Disregard Rankings at World Cup Time
Monday, June 7, 2010
Such is the nature of knockout competition, especially in team sports, that the pre-tournament favorite rarely wins. Consider the NCAA basketball tournament. In the past thirty years, the school ranked top in the Associated Press's last pre-March Madness poll actually went on to become national champion on just four occasions (Duke did it in 1992 and 2001, UCLA in 1995 and North Carolina in 1982). Soccer is no different.
While the FIFA world ranking may be imperfect, it's the only measure we have of the relative strength of soccer nations. And, since its creation in 1992, FIFA's index—which, admittedly relies on statistical data rather than the subjective opinion of AP poll voters in college basketball—has proved to be an extraordinarily poor predictor of World Cup success. Four World Cups have been played since the FIFA ranking was introduced, and the top nation at the start of the tournament has never actually gone on to win it. In 2006, two of the pre-World Cup top-10 reached the semifinals, and in 2002 and in 1998, just one did. (The 1994 campaign was rather more successful, with three of the four semifinalists ranked in the top-10.)
But even prior to the FIFA ranking system, favorites have tended to underperform at the World Cup. In fact, you probably have to go back to West Germany in 1974 to find the last time a country was universally tipped for success and delivered the World Cup.
None of this bodes too well for Brazil and Spain, the top two teams in the FIFA index and most pundits' favorites. They may be the two best sides in the world, but there are enough speed bumps and pitfalls along the way that they probably won't win the tournament.
Under coach Carlos Dunga, himself a no-frills defensive midfielder, this Brazil is a far cry from the carefree, all-out attacking sides of yesteryear. (In fact, with the exception of the 2006 team—which flopped—Brazil hasn't lived up to its "joga bonito" stereotype since the 1980s.) Dunga's Brazil is predicated upon a watertight defense—marshalled by goalkeeper Júlio César and hulking centerback Lúcio—and a hard-working midfield. Of course, this is still Brazil, so there is still flair and technique aplenty. But playmaker Kaká—who is coming off a disappointing season but remains one of the best in the world—will have to work a bit harder to keep the goals rolling in at the offensive end of the pitch.
Spain, reigning European champion, has taken over Brazil's mantle as the most entertaining side around. The midfield is packed with smallish, creative passers—led by the magnificent Xavi—who weave intricate patterns and befuddle opponents and, up front, David Villa and Fernando Torres are two of the most prolific forwards in the world. The concern, perhaps, is that Spain's midfielders are all a bit too similar to each other and that, top to bottom, there is a certain lack of size and physicality, which could lead it to get bullied off the pitch by a more muscular opponent.
Nit-picking? Possibly. And it's true that most of the other nations have equally big nits to pick. Argentina is blessed with a boatload of talent up front—two out of Lionel Messi, Diego Milito, Gonzalo Higuaín, Sergio Agüero and Carlos Tévez will likely be on the bench, even though they would be starters for most other teams—and is solid throughout, but coach Diego Maradona is an unknown quantity whose tenure has been marked by erratic choices and volatile behavior (his foul-mouthed rant at reporters after qualifying earned him a suspension from FIFA). Mr. Maradona straddles the line between genius and folly: As a player he clearly leaned toward the genius side; as a coach the jury is most definitely still out.
England, inventor of the game, made Fabio Capello the highest-paid coach in the world in the hopes that his pedigree (nine league titles in 15 seasons) would exorcise the demons of underachievement that have plagued it in the past. Mr. Capello has restored confidence and single-mindedness, but giving the English a top-shelf goalkeeper or depth in attack is beyond even his considerable powers.
Holland was 8-for-8 in qualifying and boasts two of the best players in the Champions League in Wesley Sneijder and Arjen Robben, but the back four looks shaky and unremarkable. Italy, the defending world champion, is an aging team that is probably overreliant on the men who delivered the World Cup four years ago. Germany has been hit by an injury crisis in midfield, is stuck with uninspiring striking corps and 2010 may be too soon for some of its starlets (Mesut Özil, Thomas Müller) to fully shine. France advanced to the final in 2006, but coach Raymond Domenech, already at loggerheads with public opinion, is running out of miracles. Losing to China in a friendly Friday did little to change the widespread belief that Les Bleus are on the slide.
So much for the traditional powers. Portugal boasts the world's most expensive player in Cristiano Ronaldo, but struggled through qualifying and it remains to be seen whether he can carry the side. Mexico could turn a few heads, but lacks a cutting edge up front, despite the fact that striker Javier Hernández looks like the real deal.
The fact that the tournament is, for the first time, being held in Africa has raised expectations for African teams, particularly Ivory Coast, whose lineup boasts a string of star names, none more so than Didier Drogba. But Mr. Drogba broke his arm in a friendly on Friday and is doubtful and Ivory Coast—which has looked too much like 11 individuals rather than a team—is stuck in a very tough group with Brazil and Portugal. Nigeria and Ghana, traditional African powerhouses, have both lost their midfield generals—John Obi Mikel and Michael Essien, respectively—to injury, though the Ghanaians seem better equipped to deal with the loss. All told, the best African bet might be Cameroon, a team that has traditionally shattered negative stereotypes in terms of tactical nous and organization. It's unlikely to be Algeria or the host nation, South Africa, which, despite a stellar midfield combo in Teko Modise and Steven Pienaar, looks thin at the back and up front.
