FIFA v UEFA: The Rankings Of Doom Are Doomed.
While everyone was busy anxiously awaiting FIFA’s latest release and the seeding for the playoff spots, UEFA was busy concocting a ranking of their own and releasing it under unsuspecting eyes. At this point it means little and will only serve to put Euro 2012 qualifying seeding into perspective, still some way off yet, but it’s always interesting to see how others differ from the entirely rubbish FIFA ranking system. And, in some cases, are they rubbish themselves?
UEFA prefer a simple method: 20% based on WC2006 qualifying and finals; 40% based on Euro2008 qualifying and finals; 40% based on WC2010 qualifying and finals.
With one-sixth still yet unfinished, these rankings will change before they dance the dance for a shot at Polkraine 2012. But for now, the “intermediate standings” and how the reflect against big ol’ FIFA.
UEFA:
FIFA:
There are a few answers which cloak as questions:
Is Germany the second best team in Europe right now? Yes. Basel pretty much cleared that up and it stands strong 18mos later.
Is Portugal better than Russia? No.
Should Croatia respectfully bow out of the rankings until Polkraine qualifying starts anew such that there isn’t a beastly black sheep nonparticipant in sixth? Yes.
Is Sweden the 12th best team in Europe? No. Are they 24th? No. Are they somewhere in between? Yes.
Does UEFA account for “style”? Probably. (See: Turkey.)
Can we just put Pavel Nedved in the Czech Republich’s 11th spot? Sure, why not.
How the hell did Greece creep top ten in UEFA? No clue.
But finally the most important question:
Can we scrap the acronym rankings, both of which are inherently flawed, and move to an entirely subjective system which unashamedly flaunts its favortism? Yes we can.
 |
Soccer Forums | International Results |  |
 |  Travel |
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share        |
Comments | Add your comment
By Jose | October 19th, 2009 at 12:58 pm 
For UEFA’s purposes, the UEFA rankings make a lot more sense than FIFA’s, since their rankings restrict the results to only intra-UEFA matches, at an approximately equal number (no Euro 2008 results are used, only qualification). This means everyone is judged based on the results of a seeded group stage against a representative (as in, every tier) sample of UEFA countries.
Actually, makes A LOT of sense.
By Laurie | October 19th, 2009 at 1:57 pm Wow. That’s a pretty radical change. And way too easy for the average person to understand, so it stands no chance. 
By Miguel | October 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm “Is Portugal better than Russia? No.”
And on what do you base this fair assumption, stated as an undeniable truth?
They didn’t make WC2006 trashed 7-1 by who? Have they faced each other as of late?
You can’t base a ranking on the last 10 or 12 games a NT does against a small number of other teams. For it to truly reflect anything it has to include performances at big stages.
Again:
Is Portugal better then Russia? Hell yes!
Posted from 
Portugal
By Dave Troter | October 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm The FIFA rankings are crap. I am a France supporter and, honestly, they shouldn’t have moved up at all, yet they move up one.
The Czech Republic move up three, yet are knocked out of the World Cup.
These rankings don’t go by the quality of play at all, which means that it is full of errors. After France beat the Faroe Islands by a score of 1-0 a few months back, they should have dropped at least 10 spots!
I think these rankings are garbage, just like they are in the BCS in college football!
By Jack | October 19th, 2009 at 3:05 pm The rankings are only used for seeding purposes. Without rankings you would end up watching a World Cup final between Vietnam and Swaziland. How many people would watch that?
Posted from 
United States
By Elliott | October 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm While I´m sure you were joking, I am actually a fan of abolishing seedings for the big tournaments and leaving it all to good old fashioned bouncing ball chance. So what if Italy, Argentina, and Brazil are all in the same group? The top teams would have to meet in the later stages anyway.
By Jose | October 19th, 2009 at 4:45 pm “You can’t base a ranking on the last 10 or 12 games a NT does against a small number of other teams. For it to truly reflect anything it has to include performances at big stages.”
Actually no. You base who’s better on how they’ve been doing in the last year or so. And Russia has definitely looked better than Portugal in the Euro 2008 and in WCQ qualifying.
Russia did better than Portugal in the Euro, getting to the semis only to be bested by the eventual champions. On their way, they beat the Netherlands, Greece and Sweden (Portugal beat Czech Rep. and Turkey, neither who classified for this WC).
We’re not talking about who has traditionally been a more well-regarded footballing nation, because most would argue Portugal has some edge over Russia there. But I would tell you that most informed football fans would give Russia 60/40 chances to beat Portugal today. It’s definitely not as obvious as a “Hell Yes!” for Portugal.
By Musab | October 19th, 2009 at 5:43 pm Well done to the Turks who managed to fall 12 spots into 37th place… An absolute disgrace.
Posted from United States
By Seth | October 19th, 2009 at 6:24 pm “Is Portugal better than Russia? No.”
Lol, Russia is beyond overrated as of late. But to acknowledge your convincing point:
Euro 00: Portugal semis, Russia fail
Euro 04: Portugal 2nd, Russia fail
WC 2006: Portugal 4th, Russia fail
That’s just history. But if the two teams were to meet today? I’m sure Portugal would be more than a match for a Russian side that got beat by a very deflated and dull Argentine side.
“We’re not talking about who has traditionally been a more well-regarded footballing nation, because most would argue Portugal has some edge over Russia there. But I would tell you that most informed football fans would give Russia 60/40 chances to beat Portugal today. It’s definitely not as obvious as a “Hell Yes!” for Portugal.”
The most informed football fans also had England winning the WC in 2006 after Brazil or Greece not getting out of their group stage in Euro 04. Point being: football is unpredictable mate.
By Jose | October 19th, 2009 at 6:45 pm “Point being: football is unpredictable mate.”
Ok, it’s fair to fall back on that. Would a series of 10 matches (5 @ home each) make a difference to you?
My point being that a simple A > B analysis of two teams like Portugal and Russia makes no sense, “mate”.
By Pedro | October 20th, 2009 at 8:41 am Is Football unpredictable? True.
Are FRA, UKR and RUS as good as through? Yes. I still hope IRL kicks FRA’s ass and with an italian coach, they just might… They’re unbeaten still.
Is PT through? Nobody knows… I hope we go through.
Could PT easily beat RUS in 10 straight matches? Dunno. Maybe, if they could be bothered to actually play. Maybe not, we’ve always tended to have trouble with the russians (although we did kick their ass 7-1)… But RUS didn’t really impress me in the least in euro 08. Largely overrated. maybe like PT, who knows but the nose…?
Is RUS’s coach some sort of football genius? Hell no. He’s very good but he’s not Mourinho.
Is PT better than RUS? Hell ya!!! Any time.
Is this biased? Of course. Like all comments are. It’s not a thesis. It’s a comment.
Is it true? Can’t you bloody see it…? If you can’t, it’s a pointless discussion… S America (iberian america), Africa, PT, SPA + eventually the balkans, will always be the best football in the world + cosmos…
Força PT.
Posted from 
Netherlands
By Ryan McManus | October 20th, 2009 at 1:30 pm Another injustice to Ireland!
Posted from United States
By Miguel | October 20th, 2009 at 4:20 pm Come’on Ryan! If you’re like that and the game hasn’t even begun, how will you get after seeing the ref blow the whistle for every dive they do in your box? I think Trapattoni is a hell of a lot smarter then Dumbenech so who knows…
Posted from Portugal
