Remove this ad

#121 [url]

Apr 17 14 1:29 PM

They are indeed unnecessary in a critical sense. Although for purposes of seeding, at least some very simple classification of team strength is needed.
Whatever system is used, a ranking may be viewed as beneficial to some small countries at least, so they can measure their improvement.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#122 [url]

Apr 17 14 2:43 PM

seeding canbe based on the results in the previous competition....it is simple and just because every team has an interest in performing as good as possible, also when they have no more chance of qualifying....

Quote    Reply   

#123 [url]

Apr 17 14 2:45 PM

pieter wrote:
FIFA could do without them (they did it in the past)

in the pre FIFA era some formula should have been used for the seedings regarding qualifiying and final tournaments. So they must have created something as a ranking at least.

Quote    Reply   

#124 [url]

Apr 17 14 4:38 PM

Fast Midfielder wrote:
in the pre FIFA era some formula should have been used for the seedings regarding qualifiying and final tournaments. So they must have created something as a ranking at least.

At least for the World Cup there used to be systems. They just weren't necessearily good ones:
  
Mexico 1970
There were no official seeds for this World Cup. The committee discussed the criteria for the seeding and the draw and decided unanimously to form the four groups of teams they felt should not play against each other in the eight finals.

This included adding Morocco and Israel to the same pot to avoid a repeat of the 1968 Olympic tournament when Morocco withdrew after being drawn in the same group as Israel.

Quote    Reply   

#128 [url]

Apr 18 14 6:25 AM

before 1993 they did not use a ranking; they based upon the former tournament(s) or the biggest FA's were Always seeded....


Also in club football in the beginning there was no ranking or seeding: so in the first round big teams could be drawn against each other; so the Luxemburg team Jeunesse Esch reached the quarter final.once

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,414 Site Admin

#129 [url]

Apr 19 14 12:23 AM

Rankings are not necessary - but they do a much better job of sorting teams in order than people do with their subjectivity. I can live without rankings too - I can even live without football. But for me, rankings are a nice way of making sense of thousands of results. If I want to know which team is favourite in a match between two lowly ranked teams, the best way to do it is to look at a good ranking. Nobody can keep 35,000 match results from 200 countries in their head.

Previous performance is not a good way to determine seedings. I've said this before. Especially in a competition where only 6 or 7 matches are played. For example, if Team A is knocked out by Spain in the round of 16, and Team B wins on penalties against Peru - we cannot say Team B is better than Team A because they went further in the competition. That's just an example of people trying to simplify something that's not simple.

Again, rankings are not necessary - but they ARE useful. People who say they are not useful are either looking at bad ranking systems OR they don't understand the concept of rankings.

Quote    Reply   

#130 [url]

Apr 19 14 7:00 AM

I do understand the concept ; previous results is not the example you give....in a world cup draw the previous WC could be a perfect ranking system: 1.Spain 2.Netherlands 3.Germany .....I do not see what is wrong with this sytem, it is eay , everybody understands is, it is not subjective (like in the past); teams are rewarded for their PERFORMANCES , not for a single game result...so Belgium does not deserve to be seeded, Netherlands and Uruguay do deserve it; Belgium has everything to prove, they can have a chance to perform now!

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#131 [url]

Apr 19 14 9:05 AM

Do not agree. Sometimes teams reach finals or semi finals becuase they beat their bogey teams (which every team has). At the 1998 Worldchampionships Holland made it to the semi finals, but they probably were lucky their bogey teams Czechia and Portugal did not qualify.

Sometimes luck helps to obtain a good ranking at a tournament. Holland were very lucky in their final qualifying match against Belgium when referee Khazakov disallowed Jan Verheyen's 89th minute goal. At the time even most of the Dutch admit this goal erraneously was disapproved because Verheyen was not in off side position. So actually Belgium should have won that match 1-0 and should have qualified for the 1974 Worldchampionships.............

Quote    Reply   

#132 [url]

Apr 19 14 10:38 AM

luck is part of the game, referee decisions also...you cannot deny Holland is vice-world champion for four years....some people pretend Belgium is better then Holland for the moment, but I will wait and see, I do not agree with the people who think we will be in the semi-finals, I am realistic but I hope and I will support my team.

Quote    Reply   

#133 [url]

Apr 19 14 11:35 AM

The fact Holland became vice-worldchampions in 2010 won't say they will be the second best team in the World for four years (I wish it was, then he Dutch had not such an embarrashing performance at Euro 2012) as well as Spain will be the best team for four years because they won the World Cup.

Of course I won't deny Holland still are the (reigning) vice-worldchampions and they had quite a good performances in the 2008-2011 era (so it is not surprising they reached the World Cup final in 2010 and if Robben was more accurate...........). But since 2011 Dutch team became less strong. To be honest I think at the moment Spain, Brazil, Germany, Italy, France, Argentina, Chile, Portugual and even Belgium certainly have a stronger team than Holland. As a Dutchman I hope Holland will do very well in Brazil.

