Talk:FIFA Men's World Ranking

Position of the US national team

I think people need to realize what the rankings aren't as much as what they are. They're not power rankings (1 would beat 2 would beat 3 would beat 4), and they're not polls (win and move up until you hit a logjam, lose and you fall). They simply attempt to measure each team's results over the last eight years, and, by that standard, it's tough to argue that the US hasn't had one of the world's best eight-year runs. There's also been a lot of hand-wringing lately over the US's rise to fourth, even though their last two friendlies were a home draw with Jamaica and an away loss to Germany. Well, what nobody's pointing out (except FIFA in the news post that accompanied the new rankings, incidentally) is that the reason the US moved up a slot is that Argentina suffered much more than other countries in the rankings with the recent devaluation of old results. The US didn't move up as much as Argentina fell [Odds (William Hill) for World Cup 2006, 14 June: Argentina 13-2, USA 400-1]. Plus, the US has several positive results buffering against the last two matches, to boot, since the US has played more matches than most international squads this year.

And no, Coke's sponsorship has nothing to do with it. It's a mathematical formula and it's completely known.

[Comment: how did Coke & Fifa arrive at the algorithm, though? To a casual observer it seems specifically designed to inflate US performance, carefully manipulating the weakness and imbalance in CONCACAF].

On the other hand, the criticism below about the CONCACAF Gold Cup has merit, since, yes, the U.S. plays several matches against weaker opposition, though CONCACAF does usually invite a couple of guest nations to compete (South Africa and Colombia in 2005, Colombia and Brazil(!) in 2003). Also noteworthy is that Brazil sent their under-23 team in 2003 and still almost won the tournament, only going out to Mexico in the final in Mexico City.

So what's my point? The rankings actually do a good job of what they're designed for, which is to rate past performance, not predict future success. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the team's going to suffer from being a big fish in a small pond for a while, with only Mexico as a serious rival (though Costa Rica is just a little below them), and with such a split between U.S.-based players and European-based players, it's tough to get a completely full-strength squad most of the time. There are occasional grumblings about the U.S. and Mexico bolting for CONMEBOL, but it won't happen because it's a long way from North America to South America, and neither the U.S. nor Mexico wants to give up a likely WC spot every four years.

Oh, and some people complain that the rankings count friendlies. Well, 1) the more games used in the rankings calculations, the better, and 2) you play to win the game. Tickenest 15:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[First post in this discussion, 8-05: The most striking thing (to me) in the 'Fifa world ranking' is the way it ridiculously inflates US football performance: the highest ever US position in the ELO ranking is 11th, but according to FIFA, the US in August 2005 was the 6th best team in the world - outplaying France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England &c &c.

Could this be in any way related to the fact that the FIFA rankings are sponsored by Coca Cola? Remember 'cocacolonization'?]

It could be related to the fact that the USA had an excellent showing at the last World Cup and played well in recent friendlies. Your list of Western European countries includes France, which didn't bother to show up for the Final 16 in the last WC.

[February 2006: USA joint 6th in 'world rankings'. Odds (Ladbrokes) on USA to win World Cup 80-1 (joint 17th).]

Ah yes, just wait until the World cup comes.. [Team America finally score a goal as they lose to Ghana (Fifa ranking 48) and exit]

[Guardian, 12 June 06 - Czech Republic 3 / USA 0: 'This wasn't quite the clash of the titans the Fifa rankings suggested was in store. If the Czech Republic proved worthy claimants to the title of Second Best Team In The World with confidence, poise and excellent finishing, the USA showed how laughable their fifth billing is with a stunning lack of ingenuity']

[BBC - Gary Lineker (Argentina 6 / S&M 0): 'According to FIFA, Argentina is the ninth best team in the tournament, after the likes of Mexico and the USA. FIFA need to watch more football.']

The reason the USA is ranked ridiculously high is partly because of the pathetic opposition that they face, they spend most of their time playing CONCACAF nations, which bar mexico, are somewhat weak, though the point deduction for this is minimal and the points for winning the CONCACAF gold cup, whuch lets be straight, to win all you have to do is beat mexico and the US and no one else is going to stop you, the points for winning the gold cup are the same as winning the UEFA cup or Copa America. Philc _T+C 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The algorithm FIFA use is totally to cock. The European Championships are in another league compared to the CONCACAF in terms of quality, yet FIFA ranks these two tournaments equally on scale. The US team should be placed round about 17th (just below Sweden), and Mexico round about 13th. No way should Italy be 9 places below Mexico. This article should have a Criticism section, because a lot of the media can see the unashamed bias of FIFA towards the big bucks of America. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/. 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The two tournaments are not ranked equally, though the difference is so pathetic, that I agree, the fifa world rankings are poor way of viewing teams relative strengths, for an accurate view see the Elo football rating. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The following block from the first paragraph of the Criticism section is highly POV, using weasel words without sufficient references, and it's poorly written to boot. I'm going to see about looking up some proper references regarding the disparity between the US's rankings and skill, and then do a proper rewrite unless there are any objections. ReMarkAble 00:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"For example Norway were at one time ranked 2nd,[6] and the United States reached 4th, to the surprise of even their own players. The United States do not deserve to be ranked fourth in the world. USA played most of the weaker teams from around the world, which were very easy to win. These games then led to their fourth ranking amongst some of the more elite teams around the world. The Czech republic, England, Brazil, germany, france, Spain, Argentina, Holland, are all much better than the United States.."

