Remove this ad
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,500

Site Admin

Lead

Jul 7 12 10:35 AM

Tags : :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/06/fifa-defend-rankings-system?newsfeed=true

Not very convincing...
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Jul 7 12 12:54 PM

surely not very convincing. After the bad results of Dutch NT in Netherlands it was widely expected Netherlands surely would drop out of the top 10. A ranking between 12-15th place would have been more logical than the 8th position now.

Brazil's 11th place is ridiculous because they are a top team. As they don't play any competive matches in the next two years this won't improve soon. Even if they will beat Spain, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Portugal (in friendlies of course) they won't get any fair chance to improve their position.

One also should keep in mind FIFA will change its ranking formula immediately after the 2014 World Cup final in order to get the new worldchampions on top position and the losing finalists on 2nd position and show their ranking works perfect

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Jul 7 12 1:06 PM

I simply do not see the need of FIFA ranking teams....Why not use the previous world cup , it is so uncomplicated and it is based on results on the field....So Spain would be nr 1 for 4 years....It is also the only competition where all the continents can participate, my personal opinion..

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Jul 7 12 3:29 PM

Actually, I wanted to write the following message as a contribution to the Arab Nations Cup ...

Let me make a note of what is the real cause of the confusion of information. (Libya: A-team or U21-team / Morocco: local team or A-team).
Consider the functioning of the FIFA ranking system! Example: Libya.

Libya currently has 655 ranking points. (53.15 points in 2009, 26.93 points in 2010, 164.26 points in 2011 and 410.92 points for the last twelve months).

Points of the last 12 months: To calculate the points per game, you must multiply the four numbers selected! (e.g. the Cameroon match: 3 x 2.5 x 136 x 0.86 = 877.2)

2011/03/09 Mozambique (99) 1-0 3 2.5 101 0.86 651.45
2011/08/10 Zambia (83) 0-0 1 2.5 117 0.86 251.55
2011/11/15 Belarus (61) 1-1 1 1 139 0.93 129.27
2012/16/01 Cote d’Ivoire (16) 0-1 0 1 184 0.86 0
2012/21/01 Equatorial Guinea (151) 0-1 0 3 50 0.86 0
2012/25/01 Zambia (71) 2-2 1 3 129 0.86 332.82
2012/29/01 Senegal (43) 2-1 3 3 157 0.86 1215.18
2012/03/06 Togo (88 ) 1-1 1 2.5 112 0.86 240.80
2012/10/06 Cameroon (64) 2-1 3 2.5 136 0.86 877.20
Total 9 results 3698.27
FIFA-average 410.92

Libyan FA officials asked themselves: Now, what would happen, if Libya wins all their Arab Nations Cup matches in the group stage?

2012/23/06 Yemen (159) 3 1 50 0.86 129.00
2012/26/06 Morocco (70) 3 1 130 0.86 335.40
2012/29/06 Bahrain (95) 3 1 105 0.86 270.90
Total 3 results 735.30
others 9 results 3698.27
Total (new) (now) 12 results 4433.57
FIFA-average incl. 3 victories 369.46

Yes. Libya’s FA can count on! And so they thought: “We want to play with our best team. Even if we win all three matches, we will lose ranking points … What is to do? → let us declare we send our U21-team. So the results will not be counted. Then - we will send our A-Team, hoping they will win the cup!”

I hope - YOU who read this message - have now also understood the FIFA system. Even with victories in friendly matches, the ranking score can decrease (even significantly). 3 wins in 3 matches in the group stage of the Arab Nations Cup would have cost Libya 41 ranking points.

Regardless - whether the FIFA rankings is accurate or inaccurate: it is an anti-football ranking.

• As the host of a tournament, you get a penalty. (You cannot play qualification matches, only friendlies → rating points decrease).
• For playing friendlies you will receive a penalty. (Except for weak teams that perform in competition matches very bad).
• Destructive effect on traditional regional tournaments (COSAFA or CECAFA), which should encourage the development of the sport.
• Promotion of ‘manipulation’! The entire schedule of the OFC depends on taking advantage of the absurdities of the FIFA rankings.

