Soccer 2020-21 (A/K/A Futbol)

[bluestreak]

4 years ago the Americans were at home watching the World Cup and they are number 10 after winning a regional tournament where Mexico is the only other remotely credible team

So 4 years ago The Italians were at home watching the World Cup and they are number 5 after winning a regional tournament.

See.. we can do this all day. You’re making the argument for me.  The reason the Italians aren’t higher is because they hadn’t played well in years.

[HalfSmokes]

So 4 years ago The Italians were at home watching the World Cup and they are number 5 after winning a regional tournament.

See.. we can do this all day. You’re making the argument for me.  The reason the Italians aren’t higher is because they hadn’t played well in years.

Except their region contains all but a handful of the best teams in the world. The US, on the other hand, beat Qatar, Jamaica, Haiti, Martinique and Canada in route to the final- a real murders row of soccer powers

[bluestreak]

Except their region contains all but a handful of the best teams in the world. The US, on the other hand, beat Qatar, Jamaica, Haiti, Martinique and Canada in route to the final- a real murders row of soccer powers

I’m not sure what you want. Italy has a high ranking. They have not been good for several years prior to winning this tournament. The rankings are purposely set up to account for years of games because of the relative infrequency  of international tournaments and friendlies. Given that, Italy’s position seems imminently reasonable. In fact, all three teams that just won the major tournaments are currently ranked below the teams they lost to in the final. Nobody’s arguing that Brazil should drop below Argentina…

Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

[Ali the Baseball Cat]

and Costa Rica

Because they play in a region with only one other credible team- the US.

[Natsinpwc]

Europe has 6 of the top 10 and 13 of the top 20. CONMEBOL with 5. USA and Mexico the other two.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

It's not absurd given how the ranking is developed, it's just the FIFA ranking is and has historically has not meant a judgment as to which team would win the next important match on a neutral field.  Germany brings it top squad, or even it's next best squad, to play the USA's top squad in Africa or Asia, and there's no way the USA would be favored despite ranking 10th and Germany being 16th.  The ranking is more a recognition of good performance in recent major internationals.  I'm guessing the USA's failure to qualify for the last world cup has fallen out of the ranking factors, and the failure to qualify for the Olympics doesn't count because it is U-23.

[bluestreak]

It's not absurd given how the ranking is developed, it's just the FIFA ranking is and has historically has not meant a judgment as to which team would win the next important match on a neutral field.  Germany brings it top squad, or even it's next best squad, to play the USA's top squad in Africa or Asia, and there's no way the USA would be favored despite ranking 10th and Germany being 16th.  The ranking is more a recognition of good performance in recent major internationals.  I'm guessing the USA's failure to qualify for the last world cup has fallen out of the ranking factors, and the failure to qualify for the Olympics doesn't count because it is U-23.

Hasn’t fallen out, but downgraded in importance. Italy didn't qualify for the last World Cup either. And Germany isn’t up to their previous standards. The US really has gotten better over the past few years. Pulisic is the real deal. I think it would be a better game than you think.

[HalfSmokes]

Hasn’t fallen out, but downgraded in importance. Italy didn't qualify for the last World Cup either. And Germany isn’t up to their previous standards. The US really has gotten better over the past few years. Pulisic is the real deal. I think it would be a better game than you think.

He’s not a starter on his premier league team. If he wasn’t American, he’d just be another good premier league player. Too much of the US team still comes from too low a league to make them an international threat. FIFA gives points for international wins, so beating up on Caribbean islands helps, but if you expect a run in the World Cup, I think you’ll be disappointed

[Natsinpwc]

He’s not a starter on his premier league team. If he wasn’t American, he’d just be another good premier league player. Too much of the US team still comes from too low a league to make them an international threat. FIFA gives points for international wins, so beating up on Caribbean islands helps, but if you expect a run in the World Cup, I think you’ll be disappointed

It’s more than Pulisic. They have several good young players. No one expects a World Cup run but certainly in a better position than other years. I mean they didn’t even make it last time. Your just being a Debbie Downer.

Who is your top ten? Where should the US be ranked?

[HalfSmokes]

It’s more than Pulisic. They have several good young players. No one expects a World Cup run but certainly in a better position than other years. I mean they didn’t even make it last time. Your just being a Debbie Downer.

Who is your top ten? Where should the US be ranked?

