September 18, 2002

USA higher than England and Italy in FIFA rankings.: Yes, the USA earned its highest spot (8) in the latest FIFA rankings, ahead of England (9) and Italy (10).

posted by worldcup2002 to soccer at 11:20 AM - 14 comments

Yet we're still behind Mexico, which we can beat anytime.

posted by elsoltano at 02:16 PM on September 18, 2002

We've got to start playing qualification games against stronger teams than Trinidad & Tobago, Guatemala, and Jamaica, for one thing. Oh, and Canada, too.

posted by worldcup2002 at 02:30 PM on September 18, 2002

Well, worldcup, that's the way the system works. Unless we relocate our country, or pay to have those programs improve, then there's not much you can do about it. hence: "Regional". Besides, it really means a lot to some of the Central American countries to be invited to the World Cup. Sappy, maybe, but it's true. I'd much rather it stay the way that it is versus having an Americas qualifying bracket where the same 8 teams make it every damn year. Besides, don't most people ignore the FIFA rankings anyway?

posted by Ufez Jones at 02:55 PM on September 18, 2002

Umm, no, the FIFA rankings affect what groups you go into in the World Cup. But, I don't dispute your initial point, Ufez. Just responding to elsoltano.

posted by worldcup2002 at 03:04 PM on September 18, 2002

Besides, don't most people ignore the FIFA rankings anyway? No, but they probably should, given that there is an excellent alternative. Here's a preview of the fun: Rn = Ro + K (W - We)

posted by rabi at 03:07 PM on September 18, 2002

no sweat, worldy. I was referring to the fact that the strength of teams played goes into the FIFA rankings, if I'm not mistaken. I thought that's what you were referring to.

posted by Ufez Jones at 03:45 PM on September 18, 2002

From the article: "Following Brazil in the latest rankings were France, which moved up two places to second" How did France move up? Have they won a couple of friendlies since their World Cup meltdown?

posted by pfuller at 03:47 PM on September 18, 2002

Full FIFA rankings are here. It's fairly close all round, so if France draw to Tunisia (1-1)away in a friendly, and Argentina lose, then they move up. Umm, no, the FIFA rankings affect what groups you go into in the World Cup. No, but they do affect qualification groups. For example, two teams in the top 16 in the rankings would not go into the same group for qualification. Congratulations are in order for the US for getting to this lofty height. They've got Landon Donovan, who looks as deadly as Michael Owen did when he first burst on to the scene. Do you guys think you can maintain it?

posted by BigCalm at 03:31 AM on September 19, 2002

The ability for the US to maintain this position rests solely on the shoulders of the MLS, no matter what the detractors say. Have a professional domestic league where talent can grow and play is absolutely vital in my opinion.

posted by elsoltano at 07:16 AM on September 19, 2002

I know the FIFA rankings are what they are. As they are based on a method that many disagree with, a lot of folks think they are worthless. But, that doesn't stop me from enjoying seeing this. First we pass England, now Mexico is next. (Hmm sounds a little like American history).

posted by trox at 09:57 AM on September 19, 2002

They'd be better off donning a blindfold and sticking a pin in a bit of paper. "Powerhouse England" - very droll.

posted by squealy at 02:26 PM on September 19, 2002

What do others make of rabi's "excellent alternative" (The World Football Elo Rating System)? Is it a viable alternative or is it rubbish?

posted by jacknose at 06:22 AM on September 20, 2002

Well, the ELO ratings table is here (Scroll about half way down for the table). Are the Netherlands really the second best country in the world? (well, they're not bad, but second?). erm, no idea whether it's better or not really.

posted by BigCalm at 08:37 AM on September 20, 2002

More interesting to me is what your top 10 ranking would look like, and why?

posted by worldcup2002 at 11:02 AM on September 20, 2002

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.