So, Morocco and Libya played with the best of what they had. (Morocco, perhaps not quite …). The cunning of the Libyans was ingenious.

FIFA can not take into account the success of Libya. (Conflict with their own rules!) Everyone else should consider the results. They must not take into consideration on an (own) absurd ranking system.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,500 Site Admin

#4 [url]

Jul 7 12 5:12 PM

pieter wrote:
I simply do not see the need of FIFA ranking teams....Why not use the previous world cup , it is so uncomplicated and it is based on results on the field....So Spain would be nr 1 for 4 years....It is also the only competition where all the continents can participate, my personal opinion..


That would only work for the 32 teams who qualified for the World Cup.. What about seeding for teams who did not qualify?

Also, "results on the field" is not so simple. For (a simplified) example, let us suppose we have a 4-team tournament.

Semi-finals
Brazil 2-1 Italy
Fiji 2-0 Tonga

Fiji reached the final, Italy did not. Does that mean Fiji should be ranked ahead of Italy? A ranking is necessary because there is more to football than results - it also depends on what teams you get the results against.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,500 Site Admin

#5 [url]

Jul 7 12 5:14 PM

ctr wrote:
Actually, I wanted to write the following message as a contribution to the Arab Nations Cup ...


Excellent post! Tell me, what about Morocco's ranking? They seem to have done the opposite (sent their B team, but counted it as A team). Did they gain or lose points by winning the Arab Cup?

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Jul 7 12 5:46 PM

it works also for all the other teams.... they played qualifiyng matches and FIFA could also take in consideration the continental competitions to deal with teams with the same position....and eventually previous world cups...
as long as qualifiyng matches are played the way they are now, we do not need to know which of Fiji, Zambia, Latvija, Turkmenistan and Bahamas have the highest rank, we cannot compare their strength....for the draw every continent can use the previous world cup matches ....FIFA is making things complicated

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,500 Site Admin

#7 [url]

Jul 7 12 5:50 PM

Also, you may be interested to know that the Libya FA tried to have the Libya-CIV match on 16.01.2012 removed as well due to having more than 6 substitutes (which they are technically allowed to do). That would have given them a 12-month average of 3698.27/8 = 462.28. This would have lifted their current ranking points to 707! This would have put them in 33rd place equal with Ghana:

(53.15 points in 2009, 26.93 points in 2010, 164.26 points in 2011 and 462.28 points for the last twelve months).

Also, if they had decided not to play a friendly match on 15.11.2011 (instead of playing Belarus), their total ranking points would be even higher (3569/7=509.86 for the last 12 months) = 754 points - putting them in 27th place.

* - Note, the actual totals would be a little lower - but this is just to illustrate how easy it is to manipulate the system.

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Jul 8 12 10:30 PM

mcruic wrote:
Tell me, what about Morocco's ranking? They seem to have done the opposite (sent their B team, but counted it as A team). Did they gain or lose points by winning the Arab Cup?

In the group stage Morocco lost a few points. They picked up 270.9 points against Bahrain, 129 against Yemen. (Both matches Morocco won 4-0). A 2-1 victory versus Iraq (# 81 in July ranking) = 307.02 points. Results against Libya weren’t count.
The average points of Morocco (Arab Nations Cup) = 235.64, which is lower than the average 2012-score. That means: Morocco’s rating score minimally decreased.

Just a note about Libya: I do not think you can call that a manipulation. With cunning they had only resisted to get ‘penalty points’ for won matches.
To Morocco, I do not think that the FIFA rankings were crucial for their behaviour. Remember football history: e.g. Sweden (Germany in a period also) didn't nominated players for their team if they played in foreign leagues. If the decision is ‘voluntary’, we must accept this. In Africa, there are tournaments only for local teams. In such tournaments a free decision - which players play - is limited.

On the subject of 'manipulation' more if I am asked. FIFA has recognized the problem now. To define the Oceania Nations Cup as World Cup qualification (factor 2.5) - instead a continental final tournament (factor 3) - is a defensive measure...

Just one allusion: New Zealand may be lucky to have lost to New Caledonia ... In the final round of World Cup qualifying now they play against strong teams from New Caledonia and Tahiti... They can win (now) many rating points. The price was only slightly: a loss to New Caledonia is (according to FIFA's logic) as well as considered a defeat against Spain...

