You are not currently logged in

xml No replies possible in the archive
International Rankings
Author: ianmorrison
Date: 07-09-2004, 18:15
I know this forum isn't really for Topics on International coefficients but I remember someone posting on here a list showing the pots for the World Cup groups during the Euro 2004 qualifying. I'm interested because as a Scotland fan, our decline in the world rankings to a shocking position of about 70th makes me fear that it could be a very, very long time before i see scotland at a major champioships again!

However, I do remember thinking that the world rankings didn't really matter that much as it was competitive games that counted towards the seedings/pots for World Cup groups. Does anyone know the system for Euro 2008? I know it is extremely early for that but i thought it would be interesting to follow during WC qualifying (especially when Scotland can't make it to WC anymore-this could be next month!)

Re: International Rankings
Author: anita
Date: 07-09-2004, 19:17
Interesting topic. There were rumours that the pots would be decided by FIFA-ranking, but the European groups for WC06- (AFAIK)were seeded after last three or four WC- or Euro-qualifications. I don't know where they place f.e.Portugal, who were not in Euro04-Q. Or whether it is place in group or points who decide it. ??

Re: International Rankings
Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 07-09-2004, 20:14
The World ranking isn't used for forming the qualifying groups.

UEFA takes the average number of points from the qualifying games for the last 2 tournements (without the play-off's).
So for Euro 2008 qualifying the points obtained in Euro 2004 and WC 2006 qualifying count.

I read somwhere a time ago that there will be 7 groups for Euro 2008 qualifying (6 groups of 7 teams and 1 group of 8 teams). The best 2 of each group will qualify together with hosts Switzerland and Austria.

Re: International Rankings
Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 07-09-2004, 20:16
And for the teams that didn't have to qualify or didn't take part (Portugal and Kazakhstan for Euro 2004 and Germany for WC 2006) just the 1 qualifying campaign they did play counts.

Re: International Rankings
Author: mark
Date: 07-09-2004, 23:18
I think it was tomer which raised the subject about one year ago, and I guess that you can search the archive for it. IIRC the essence is that UEFA take the last two campaigns (1 euro and 1 wc) and divides the number of points with the number of games. Of course some teams play more games then others, but I don't remember if and how it is taken into consideration.

Re: International Rankings
Author: mark
Date: 07-09-2004, 23:25
And the FIFA rankings is a big pile of shit. For some reason they take into account friendlies, give more points if you score more then three goals, and from the israel-france draw israel gets more points then france.

Re: International Rankings
Author: MichaelCollins
Date: 07-09-2004, 23:40
Scotland show the International rankings are rubbish.

If we're not losing to Lithuania, we're hammering Spain or beating Holland.

Funny that. And why the hell are Spain ranked 3rd anyhow? What have they done of significance lately?

Re: International Rankings
Author: ianmorrison
Date: 07-09-2004, 23:43
Yea, I think it was Tomer that posted on it previously. Before it would be possible to even guess how the rankings would look, we would need to know the format of the groups for Euro 2008 for definite. It seems an easy and fair system to use the average pts per game in the last 2 campaigns as this allows for the teams who only have one previous campaign (i.e, Portugal) and also deals with the problem of some teams having more games than others.

In my opinion, more than 2 campaigns would be better for the seeding system but the good thing about it is it does allow more scope for smaller coutries to get a good ranking quickly (e.g, Wales and Latvia could find themselves in a relatively high pot-possibly even 2nd- if they have another good campaign this time.

If this is the system and it would be good to find out for definite when or if anyone hears anything, then i will be happy as it won't affect Scotland too badly. Under Berti Vogts our record in Friendlies has been totally abysmal but his competitive record has been decent. I do think this is a fair system as friendlies aren't usually a good indication because of the no of call offs, experimenting, etc. This is really the reason for the nonsense that are the FIFA rankings. Quite clearly they don't represent the true strength of teams in some cases.

