The problem is the definition of form. It's too mathematical. Which record would you rather have of the past two years. Netherlands or England?
One of the components of form is how recent it is. Netherlands were piss poor at the EC racking up 0 points. This year weighs 50%, while 2010 weighs 15% so even adjusting for the final being 3,5 instead of 3 they would still be behind.
It's a mathematical model. Anyone who has watched Netherlands play over the last four years and considers the circumstances (hard group, etc) will tell you they are better than England. Maths can't allow for such subjective factors though.
That's my point at least. They're not factoring in the 'importance of game' factor well enough. They only have 3 different standards. Should be a bigger variation than that.
It would apply to a couple of games here and there but have little material impact.
In fact, there's a much bigger problem (which goes against my earlier logic that the finalist gets the benefit from playing more games): they average the points in a year. Effectively that means Italy racked up about 6000 points at the EC and England about 4000, but seeing as Italy played 2 more games they both earnt about 1000 points.
Actually, Italy got less points from the EC than England did!
On the ranking page itself I don't see how they managed to get from the Portugal game (for Spain) that 1x3*190x1=1140.
They make the same calculation for both teams but then double the points for the one who goes through on pks. You could argue pks are a lottery, but then you have to consider whoever goes through stands to potentially add a game and get 0 points from it so the one going out has to earn less points at that stage.
Now, with the current ranking there are 4 teams in the top 10 that were in the same group despite 2 of those teams having gone down some places. Still they were drawn together in the same group.
Two weak hosts feck up things, then bad luck did the rest. There is indeed a certain unfair anomaly being introduced but the problem is not the model used for ranking here but the way fixtures are drawn.
Oh, and by the way. You get more points for beating Ireland in the group game than you do for winning the final of the Copa America.
So long as Ireland rank higher than Paraguay there's not much wrong with it. To reach that final we previously had to beat Argentina and we got the "tougher opponent" points there. In fact, this goes against giving more points for the final. The final could be piss-easy (it was), our hardest game was knocking the Argies out on home soil.
The rankings are inductive of the past 4 years. If you took premier league results for last 4 years and made 1 table you will probably find arsenal and spurs above city, doesn't mean they are better than them at the current time though
No you wouldn't as it is weighted, which helps indicate form but eliminate blips and one season wonders (and smoothes the fact they are comparing different regions with different calendars). Each point in the 2011-12 would be like five in 2008-09.
Which friendlies are ranked?
Those on official FIFA dates.
A friendly win is the same as a draw in the EC or WC. The point factor is just stupid and it's evident by the table.
Friendlies need to count as they help indicate form, they count less, which is fair. Nowt wrong with it. Actually, you will find Netherlands lost a zillion points losing and drawing friendlies. They pick strong opponents, while others pick up easier points but does it matter? I doubt the Dutch FA (or any FA) plan friendlies thinking about how it may affect their FIFA ranking.
As an indicator of form, those friendlies told you a different story from their pristine qualifying campaign against dross like San Marino and at the EC the story told by the friendlies turned out to be more accurate.
47 Venezuela
48 Panama
49 Scotland
50 Iran
That is a bit shocking even for FIFA rankings
Venezuela are currently a better side than Scotland. Doubt Panama is though. In any case, as pointed out earlier, you should assess each region separately as their respective calendars massively affect the relative positions across regions.
For instance, if Uruguay and Spain had only played in the last continental tournaments and no toehr games (i.e. other things equal) and scored 1000 for winning each tournament (to simplify) then Spain would be sitting on 500 points and Uruguay on 250 (because Copa America was last year) despite both being regional champions.
Based on what? Uruguay are current Copa America Champions and World Cup semifinalists, and Brazil are...
That's right, although Brazil are royally screwed because all their friendlies up to 2014 will count 1/3 of everyone else's qualifiers. That is, they could win all their games and only match countries that consistently draw and don't get to qualify. They could easily be in the 20s by the time the WC comes around. It's a known anomaly, WC hosts plummet.