It was vandalism, and has since been removed. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

T19?

What should T19 mean, please? If it means "tied 19", then why not use it for "T12"? And anyway, what advantage does "T19, T19" have? (Instead of just showing that visually and not requiring the reader to understand that notation?) --Mormegil 13:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Top 20 Rankings for Men Only?

Does anyone have a suggestion for making this article more inclusive? The POV focuses on men's rankings. For instance, the "Top 20 ranking as of" section lists only men's rankings, though it's not titled "Men's Rankings." And the "Overview" states that women's rankings are "not included" in the calculation of FIFA ranking. While it's true that the FIFA Men's ranking system doesn't include other FIFA organizations (like FIFA Women's or futsal), it's not true that only one set of FIFA rankings exists. There are rankings for FIFA Women's and Fair Play rankings for youth. Deebki 08:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

see FIFA Women's World Rankings. Philc _T+C 09:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Philc. The fact that FIFA Women's World Rankings article exists doesn't resolve the POV in this article. This article needs to either a) cover all FIFA rankings or b) be renamed "FIFA Men's World Rankings." Deebki 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Deebki is in fact right. Seems like it's some form of accidental gender bias. Sijo Ripa 20:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really in non-US sports it is automatically assumed to be male sport, it is not the FIFA mens World Cup, or the UEFA mens Champions League or the FA cup for men, or the mens Barclaycard Premiership, so why should this be any different. And on the website they are solely reffered to as "FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking" no mention of gender, while the womens one is called FIFA Women's World Ranking, so really it is just accuracy, not gender bias that results in the name of this article. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Philc on this one. You people are dragging something out of teh boundery. And Men's FIFA existed way before women's. So Women's would be a little shorter but no gender bias going on.

Copyvio? (resolved)

I'm not usually the copyright police (I don't even know how to mark suspected copyvios), but it sure looks to me like large portions of this page were copied and pasted directly from the FIFA site. Thoughts?--Inonit 03:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, its a copy edit, if you read it you'll notice that although the format is similar and the paragraphs and bullet points are all about the same size, they actually say different things to what the website says, though explaining the same things. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it ?? Philc _T^E_C^I 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ermm so you're saying you copied the page and shifted some of the words about. Well looking at a single paragraph at random - what we have is this :

FIFA :

Since its introduction, the FIFA /Coca-Cola Ranking has proved to be a reliable measure for comparing national A-teams. Over the years, some of the details of the ranking process have proved to be in need of improvement, and appropriate revised versions were put into effect at the beginning of 1999.

Wikipedia article :

Since its introduction, the FIFA world ranking has been used as a measure for comparing national senior teams. Since its introduction some of the details of the ranking process have proved to be in need of improvement, and a revised version was put into effect at the beginning of 1999. However, this system is still considered inferior to the Elo Ratings.

I'm sorry but that's plagiarism, as clear as day. Jooler 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[Actually, it reads more like a careful rewrite ('copy-edit') than plagiarism. One could even imagine some embarrassed FIFA footsoldier trying to distance himself from Coca-Cola (on Wikipedia), while arguing in this discussion section that the ever-more apparent problems are not really significant. And I guess FIFA has finally realized that unless they change their system, the improving USA team will soon be the best in the world (well, second to Brazil, anyway, despite losing at home to Morocco &c &c)]

Just for the record, now the text in question has been removed, rewritten and readded to the article, with just as little reference to coca cola, i mean.. urr.. what? no! shhhh... shifty eyes... Philc _T^E_C^I 00:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jooler's comment is without doubt correct. Copy-editing something then claiming it is a distinct work is pretty much as close to plagiarism as you can get! TheGrappler 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[...And it's not as if the 'copy-edit' was neutral... my point about removing references to Coca-Cola, and nodding to the laughable pro-US bias in the ranking algorithm, was that it read like a 'defensive' copy-edit...]

Well, it can't be that hard to fix. Just glom the facts out of it and re-write it. That's an awful big ugly thing of a copyright violation BTW. Scary looking thing ... Wiggy! 01:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[It's only a copyright violation if our 'copy-editor' has no connection with Fifa or Coca Cola] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.132.231.94 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 23 June 2006.

Where are the rankings?