And the U.S.? A year ago, it shocked the world by upsetting Spain and playing Brazil close in the Confederations Cup. But those feats probably speak more to the fact that, in a one-off game, tactical nous and individual exploits can subvert conventional wisdom. Still, the U.S. has more than enough to advance to the knockout stage at which point, a shock result, like the one witnessed last year, wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.
If history tells us anything, this is bound to be another unpredictable World Cup that neither of the two clear-cut favorites—Spain and Brazil—will win. But, like March Madness, that doesn't mean it will be any less entertaining.
Every four years FIFA introduces an official World Cup ball. And, like clockwork, players—usually goalkeepers—complain about it loudly. The Jabulani, designed and manufactured by Adidas, was described as "appalling" by Spain goalkeeper Iker Casillas, while Júlio César said it was the kind of ball you might buy "in a supermarket." The main complaint is that the ball's trajectory once in flight is erratic and unpredictable, making life very difficult for goalkeepers.
Of course, there was the same doom-and-gloom mongering around previous World Cup balls, like the Teamgeist (2006) and the Fevernova (2002), but, once the tournament began it was largely forgotten. One would expect the same to happen this time around. After all, like its predecessors, Jabulani conforms to FIFA's specifications. And, even if it's flight is a bit screwy, it's worth remembering that nobody will have an advantage: After all, in any given match, both teams will be playing with the same ball.
Gabriele Marcotti is the world soccer columnist for The Times of London and a regular broadcaster for the BBC. His column normally appears on Sundays. Write to him at gabriele.marcotti@gmail.com.
Labels: Ranking
posted @ 9:00 AM,
,
Number 20 Team of the World Cup - Cameroon
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Cameroon eventually made it to South Africa after a tumultuous qualifying campaign which saw the Indomitable Lions dispense with German Coach Otto Pfister following a lackluster start to the third round of CAF qualification. Pfister was quickly replaced by Frenchman Paul Le Guen, the former Lyon boss negotiating the final four fixtures of the campaign to narrowly guide his team to the World Cup.
Although Cameroon is widely and quite correctly well-respected in the world game, its current crop of talent has failed to impress since an appearance at the final of the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations in Ghana. The likes of Geremi, Stephane Mbia and Jean Makoun, despite having big reputations in Europe, have flattered to deceive at international level and, as a result, this Cameroonian side has perhaps not reached the levels many expected it to attain. There is certainly enough talent in the squad to compete in the World Cup, but there is much pressure on Le Guen to coax better collective performances from his team this summer if they are to be in with a chance of overcoming Denmark and Japan, their closest group rivals, to progress to a possible last 16 encounter with Italy.
The first of the 20 teams we have covered so far to use a conventional midfield diamond, Le Guen’s Cameroon give themselves something of a defensive insurance policy with Arsenal’s Alex Song, one of Africa’s finest young talents, screening the back four. Song is also used as a platform for counter-attacks, bringing the ball out of defence and playing it to the wide midfielders with Makoun likely to play on the right with the wide left berth very much up for grabs (although Eyong Enoh is perhaps the most credible candidate for the role). Achille Emana, one of the team’s few truly creative players, sits at the head of the diamond feeding the strike partnership of Inter’s Samuel Eto’o, the team’s talisman, and Real Mallorca’s Pierre Webo.
If Le Guen can inject an added passion and urgency into his team, then the Indomitable Lions undoubtedly have the collective abilities to make an impression on this summer’s tournament and battle their way out of a difficult group. However, if the team is gripped by the same malaise which saw it suicidally throw away a winning position in the quarter-finals of the Africa Cup of Nations in January and almost blow its chances of World Cup qualification, it could be a short and painful tournament for Cameroon. {#}
Labels: Cameroon, Ranking, Teams
posted @ 9:58 AM,
,
FIFA Ranking
Saturday, May 1, 2010
We should’ve learned by now. It’s really our own fault. Yet it’s hard to click on the monthly FIFA standings and frantically look around like someone’s playing a joke. Which would explain why Sepp Blatter is sitting over there in a Richard Nixon mask. (How’d he get in here?)
Three teams in the top fifteen aren’t even going to the World Cup, including Croatia, one of the great disappointments, at ninth. Odd, surely. Brazil overtook Spain in first without having played a game – a greater degree of odd. However, just how they’re getting away with Portugal at third…well no one really knows.Thankfully, FIFA does offer us an explanation: This means that most of the changes in this edition of the ranking are due to the devaluation of past results. Some teams have actually gained points due to the fact that the devaluation of poor results has led to a greater weighting of successful matches.