Regarding Belgium's chances. They have a very good chance to progress to the round of 16, but Belgium's bad luck is they (almost certainly) will face Germany or Portugal. We will have to wait and see. Who will play in two months from now, which players are in a good form, which players are not, etc, etc.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,414 Site Admin

#134 [url]

Apr 19 14 11:53 AM

Piet, based on your perfect seeding system, Ghana is ranked number 5 in the world. I think we all know that is not true. Ghana won only 2 matches at the World Cup - 1-0 against Serbia, and 2-1 after extra time against USA. Herein lies the problem of 'previous performance'. Ghana were not the 5th best team at the World Cup. Portugal would be 13th - but in my opinion, they were better than Ghana at the World Cup. The difference between Portugal and Ghana: Portugal were drawn against Spain in the Round of 16, Ghana were drawn against USA. That's the only reason Ghana went further than Portugal at the World Cup.


I would still rank Netherlands higher than Belgium.  Belgium is probably not even Top 10 yet.

My top 16 (based on rankings taking into account ALL matches) would be: 
1. Brazil
2. Germany
3. Spain
4. Argentina
5. Netherlands
6. England
7. Portugal
8. France 
 9. Chile
10. Colombia
11. Ukraine
12. Italy
13. Uruguay
14. Russia
15. USA
16. Belgium

Based on the previous World Cup, the top 16 are:
1. Spain
2. Netherlands
3. Germany
4. Uruguay
5. Ghana
6. Brazil
7. Paraguay
8. Argentina
9. Japan
10. USA
11. South Korea
12. Slovakia
13. Portugal
14. Mexico
15. England
16. Chile

I think I know which system would be the best for seeding teams.  The form of countries changes a lot over 4 years - so it makes no sense to seed them on performances obtained 4 years ago...

Good rankings are the best and fairest way to seed teams.  The end.

Last Edited By: TheRoonBa Apr 19 14 12:04 PM. Edited 4 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,414 Site Admin

#136 [url]

Apr 19 14 12:06 PM

pieter wrote:
my system is nat based upon impressions but on facts in the most important tournament, luck is part of football

With all due respect, your system isn't a system and it doesn't work - see above.  My system is based on facts also, but it takes into account more and is thus more accurate at predicting the strength of teams.  You can argue all you like, but the rankings win every time over 'previous performance'.

Last Edited By: TheRoonBa Apr 19 14 12:08 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#137 [url]

Apr 19 14 3:08 PM

my "system" is not meant to predict results, it is meant to be a a fair system for drawing and seeding


my ranking systems are what they are, but not all of them are good enough for seeding teams...


a Wc is every four years, national teams do not play enough matchs every month to rank them, so I prefer to  see it on long terms (years)....  we can discuss for ever an d everyone agrees FIFA-ranking is not good enough, I have my opinion and it won't change but I respect yours.....(I presume not "the end" of this item)

Quote    Reply   

#138 [url]

Apr 19 14 3:58 PM

TheRoonBa wrote:

The form of countries changes a lot over 4 years - so it makes no sense to seed them on performances obtained 4 years ago...

Exactly. The form of countries (or whatever team) can change a lot even in a much shorter period. Form is something uncatchable. Imagine what would have happened if the 2010 Worldchampionships were not played 11 June - 11 July, but i.e. 4 June - 4 July or 18 June - 18 July (with the same teams in the same groups). Probably the top 4 would have been completely different. Or slightly different, but I don't think it would have been exactly the same. Any tournament, even any match is just something like a snapshot.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,414 Site Admin

#139 [url]

Apr 19 14 7:13 PM

Your opinion seems to be that rankings are not useful.  Just because you have an opinion, it doesn't mean it automatically deserves respect, especially if it can be shown that rankings ARE useful.  So, anyone who has the opinion that rankings are not useful - I will not respect this opinion because it is a false statement.  I also don't respect the opinion of anyone who thinks the moon is made of cheese.

The fact that rankings are useful has been demonstrated many times by people who are surprised when Team A beats Team B, because they are using their 'own thoughts of how good the teams are', when if they had looked at the rankings, they would have seen that Team A was favourite to win the match.  I have lost count of the number of times this has happened.

Last Edited By: TheRoonBa Apr 19 14 7:21 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   

#140 [url]

Apr 19 14 7:36 PM

I think opinions deserve respect in this forum because they are motivated and everyone brought good arguments and the comparision moon/cheese is not very respectfull.....I hope this discussion will not continue in this direction, this forum deserves better....I do not think any ranking could previeuw the Aruba-Guam result.....

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help