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Jul 9 12 11:43 AM

For Brazil IMO the ranking is not important now; they will be seeded for the Confederations Cup and World Cup where they'll pick up points.
Initially ranking was just a minor fun but it's been big business now when FIFA is forcing confederations to adopt it for seeding. I believe CAF are the only ones not doing so right?

Maybe it would be a good idea to increase importance of tournament matches such as was done with the AFC Challenge Cup. Otherwise this manipulation nonsense will go on.

www.soccer-db.info

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Jul 9 12 12:05 PM

trekky76 wrote:
Maybe it would be a good idea to increase importance of tournament matches such as was done with the AFC Challenge Cup. Otherwise this manipulation nonsense will go on.

would be a good idea, but we all know FIFA wants to make money. So to them it is very attractive many friendlies will be played as they received a part of the revenues.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#11 [url]

Jul 9 12 8:31 PM

Let me play the role of an ‘advocate’, defend FIFA (not their ranking system) and defend Libya.

I can not see that the Libyan FA has acted dishonourably. Is it dishonest to offer the many (paying) spectators of the Arab Nations Cup good quality sports? (The A-Team plays at a higher level as U21 team). I think, in terms of fairness to the audience that's okay! Do we want to see football in good quality?

The interest of Libya is legitimate, not be punished for that by an absurd ranking system. It can be expected an acceptance by anyone, that only the decision to play football, is punished by the Football Association. But precisely on this principle works the FIFA ranking system.

Look! England’s rating score is currently 1,294 [2009: 125.81 / 2010: 181.22 / 2011: 284.37 / 2012 (last 12 months): 702.50]. In the past 12 months, they picked up 8,430 points in 12 matches (=average 702.5). What would be the score, if they had also played five times against the No. 1 - and won all the games? If you calculate 1,264, the result is correct. On average, there would be per victory against Spain 6 penalty points. And this is not manipulation by Libya...

The calculation basis of the FIFA system is so incredibly insane that it exceed the imagination of ordinary people. And how people react in such cases?
“I do not care about details... Adjust the ratings to what I consider to be reality...”

Now I'm at the point where I defend the FIFA! This post is not a part of FIFA bashing!

Please remember 2005! An overestimation of CONCACAF and Asia and an undervaluation of Africa were criticized. (Remember: USA #5, Saudi-Arabia in the 30s …) A period of eight years seemed too long! The task: the continental federations should be classified better: ‘Africa up, Asia and CONCACAF down’, was the target. The task was complicated by the fact that the observation period should be shortened (four years).

The basic rule "3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 0 for a defeat" should be retained. (Questions to all who criticize the FIFA today: Have you protested against at that time? Have you realized that this seemingly logical decision was the main cause that the old ranking system failed?)

Back to 2005: How the targets set were achieved? They analyzed that the teams from CONCACAF and Asia played in the years 2002 to 2005 many friendlies; African teams much less. By manipulating the weighting factors were adjusted as long as, until the invited football experts tasted the canapés. (‘Manipulating’ of course not in the sense of cheating. The football experts did a great job. You can not expect, to understand or discussing the calculation base? They only can say it looks good).

Friendlies were formally devalued - to such an extent that it came to a 'penalty points'-effect. The overall assessment of the continental federations took place via this mechanism (… and not the ‘continental-factor’!!)

And now began the war! And in every war there are only defenders! In Asia, new competitions have been invented. FIFA saw the intention and didn’t accept the Challenge Cup as a continental qualifier (first). In Oceania and CONCACAF competition games have been extended. Consider the changes! Antigua & Barbuda and Guyana already played 8 games in World Cup qualifying in the last 12 months. All matches with an importance factor 2.5. This was all done to counter the perceived discrimination by the ranking reform.
To defend a privilege also CAF responded. With one year interval, the next African Cup will be played. All have only one objective: almost all the matches should have at least the weighting factor of 2.5 (importance).