An explanation, but not necessarily the one we wanted.
Labels: Ranking
posted @ 10:59 PM,
,
FIFA Ranking
Saturday, March 6, 2010
England and Germany have both moved up one place in the FIFA rankings while Greece have returned to the top ten for the first time since June 2008.
With 31 friendlies taking place since the last edition of the rankings, England have climbed above rivals Argentina and into eighth place, with Germany usurping Portugal to take fifth place.
Greece are back in the top ten but Egypt, winners of the African Nations Cup under Hassan Shehata and due to face England on Wednesday night, fall seven places to 17th.
Spain continue to lead the rankings, with Brazil in second and Netherlands in third. All three countries will contest the World Cup finals in South Africa in the summer.
While Scotland have moved up to 45th, Wales remain 76th and Northern Ireland (40) have closed to within one place of Republic of Ireland (39). {# }
posted @ 9:41 PM,
,
Zambia FIFA Rankings
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Zambia has moved 11 places up on the FIFA world monthly ranking following an impressive outing to the recent Orange Africa Cup of Nations in Angola.
According to the latest FIFA rankings released yesterday, Zambia leapt into 14th placing from 17 on the continental chart with a much improved stake globally on 73rd from 84th place.
The development is attributed to Zambia’s results at the Africa Cup of Nations that produced a 1-all draw with Tunisia, a 2-3 defeat to Cameroon, a 2-1 triumph over Gabon before losing 5-4 on penalties to Nigeria in the quarterfinal of the tournament.
Record-setting African champions Egypt have wrestled the African top slot from Cameroon who dropped into third place with Nigeria assuming the second position while Cote d’Ivoire occupy fourth place with Ghana completing the top five bracket.
Egypt managed to climb 14 places to tenth place on the global chart.
This is not only Egypt’s highest-ever position in the ranking, but also the second-highest of any African team since the introduction of the ranking. They have only been bettered by Nigeria, who reached fifth place in April 1994.
However, Malawi who produced the major upset at the competition beating World Cup finalists Algeria 3-0 at group stage are the biggest movers with 17 places to 82nd place.
Spain continues to top the global rankings with Brazil, Netherlands, Italy and Portugal making the top five.
Continental table
Country Africa World
Egypt 4 to 1 14 to 10
Nigeria 3 to 2 22 to 15
Ivory Coast 2 to 4 16 to 22
Cameroun 1 to 3 11 to 20
Ghana 6 to 5 34 to 27
Algeria 5 to 6 26 to 31
Zambia 17 to 14 84 to 73
South Africa 18 to 16 85 to 81
Angola 20 to 19 95 to 88.
posted @ 9:50 AM,
,
Why FIFA decided to use October 2009 rankings only?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
“In the past the seedings have been determined by a mixture of world rankings and performances in past World Cups but this time the feeling was the October rankings most closely represented the best teams in the tournament.”
Fine but please let us know well in advance (before qualification for 2014 WC starts) what criteria you will use to determine the seeds for 2014 WC Draw. For the 2014 WC don’t use a criteria that will keep Malawi out of the top seeds.
“We made the decision last month that the October rankings would be used because they were fairer – countries who had been involved in the play-offs would have had an unfair advantages because they would have played more games and that affects their rankings.”
Initially, the release date for the November 2009 FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking publication was November 11, 2009. FIFA had to postpone the publication release date to November 20, 2009 so the final matches (played on November 14 and 18) could be included in the calculation for November rankings. Why did FIFA postpone the release date for the November 2009 FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking publication from 11 November to 20 November if they knew that they would use October rankings? I need to know the exact date FIFA made the decision that the October Rankings would be used. Was it after or before the France/Ireland game? Why didn’t they make a press release soon after the meeting?
Using November Rankings wouldn’t have been fairer because “countries who had been involved in the play-offs would have had an unfair advantages because they would have played more games and that affects their rankings“? What’s fairer about FIFA Rankings? All teams that go further into the competition (e.g. the finals) play more games than the ones that don’t. Also, some teams play more friendlies than other teams. Though more points are awarded for competitive games than for friendlies, some teams make up for the losses in competitive games by playing more friendlies. All competitions that are not on FIFA Calendar are considered friendlies. For example, COSAFA Senior Challenge and CECAFA Senior Challenge. Right now Zambia and Uganda have qualified for the quarter finals of the CECAFA Orange Challenge Cup. Zambia may end up playing 5 games at the competition. Let’s suppose they win all five. Will they not move up on FIFA Rankings? Click here for FIFA/Coca-Cola World Rankings Calculation Method. Are the rankings calculated based on equal number of games played?
“This is not a case of wanting Holland to be seeded over France, just that the feeling was the October seedings represented the best teams. The system was designed to reward the teams with the best qualifying record.”
Fifa rankings take into account performances in all matches over the last four years so how can October seedings (rankings) represent the best teams at the moment? The system was designed to reward the teams with the best qualifying record?
Labels: Ranking
posted @ 10:29 AM,
,
