Wales All of these teams slightly better: Chile Croatia Ghana Russia Hungary Austria You can make an argument still for: Ecuador Mexico Cameroon Greece Ivory Coast

 

[UConn Esq]

And Wales is not good. Yes they have Bale, but they figured out how to schedule (or rather not schedule) to game the system.

Did you watch Wales-Belgium qualifier this week? No chance we are better than Wales.