FIFA have to watch that a well-intentioned reform of ranking leads to strange developments. They are not blind. So I do understand that now the Asian Challenge Cup is recognized as an official competition. At this point I totally agree with trekky76. But never forget: the manipulation began when FIFA ranking was created (although with honest intention!).

And how will end the war of the continents? UEFA may send one participant less for the World Cup.

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Jul 9 12 10:49 PM

I agree with your data and some of your analysis but I think you are drawing too many conclusions from this. I don't think we can credit many countries' FAs or Confederations with the intelligence or competence to deliberately plan events as you have suggested. A few clever individuals in these organizations maybe, but such people are usually nullified by the committee structure.

There are other more obvious motivations to play more games in qualifying rounds, for example. Indeed South America has become relatively stronger since the World Cup qualifiers became a single league table with 18 games over 3 years.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Jul 10 12 11:55 AM

It it somewhat fascinating that ever since FIFA became more transparent with their ranking system, it's been easier for anyone interested to manipulate that said system! Transparency has exposed the weak spots and these spots have naturally been exploited.

www.soccer-db.info

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Jul 10 12 3:49 PM

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories and do not see dark forces at work everywhere. So I just do not sing the song of the 'evil FIFA' - I defend them … The FIFA ranking has much more influence on the organization of competitions, as we assume. In many (most) cases not connected with evil intentions. The fact that the world champion is not automatically qualified for the next World Cup is still acceptable. But this change is also related to the FIFA rankings. (Otherwise, the winner of the last World Cup would just fall in the rankings as the host of the next tournament). The large number of WC qualifiers in South America does not distort the ranking in favour of the South Americans. On the other hand there are no qualifiers for the continental championship. Over a period of three years, they do not play more games with importance factor of 2.5 as members of UEFA. Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay - but also others - also play many friendly matches.

Fortunately for football fans, they do not care about the impact on the ranking list. This applies of course equally for many (strong) European teams. Otherwise, the friendlies would die gradually. (Note: if England and Spain will play a friendly match: whatever the outcome, both teams lose ranking points! Maybe they do not care about, because they can not imagine such an absurdity!)

FIFA itself considers the association officials not as starry-eyed. They do not believe ‘in the purity of blue eyes’. They do what they can do to save their system. Clever individuals of course not want to say: “Let’s others cheat. I have found a way!” The noblest of all motives are advanced. Is it not noble, to promote the development of football in ‘developing countries’? The Asian Challenge Cup is still a great idea?! But North Korea is in Asia a football developing country? They qualified for the last World Cup final. Normally, you have to expect the threat of nuclear war, if you attempt to put North Korea par with Bhutan...

But - in FIFA's system you can get a lot of points in competitive games, even if the opponent is very weak. So – you can see smiling faces …
The reason for the splitting of the World Cup qualifiers in several stages are of course only the noblest motives.

And nobleness will always be rewarded. This would tell you even a Jesuit moral theologian (even if he would become a consultant for the Libyan FA … )

Why splitting of qualifiers in several stages lead to distortions? Winners of a stage very rapidly increase their score (very often in an absurd scale. Look for example: US Virgin Islands or Samoa!) The winners of the next stage benefit from it … they (now) defeated overrated teams! etc…

Remember: not too long ago Grenada was rated 20 ranks higher than Wales. According with the FIFA rankings, they were top seeded for the 2nd stage WC qualifier. They finished last, well behind Guatemala, Belize and St. Vincent & The Grenadines. All of them were successful against a team better than Wales …

I do not see dark forces at work everywhere. What happens now for some time, I described some years ago exactly. (Not available in large public and certainly not in conversation with football officials). There is a 'logic of things …’ and this logic was provoked by FIFA. Even if we trust in God, we should not cease to know the people!

I do not think it would help to remember the good old times. An anecdote says: A player was offered to increase the salary by a third. He refused because he wanted at least a quarter...

Maybe, he would not be able to manipulate, but his arithmetic skills would have allowed him to understand intellectually the calculations of the FIFA rankings...

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Jul 10 12 5:40 PM

ctr wrote:
The large number of WC qualifiers in South America does not distort the ranking in favour of the South Americans.