Re: International Rankings
Author: Todor
Date: 08-09-2004, 12:12
FIFA ranking takes into account all the matches from the last 7 years. Every year has different weight. The ranking also takes into consideration whether it's a friendly match or an official match , qualifier or final stage ,home or away, number of goals scored and received , the opponent's confederation (i.e. Africa , Europe etc.). FIFA gives handicaps to the weaker opponent and that's why Israel got more points than France (they are consider to be weaker , they were visitors , kept a clean sheet etc. , on contrary France are stronger , played at home , didn't score etc. ).
As a whole this is a very complicated system and for me it's a piece of ****

Re: International Rankings
Author: putzeijs
Date: 10-09-2004, 10:26
OK I admid FIFA ranking is very difficult.
But they have to compare teams who don't ever play each other. Teams who play an averidge of 10 official games a year, with teams who play only 2 games a year.
Looking that way, I think they do a great job. Friendlies are considered less important, the 7 best games count more than the others, they take 8 years in consideration, ... . I can't see way the result of such an immense ranking would be incorrect.

But on this site we like the idea of calculate things ourselves, even predict the results. We like to look at the seeding who are a result of the rankings.
With FIFA ranking it is impossible. No seeding depends on this ranking, I don't think all the details of the ranking are free on the internet so even if we had all the results of all friendlies we could not recalculate them ourselves. I think that's the real reason why we don't like the FIFA ranking.

Re: International Rankings
Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 10-09-2004, 10:43
About the seeding for Euro 2008 qualifying.

After wednesday games this is the ranking now:

If the average is the same, then the avarage for WC 2006 counts.

country (total; WC 2006)

hosts
Switzerland 1,90; 2,00
Austria 1,30 2,00
Pot A
Portugal 3,00; 3,00
France 2,80; 2,00
Netherlands 2,44; 3,00
Czech Rep. 2,44; 0,00
England 2,40; 2,00
Italy 2,30; 3,00
Germany 2,25; 0,00
Pot B
Bulgaria 2,22; 3,00
Croatia 2,20; 3,00
Turkey 2,10; 1,00
Romania 2,09; 3,00
Sweden 2,00; 1,50
Spain 2,00; 1,00
Latvia 1,90; 1,50
Pot C
Greece 1,90; 0,50
Belgium 1,89; 1,00
Slovenia 1,80; 2,00
Denmark 1,78; 1,00
Serbia 1,67; 3,00
Russia 1,67; 1,00
Scotland 1,67; 1,00
Pot D
Poland 1,60; 1,50
Bosnia 1,56; 1,00
Slovakia 1,55; 2,33
Ireland 1,50; 2,00
Wales 1,50; 1,00
Norway 1,50; 0,50
Finland 1,45; 2,00
Pot E
Lithuania 1,40; 2,00
Ukraine 1,40; 2,00
Hungary 1,40; 1,50
Israel 1,30; 2,00
Iceland 1,30; 0,00
Estonia 1,27; 2,00
Georgia 1,10; 2,00
Pot F
Albania 1,10; 1,50
Macedonia 0,90; 1,50
Cyprus 0,80; 0,00
Armenia 0,70; 0,00
Moldova 0,60; 0,00
Azerbaidzjan 0,50; 0,50
Belarus 0,44; 1,00
Pot G
Northern Ireland 0,40; 0,50
Malta 0,11; 0,00
Faeroer 0,10; 0,00
Liechtenstein 0,10; 0,00
Kazachstan 0,00; 0,00
Luxembourg 0,00; 0,00
Andorra 0,00; 0,00
Pot "H"
San Marino 0,00; 0,00

San Marino has worse goal difference than Kaz, Lux and And.

Re: International Rankings
Author: ianmorrison
Date: 10-09-2004, 18:26
Good work Forza. How exactly is it calculated? I would like to follow it myself as Scotland are very much on the borderline of a pot!

Re: International Rankings
Author: ianmorrison
Date: 10-09-2004, 18:30
I think that might have been a stupid question. Its just average pts per game from last 2 campaigns. Does anyone know if this will be the system for Euro 2008? Also, what happens with Portugal. Is it only average pts from this campaign that counts for them? I wouldn't think they would get 3 automatically.

Re: International Rankings
Author: anita
Date: 10-09-2004, 19:03
Portugal just this qualification, if UEFA/FIFA follow previous practice. But can you count on them???

Re: International Rankings
Author: Michele
Date: 11-09-2004, 01:27
Ian, I can't give you any guarantees, but this system has been working for at least 10 years so my best guess is that it will also be used for EC08.

As for Portugal, the precedence is that only this one qualification will decide their future seeding. This makes it very important for Portugal to play a good qualification round. This is also very possible with their current group, but one bad qualification may send them down to pot 3 or 4 as they have no "lifeline" from a previous qualification round.

