Quote: El Pac Carnegie "Sorry mate but that's rubbish. The FIFA rankings are a joke. Look at Portugal. Apparently the 3rd best team in the world, yet they finished behind Denmark(36th). Denmark got the better results, as they won the group, yet are placed 33 places below the team they beat to win the group. Bosnia-Herzigovina(51st) are ranked below Turkey(29th) yet finished 4 points above them in qualifying. North Korea "only" lost by 1 goal to Brazil, in a properly competitive match (not a Charity Shield equivalent) so I assume they are world beaters?
I don't know how FIFA arrive at these rankings but I'd love to because as far as I can see they are a load of twaddle.'"
The ranking system is weighted towards recent results.
Here’s the calculation FIFA gives us: P = M x I x T x C x 100
And here’s what those things stand for:
M = Match — how the match ended.
Win (no penalty shootout) 3
Win (penalty shootout) 2
Draw 1
Loss (penalty shootout) 1
Loss (no penalty shootout) 0
I = Importance
The more significant the match, the more it counts. The assumption here being that coaches may or may not field the strongest teams in a friendly, but they certainly will in the World Cup.
T = Team The strength of the team played.
This one is a surprisingly simple weighting system based on relative FIFA ranking. Start with 200. Subtract one point for every place a team lies below first. Then divide by 100. This means that the #1 team is weighted at 2.0, #2 at 1.99, #50 at 1.50, etc. Teams ranked lower than 150th are weighted at .50.
C = Confederation.
Each confederation is weighted based on how well that confederation did in the three most recent World Cups.
Current weights (based on 2006, 2002 and 199icon_cool.gif are:
UEFA (Europe) = 1.0
CONMEBOL (South America) = .98
CONCACAF (North and Central America, plus some outliers) = .85
AFC (Asia) = .85
CAF (Africa) = .85
OFC (Oceania) = .85
And that’s it. It’s that simple.