I did not suggest that. I only say that I don't believe that the AFC nor CONCACAF chose to play more qualifying games/rounds with the intention of exploiting the ranking system (as you suggested previously, perhaps partly in irony).
Personally I think there were more obvious reasons such as financial considerations, and the desire to increase competitiveness at all levels. These were major motivations for CONMEBOL to do the same, for example.

Because FIFA's "improved" ranking system weightings come from reactionary decisions based on their previous system (as you rightly point out), it is natural to expect to see overbalance in the other direction. But I doubt that there is a big policy of anybody to try and cheat the system en masse.

Until FIFA do things properly and sensibly, there is little merit in their "improved" system, even if they are using it for important consequences such as seedings.

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Jul 19 12 8:37 PM

nfm24 wrote:
But I doubt that there is a big policy of anybody to try and cheat the system en masse.


In almost all cases, we agree completely. I wrote that I do not see dark forces at work everywhere. That's exactly the same. My statement, ‘in many (most) cases the organization of competitions is not connected by evil intentions’, complemented your thoughts … even before they were written. I supported – and not ‘opposed’ - your comment that not every extension is suspicious and explained this by the example of South America.
I defended FIFA. I defended also Libya against charges of manipulation (‘manipulation’ in an evil sense). However, there is of course (what we can call) ‘cheating’ – very often interpretable as ‘poetic justice’.

Note: ‘you’ refers generally to all readers.
And - if you analyze the FIFA ranking system, maybe you will have some understanding for those that (try to) ‘fiddle’.
The FIFA ranking is not as transparent, as alleged by FIFA. It's a small grab bag filled with many surprises. The points for a single match is calculated by multiplying the four factors
M (points for match result)
I (importance of the match – 4 WC, 3 Confed Cup + Continental finals, 2.5 Qualifiers, 1 friendlies)
T (strength of opposing team)
C (strength of confederation)

Each factor by itself contains distorting tendencies you never would expect. With one post in a forum, I can point to specific issues only briefly. The issues are very complex. The rules for factor M (especially 3 points for a victory, 1 point for a draw) hurt tendentially African teams (and favour teams from Asia and CONCACAF). That was the main cause that old system failed.
Easiest to understand is the tendency of distorting when looking at factor C: “When calculating matches between teams from different confederations, the mean value of the confederations to which the two competing teams belong is used.”
Question to all who believe in the transparency of the FIFA ranking:
Can you really recognize from this official FIFA text that 'mean value' means: an African team will receive for the same outcome of a match in all cases less ranking points than a European team? (Exception: a loss – then FIFA says: to lose against Guam is the same as to lose against Spain).

Europeans should not be outraged and blame Libya manipulation. Here again, a small table. Consider the comparison between the points for Libya and for a team from UEFA (for same results). The factor C increases from 0.86 to 0.93, in the case of a match against Belarus from 0.93 to 1.
2011/03/09 Mozambique (99) 1-0 3 2.5 101 0.86 = 651.45 – as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 704.475
2011/08/10 Zambia (83) 0-0 1 2.5 117 0.86 = 251.55 – as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 272.025
2011/11/15 Belarus (61) 1-1 1 1 139 0.93 = 129.27 – as UEFA-Team: 1.00 / 139.00
2012/16/01 Cote d’Ivoire (16) 0-1 0 1 184 0.86 = 0 – as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 0.00
2012/21/01 Equatorial Guinea (151) 0-1 0 3 50 0.86 = 0 – as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 0.00
2012/25/01 Zambia (71) 2-2 1 3 129 0.86 = 332.82 – as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 359.91
2012/29/01 Senegal (43) 2-1 3 3 157 0.86 = 1215.18 – as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 1314.09
2012/03/06 Togo (88 ) 1-1 1 2.5 112 0.86 = 240.80 – as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 260.40
2012/10/06 Cameroon (64) 2-1 3 2.5 136 0.86 = 877.20 – as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 948.60
Total 9 results 3698.27 – as UEFA-Team: 3998.50
FIFA-average 410.92 – as UEFA-Team: 444.28

As a UEFA member Libya would have received for the same results more rating points!
Folks in Libya
(… who neither read nor hear me) ! Don't be outraged! Relax! Someone to assess just because of the origin, is a classic definition of racism. But the FIFA ranking is not racist, and you are not crooks.
The rules for factors M, T and C were set. (The result of this multiplication corresponds to the measured power). Thereby African teams would have been sorted far too weak. Therefore they have received a compensation for it! Factor I (importance) was bent as long as, the football experts liked the sorting of the teams. (I-factor determines the meaning (weight) of measured power in a single match).