I like this system because it is very tangible and easy to calculate for "normal" fans, but also because it makes every game important. A team that is already qualified before the last round still ought to aim for a victory as 3 points will transform to app. 0.15 points on the average list. This can very easily be the difference between two seeding pots.

As for the one who said that the FIFA ranking list is not used to anything, this is not entirely correct. This link shows that Africa used the FIFA ranking list to decide most of their seedings and I think other confedrations also used the FIFA list to determine their seedings, but I didn't bother checking it. Afaik, however, the FIFA rankings have never had any influence on European seedings, so the statement is not completely wrong.

Mikael

Re: International Rankings
Author: ianmorrison
Date: 11-09-2004, 12:19
Thanks Michelle, I like this system as well. I like it because it gives small nations a better chance to get a good seeding.

Re: International Rankings
Author: viulo
Date: 11-09-2004, 19:26
As far as I can recall, Forza, it isn't the sum of the average for 2004 + 2006, but the sum of all the points in the two campaigns, divided by the number of matches played. A small difference that probably will have implications, since for 2004 all teams played only eight matches, and for 2006 some will play 12.

For the rest, you're absolutely right. And no reason to think they'll change the system, they've been using it for years.

Re: International Rankings
Author: akis71
Date: 12-09-2004, 01:16
If I understood well the whole system gives an average of points of previous euro and wc qualifiers and seeding is decided. I cant understand why counts just the qualifiers and not the results of euros or wc. According to a preview post Greece is in pot 3. It sounds weird to me a current champion to be seeded in third pot

Re: International Rankings
Author: Michele
Date: 12-09-2004, 02:37
You're probably right, akis. It is very likely that Greece will be first seeded come the EC quals. Because they are European Champions, I think they will have that advantage in the qualification round and also in Euro08 if they reach it. At least that is how they did it with Denmark back in '96. Germany and France didn't have problems in getting first seedings after their championships so the practice hasn't been used since '96.

Mikael

Re: International Rankings
Author: anita
Date: 12-09-2004, 13:25
If you count the euros and wc on top of the qualification, the qualified teams will get double up. First winning their group (or second) with all the points implied there, and then get extra bonus points for participating in WC or Euro seem rather unfair.

And regarding FIFA-ranking, in the end of the nineties (95-96-97, don't remember) Norway were up on third place for several months. I may be chauvinistic, but that was embarrassing for FIFA (and for me ).

Re: International Rankings
Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 12-09-2004, 14:45
@viulo

That's also what I said. It's indeed the average over all matches and NOT the sum of 2 averages.
But when the total average is the same, then the team with the highest average over the last qualifying campaign is listed higher.

Re: International Rankings
Author: akis71
Date: 12-09-2004, 15:02
Anita I dont find it unfair at all. For the euro 2008 will count the results of qualifiers of euro 2004 (2002-03) and qualifiers of wc 2006 (2004-05) and not the results of euro 2004. Wasnt euro 2004 official games? How fair is Germany that earned 2.25 pts from qualifiers and didnt qualify to quarterfinals of euro to be seeded and greece that earned 1.90 points of qualifiers and won euro to be in 3rd pot?
It is like saying that in champion league and uefa cup qualifications round seeding will count the results just from qualification rounds.

Re: International Rankings
Author: porto-1978
Date: 12-09-2004, 17:58
i agree with akis, the real tournment results should count more than the qualification games, not only for clubs but also for nations.

Re: International Rankings
Author: viulo
Date: 12-09-2004, 18:44
It's interesting, for once, to be on UEFA's side. I totally agree with the system. If you'd consider results from Euro-2004 final phase, teams eliminated on the first round would see their average going down, in comparison with teams that didn't even qualify.

Re: International Rankings
Author: dawgs
Date: 13-09-2004, 00:32
akis71 - greece will most certainly be in pot 1 for the next ECQ... they won their group in the last qualifiers and will most certainly win their group in those, and only by some strange precedent a double group winner will not be in pot 1

unless of course you are tring to imply that the european cup holder will finish 4th or lower in their qualifying group

then they will probably merit to be in third pot anyway

Re: International Rankings
Author: akis71
Date: 13-09-2004, 00:47
dawgs i really dont mind if greece will be in pot 1 or not. Of course greece may have bad results in wc qualifiers. what i find weird in the list forza posted is to see teams like romania, turkey to be above not just greece but above other countries that were in euro (denmark for example that was also at quarters)just cause they have better average in qualifiers. And i am talking only about euro qualifiers and not the wc cause that is still at beginning. I believe it is better to give 1 point to each team was 6th at qualifiers, 2 pts to 5th, 3 to 4th etc and 2 pts bonus to the one qualified at euro finals and 2 pts for each round they passed. Same to apply for the wc and maybe increased by 10-20% since it is more recent and get the seedings. Only in tie at critical possitions to check for points averages.