Somewhere in the 20s seems like their standard ranking

[Natsinpwc]

Somewhere in the 20s seems like their standard ranking

So where should Mexico be ranked?  Should they be 10 or more spots below Mexico after beating them twice this summer.  They were 20 in the previous rankings.  Can they only move up if invited into Europe competitions? 

[HalfSmokes]

I don’t know, I guess beating Haiti is pretty impressive when you think about it

[Natsinpwc]

I don’t know, I guess beating Haiti is pretty impressive when you think about it

So you can't answer; good to know. 

[HalfSmokes]

So you can't answer; good to know. 

Somewhere in the 20s near the US.

[Natsinpwc]

Somewhere in the 20s near the US.

Uh. OK. 

[HalfSmokes]

Uh. OK. 

What have they done to justify a higher ranking?

[Natsinpwc]

What have they done to justify a higher ranking?

I don’t want to go back and analyze their results the last four years. The FIFA folks have already done that.

[HalfSmokes]

I don’t want to go back and analyze their results the last four years. The FIFA folks have already done that.

Because points for beating Jamaica are the same as beating Brazil or Germany. But anything to promote the mediocrity that is the US men’s team must be good

[Natsinpwc]

Because points for beating Jamaica are the same as beating Brazil or Germany. But anything to promote the mediocrity that is the US men’s team must be good

When was the last time Mexico didn’t make it to the round of 16 at a World Cup? They should be in the top 16 based on that alone.

[bluestreak]

Because points for beating Jamaica are the same as beating Brazil or Germany. But anything to promote the mediocrity that is the US men’s team must be good

LOL. That’s definitely false. The ranking formula give a multiplier for both the ranking of the team and for the strength of the confederation.

[HalfSmokes]

LOL. That’s definitely false. The ranking formula give a multiplier for both the ranking of the team and for the strength of the confederation.

The bulk of the points are based on the type of game. The current system is in response to criticism that the old system favored Europe

On 10 June 2018, the new ranking system was approved by the FIFA Council. It is based on the Elo rating system and after each game points will be added to or subtracted from a team's rating according to the formula:

P= Pbefore + I(W−We)

where:

Pbefore – the team's number of points before the game
I – the importance coefficient:
05 – friendlies played outside the International Match Calendar windows
10 – friendlies played within the International Match Calendar windows
15 – Nations League matches (group stage)
25 – Nations League matches (play-offs and finals)
25 – Confederations' final competitions qualifiers, FIFA World Cup qualifiers
35 – Confederations' final competitions matches (before quarter-finals)
40 – Confederations' final competitions matches (quarter-finals and later)
50 – FIFA World Cup matches (before quarter-finals)
60 – FIFA World Cup matches (quarter-finals and later)
W – the result of the game:
0 – loss after regular or extra time
0.5 – draw or loss in a penalty shootout
0.75 – win in a penalty shootout
1 – win after regular or extra time.
If a game ends with a winner, but still requires a Penalty Shoot-Out (PSO) (i.e. in the second game of a two-legged tie), it is considered as a regular game and the PSO is disregarded.
We – the expected result of the game:
We=
1/(10−dr/600 + 1)

where dr is the difference between two teams' ratings before the game.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings

[Natsinpwc]

I doubt that any point system would have Mexico ranked in the 20s worldwide. Unless they start having more international competitions in Non World Cup years you will not really be able to compare fairly.  Like any other ranking system it will not be perfect. 

Half smokes just doesn’t like to think that USA soccer might be getting better.  He was happy when this same points system had them at 20 but now thinks it’s flawed because they are 10. We will see next year.

[HalfSmokes]

I don’t know, Honduras and El Salvador stand in the way. And yes, until US soccer folds on equal pay, I will root hard against the mens team- which isn’t hard given their history

[Natsinpwc]

I don’t know, Honduras and El Salvador stand in the way. And yes, until US soccer folds on equal pay, I will root hard against the mens team- which isn’t hard given their history

Do other countries have equal pay? I can’t say I follow that.

 I’m not rooting for the Wizards until Ted gives equal pay to the Mystics.  At least they won a championship.

[varoadking]

I don’t know, Honduras and El Salvador stand in the way. And yes, until US soccer folds on equal pay, I will root hard against the mens team- which isn’t hard given their history

How do the revenues compare?