So, FIFA ranking is a "system with compensating for ‘injustices’".
The average I-factor was much higher for African teams, because they played a lot less friendly matches 2002-5. By (seeming) depreciation of friendlies (by appreciation of the factors for competitive games) increased the advantage. To compensate the African teams enough, I-factor for friendlies (in relation to competitive games) but was reduced so far, that absurd side effects were produced.

One side effect: if African teams now play more friendlies, the average I-factor decreases. The seeming privileging (by the action of the I-factor) also decreases or is eliminated. But don’t forget: this ‘privilege’ is compensation for ‘injustices’ in other parts of the system… And what else is happening: by participation with A-team in regional competitions (COSAFA. CECAFA, Arab Nations Cup etc.), which are defined as friendlies, the ranking points decrease.
On the other side: Asia. ‘Discrimination’ by the action of the I-factor was intended - as compensation for the preferential treatment at M-factor. If the friendly matches or regional competitions will be extended (EAFF or WAFF Championship etc.), the balance between the effects of M-and I-factor gets out of control.

To prevent a fall in the rankings, which is not caused by poor results, but by an absurd system, there are only three possibilities:
1. Not to play (can that be the goal of a ranking system or football fans?)
2. to play with a (the best possible) team and declare it is not the A-Team
3. In order to maintain the balance between competitive games and friendlies, I increase also the number of matches with I-factor of 2.5 (even if I invent competitions or extend it nonsensically)
At least the items 2 and 3 look like ‘cheating’. But ultimately they are only defences against unreasonable effects in FIFA system. And do not forget: you can only do what is allowed by FIFA. And FIFA is watching and allowed … because in a grotesque way the ‘ranking system’ is protected. - What’s this …?

We have to realize: the method of calculation of the FIFA system is not bound to any objective standards. Elementary rules of logic are systematically violated. The whole thing is only a big bluff. If you only use arithmetic operations to verify the calculation system, then FIFA system makes a monkey out of you! Even, if you are a smart person! To recognize the bluff, you have to have a lot of experience with computational models (in order to refute them / in science, a common method) ... or you have to work as an auditor (e.g. CPA) … [Then you know that accounting fraud on a grand scale are almost always based on ‘assessments’ (of assets)].

If YOU are thinking about the basics of the system, you might fall asleep … If you start to dream, you might ‘hear’ the following dialogue:
Hey, I've got a great idea! Let us create an honest ranking, based on the judgment of football experts! This ranking would certainly become very well, but subjective. But the public wants an objective rating! --- No problem! I know some quite excellent folks! They can prove any result you want by numbers! … They work in our accounting …

The described method can be applied to produce a snapshot; only by playing games with numbers – even without any rhyme or reason. A logical context or causality need not exist. (Just as well could have been taken into account the assumed average ‘size of the organ’ of players. If there are different values for the individual continents, we can work with it. Do we want to prefer the continent with the larger value we use this value as a multiplier - in the other case as a divisor …)

By the way, without irony : the football experts really did a great job. They deserved to enjoy the canapés. The sorting of teams from different continental federations in 2006 was much better and more realistic than, say, at eloratings (which is otherwise much more accurate). With reputable scientific methods, this can be ‘proven’. This means that the experts were competent and acted honourably.

Due the interaction of football experts and so called ‘statistical experts’, teams were not disadvantaged (maliciously). The deception was only that the ranking was not created on an objective basis but on a subjective one.

To produce a snapshot on a subjective basis, you don’t need a system that is based on principles of logic and causality. Something completely different is a ranking system. If this system is not aligned on objective criteria and violates the principles of logic and causality, the system will implode like a soufflé.