Re: International Rankings
Author: putzeijs
Date: 13-09-2004, 10:14
Well, Anita it's not the fact of beeing double up that is incorrect (if you win quali and tournament like Greece, you deserve to be on top), buth the fact raesed by viulo.
If you win the qualies buth fails in the real tournament, your not that bad. You probably be the worst of the 16 teams, but not worse than the teams you eliminated.
Yet this would be the case for Bulgaria. Winning the quali and the first game in WC quali, in this actuale system the have 20 points out of 9 games = 2.22 pot B.
If you count the games in Portugal too, you come to 20 points out of 12 games = 1.67 pot C.
This is behind the Belgian team, who once lost and once got a draw against Bulgaria.
Although I'm Belgian and although not everyone in Belgium will support me. With recent results in mind, Bulgaria deserves to be in pot B, and for Belgium at this moment is pot C the best we can do.

Re: International Rankings
Author: Tomer
Date: 14-09-2004, 18:47
hi all.
here's the current ranking as I like to rank it... (to know the real diff between teams, the average is not so good, so I try to translate it to real points achieved in games & it is a bit different than the average points.)
see previous explanations in:
previous link

previous link 2



it is based on max of 54 points (3 points * 18 games for most teams). where teams who have less / more games have a factor of more / less points per point. e.g. Portugal has a factor of 1.5 points per point (because it has 12 games, so 18/12 = 1.5). on the other hand Romania has 20 games, therefore it has factor of 0.9 points per point. It also relies on the number of points each team secured (i.e. even if it loses all its remaining games, this will be the total number of points earned).
It can cause some fluctuations & weird things like Portugal ranked 38 because it only played 2 games but they will probably climb the table fast (due to 4.5 points per win) or Germany leading (even though its average points per game is only ranked ~7 or 8th place)because it already played all its games.

This view has better estimation of the real differences between teams in terms of real points. I hope you'll like it.
POT 1	Team	Min Coeff.Normalized	Games Left
1 Germany 40.5 0
2 France 28 8
3 England 24 8
4 Italy 23 8
5 Croatia 22 8
6 Romania 20.7 9
7 Bulgaria 20 9
POT 2
8 Sweden 20 8
9 Netherlands 19.8 11
10 Czech Republic 19.8 11
11 Switzerland* 19 8
12 Turkey 18.9 10
13 Spain 18 9
14 Slovenia 18 8
15 Latvia 17.1 10
POT 3
16 Greece 17.1 10
17 Belgium 17 9
18 Poland 16 8
19 Slovakia 15.3 9
20 Serbia 15 9
21 Scotland 15 9
22 Republic of Ireland 15 8
POT 4
23 Wales 15 8
24 Norway 15 8
25 Denmark 14.4 11
26 Finland 14.4 9
27 Bosnia-Herzegovina 14 9
28 Lithuania 14 8
29 Hungary 14 8
POT 5
30 Russia 13.5 11
31 Austria* 13 8
32 Israel 13 8
33 Iceland 13 8
34 Ukraine 12.6 10
35 Estonia 12.6 9
36 Georgia 9.9 10
37 Albania 9.9 10
POT 6
38 Portugal 9 10
39 FYR Macedonia 8.1 10
40 Cyprus 8 8
41 Armenia 6.3 10
42 Moldova 6 8
43 Azerbaijan 5 8
44 Belarus 4 9
POT 7
45 Northern Ireland 4 8
46 Malta 1 9
47 Faroe Islands 1 8
48 Liechtenstein 0.9 10
49 Kazakhstan 0 11
50 Andorra 0 10
51 Luxembourg 0 9
POT 8
52 San Marino 0 8

Any comments

Re: International Rankings
Author: dawgs
Date: 15-09-2004, 04:00
looks like you've put a lot of work into that

still for everyboy that reads this ranking or the one earlier in the threadn - bear in mind the fact that THESE ARE NOT FINAL

the assumption is tha e.g. bulgaria, croatia and romania will keep their current 100% record (win all games in the group), while e.g. greece and norway will win only a single point every couple of games