Sorry to make a new thread on this, as I'm not quite sure which existing thread could house this question. So, I was reading on the reddit soccer forum that the nation of Wales will be 4th in the world in the next FIFA Ranking. Many people were calling the rankings bs and whatnot, but many were alleging that some European teams "game the system," by avoiding friendly matches. Here is one explanation:
"While consistent competitive victories are obviously of primary importance, a nation can greatly improve their ranking purely by not playing international friendlies. Switzerland were essentially seeded in the draw for the World Cup finals as they played fewer friendlies than Italy.
Friendlies are worth far fewer ranking points than competitive fixtures, so much so that most teams will reduce their score just by playing the game even if they win. This is because most friendly victories are worth less than a team's average score, which in turn means the average score is reduced in the next ranking."
So, this is basically saying that a team has an average baseline score, created by their previous matches. Often, a friendly match can have a score that is lower than the average, even if you win the match, and that ends up hurting your overall score and ranking.
I think we can see why Iran is currently #1 in Asia, despite not making it to the AC 2015 finals, and not necessarily winning many big matches. We play less friendlies than all of the other Asian powerhouses. I always thought it was strange that Iran would gain points in the rankings when we didn't have a friendly, but our major Asian competition would lose points.
So, my question is posed here, would you rather Iran play more friendlies and possibly move down to a lower ranking (thus being placed in possibly tougher groups in the final round of WCQ/AC), or would you rather we consciously play less friendlies to ensure our top seeding?
It sounds like an easy decision to play more friendlies, but if you guys remember, just based on their record in friendlies against top ranked teams after the World Cup, for a little while, Australia was ranked really low. Luckily, they hosted the AC to get a top seed, but if they weren't the host, they may have been a 3rd seed, and there could have been a group of Iran, Japan, and Australia.
I think friendlies are always important, but it's possible that we are currently very high in the rankings by gaming the system like Wales.
Would you rather Iran go down Australia's path of playing teams like Italy, Netherlands, Spain, etc. in frequent friendlies and moving down to 6th or 7th place in Asia, or do you prefer that we not play friendlies and stay as #1?
"While consistent competitive victories are obviously of primary importance, a nation can greatly improve their ranking purely by not playing international friendlies. Switzerland were essentially seeded in the draw for the World Cup finals as they played fewer friendlies than Italy.
Friendlies are worth far fewer ranking points than competitive fixtures, so much so that most teams will reduce their score just by playing the game even if they win. This is because most friendly victories are worth less than a team's average score, which in turn means the average score is reduced in the next ranking."
So, this is basically saying that a team has an average baseline score, created by their previous matches. Often, a friendly match can have a score that is lower than the average, even if you win the match, and that ends up hurting your overall score and ranking.
I think we can see why Iran is currently #1 in Asia, despite not making it to the AC 2015 finals, and not necessarily winning many big matches. We play less friendlies than all of the other Asian powerhouses. I always thought it was strange that Iran would gain points in the rankings when we didn't have a friendly, but our major Asian competition would lose points.
So, my question is posed here, would you rather Iran play more friendlies and possibly move down to a lower ranking (thus being placed in possibly tougher groups in the final round of WCQ/AC), or would you rather we consciously play less friendlies to ensure our top seeding?
It sounds like an easy decision to play more friendlies, but if you guys remember, just based on their record in friendlies against top ranked teams after the World Cup, for a little while, Australia was ranked really low. Luckily, they hosted the AC to get a top seed, but if they weren't the host, they may have been a 3rd seed, and there could have been a group of Iran, Japan, and Australia.
I think friendlies are always important, but it's possible that we are currently very high in the rankings by gaming the system like Wales.
Would you rather Iran go down Australia's path of playing teams like Italy, Netherlands, Spain, etc. in frequent friendlies and moving down to 6th or 7th place in Asia, or do you prefer that we not play friendlies and stay as #1?
Comment