What is the logic, if I say, a team that has won against a stronger team, is therefore weaker, because it was a friendly? A stronger team to defeat always means that an above-average performance was achieved. (If it were only an average performance, then the opponent would not have been assessed as stronger). With additional consideration of an above-average value, never decrease the overall average. An above-average income in one month can not reduce the average monthly income.

What is the logic, if (after only two games) a team can get fewer ranking points for a victory and a draw (against the same opponents) than a team which lost one match? Logic system: 4 points based on results mean fewer ranking points than 3 points (based on results). Note: this applies even if the opponents did not change their ranking positions and also the I-factor was always the same.

Why I defend the FIFA anyway? The public demanded something that was not producible! A definition of a (just) four-year observation period - the fulfilment of the demand for a differentiated ranking -, can only come from someone who has no clue. Their motto was: I determine that the earth is a cube! FIFA, calculate it into a ball!

If you want someone should conjure up rabbits out of his hat, then do not call it fraud if he does it.

With these preliminary determinations, FIFA could not do otherwise than to ‘trick’. And - a serious ranking ultimately is not desired by the public. Those who cannot stand without proper rankings can wait until Roon Ba released new updates...

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Jul 21 12 12:31 PM

budejaja wrote:
27.5 Libya - Chad 1-0
23.5 Libya Rwanda 2-0
the two matches were in tunis
the two matches more than 6 sub
so they are not " A " matches

Additional there is a fourth possibility to prevent a fall in the rankings, which is not caused by poor results, but by an absurd system…: Insert a seventh substitute!
Do not forget: Libya won both matches!
Pyrrhus was a Greek! So why should follow him Libyans! ... Victory, victory, victory - until the bottom of the rankings is reached ... Crazy!

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Jul 21 12 2:00 PM

ctr wrote:
Additional there is a fourth possibility to prevent a fall in the rankings, which is not caused by poor results, but by an absurd system…: Insert a seventh substitute!
Do not forget: Libya won both matches!
Pyrrhus was a Greek! So why should follow him Libyans! ... Victory, victory, victory - until the bottom of the rankings is reached ... Crazy!

As discussed in this topic http://roonba.20.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1660

Whatever it is, it is anxious. This creates a precedent. Imagine a team will lose a match, thus FIFA ranking points, they can decide to pump up the number of substitutes to 7 in order to remain their FIFA ranking points. And I am sure teams will use that trick.

In this case it does not matter wheter you like it or not teams are using so many substitutes. Imho using many substitutes kills a match. However, in other sports it is even normal players are substitued on many occasions in the sae match!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,500 Site Admin

#19 [url]

Jul 22 12 12:30 AM

ctr wrote:
budejaja wrote:
27.5 Libya - Chad 1-0
23.5 Libya Rwanda 2-0
the two matches were in tunis
the two matches more than 6 sub
so they are not " A " matches

Additional there is a fourth possibility to prevent a fall in the rankings, which is not caused by poor results, but by an absurd system…: Insert a seventh substitute!
Do not forget: Libya won both matches!
Pyrrhus was a Greek! So why should follow him Libyans! ... Victory, victory, victory - until the bottom of the rankings is reached ... Crazy!


The simple way to solve this problem - the teams must inform the referee before the match whether they wish to use more than 6 substitutes.

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Jul 22 12 11:30 PM

Fast Midfielder wrote:
As discussed in this topic …

Thank you for the link.

mcruic wrote:
The simple way to solve this problem - the teams must inform the referee before the match whether they wish to use more than 6 substitutes.

I'm not sure but I think that so far has been the usual practice. Before the match is agreed, how many substitutes may be used. More than six substitutes may be used only, if it was not ruled out previously.
I think FIFA tries a 'pragmatic' way to solve the problem.

mcruic 07.07.2012, 5:50 pm wrote:
Also, you may be interested to know that the Libya FA tried to have the Libya-CIV match on 16.01.2012 removed as well due to having more than 6 substitutes (which they are technically allowed to do.

Fact is: this match was counted. Including other information in this forum it looks to me like this: only on request a match can be removed. All requests of Libya were accepted if Libya won the match. The request of a loser of a match (Libya v CIV 0-1) was rejected.
If this were the general handling by FIFA, at least one problem would be solved: substitute No. 7 would not help against a looming defeat...

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help