I recognise that theyy were a strong bait to page vandals (I have done some reversions of such), but to have an article on a rankings list that doesn't include current rankings seems perverse. Kevin McE 12:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The current rankings are there - to the right of the TOC. Poulsen 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

D'oh Kevin McE 12:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Neutral

The article is not neutral, as the editor of the article talked a lot against Brazil. I don't know what I could do, so just leaving comments here. Hopefully someone will look into that. Priyanshu 18:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone already edited it :) Priyanshu 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This list is crap

Just my opinion. Germany which won 3 World cups is in the 19th place and USA is 5th. Sorry it does not pass the laugh test.--Omnicog 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ranking take into account the last 8 years. Neither won any world cups in the last 8 years. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Uruguay won two world cups, but last year could not even get past Australia to qualify for the World Cup. Omnicog, your point doesn't bear close analysis. Ordinary Person 12:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism

This article is subject to constant vandalism, including rearranging of the rank, per users wishes, re-assignment of points, constant introduction of POV and sometimes offensive statements, and increasingly often, blanking entire sections, which appears to go un-noticed for several days each time.

Can we get one of those padlock thingys to prevent non-registered users from wrecking this page. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking about semi-protection, where the page cannot be edited by anonymous or relatively new users. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Kevin_b_er 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Best Seven matches

Although the practice of taking only the "best seven" matches of the year was intended to prevent teams that play more rarely from being disadvantaged, it should be clear that teams that play more often will still be favoured by this system. Consider two teams, of equal ability and strength of opposition, Team A plays 20 matches a year, Team B plays 8 matches a year. From basic stats, you would expect the average of the best seven of Team A's matches to be better than the best 7 of Team B's matches. Ordinary Person 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell it to FIFA. Philc _T^E_C^I 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

split old calculation systems onto separate pages?

This page is getting too long. I don't think we need the details of the old (pre July 2006) system on this page. I propose we split that section into its own page.

If I don't hear a good reason otherwise soon, I'll do it when I can.

Wantok 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. While the old system probably has undue weight right now, I can see a few ways to make it shorter without losing much depth, particularly as some parts more or less repeat the description of the new system. If it still looks over-long after a thorough copyedit, then split, but splitting now would result in two verbose pages which repeat each other. Oldelpaso 07:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As an example, I've changed the regional strengths section for the old rankings. If something similar is done throughout I don't think a split will be necessary. The most pressing task is to ensure old rankings are referred to in the past tense. Oldelpaso 07:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the length of the old-system section can be reduced, but is there any point? The old system now is pretty academic - only of interest to those comparing calculation systems. Given the space it occupies on the page now, even reduced down it would be disproportionately large. And I think that a detailed description of the old system just adds to the general impression of complexity and makes the article less readable. Having it on a separate page allows us to retain the detail, for those really interested, without bogging down the main page. Wantok 10:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the idea of splitting. If the old ranking system were to be covered in detail, the only way it would make sense would be to go point-by-point comparing it to the new one, and then we could revisit removing that comparison in a year or two. I understand the desire not to destroy the work that's there, but we should put it on a separate page.--Inonit 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've created a new page for the 1999-2006 system here: FIFA men's ranking system 1999-2006. I've also gone through and changed to the past tense where appropriate. I propose we replace the current 1999-2006 section with a short summary and link. Wantok 13:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made that change now - the 1999-2006 method is now split off onto the new page FIFA men's ranking system 1999-2006 and that section of this FIFA World Rankings page has been replaced with a short summary paragraph and link. Wantok 07:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

PhilC, why reintroduce that section on match importance (in the 99-06 section of this page)? It seems strange to have detail on that one factor only, of the seven factors used. I realise it was in the overview but it really didn't belong there before, either. I'll remove it now. I like what you've added to the initial para (from the overview) - makes sense. Wantok 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It was the overview section from the 99-06 page which gives a low detail overview of the procedure, I thought it was serve nicely as the summary of the page recquired for that section of this page. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

men only?

I don't think it's reasonable for this page to only talk about the men's ranking (current intro in fact defines "FIFA World Rankings" as the system used in men's football).

We should have a section for men's, and a section for the system used for women's ranking. Perhaps a separate page for the description of the women's calculation system - which is based on the ELO technique. I believe the youth rankings use the same system as the men's, but I could be wrong there.

Wantok 03:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this? FIFA Women's World Rankings --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 04:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - and indeed the link to the women's page is in the See Also section. I suppose my concern is mainly with the article title. This article is about men's rankings only, so perhaps it should be renamed "FIFA Men's World Rankings" - with a redirect from "FIFA World Rankings" to it, of course. Wantok 04:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "FIFA World Rankings" is used far more commonly to refer to the men's rankings than the women's rankings. A Google search for "FIFA world rankings -wikipedia" does not have a result referring to the womens rankings until the fifth page, so I don't think disambiguation is needed. Perhaps a notice at the top saying :This article is about the men's rankings. For women's rankings, see FIFA Women's World Rankings. would be a better solution. Oldelpaso 07:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that would be a good idea. I think a change of article name is justified, too - for the sake of accuracy. The article is about men's rankings, specifically. "FIFA World Rankings" should certainly redirect here, though, for the reasons you've outlined. Wantok 07:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be overdoing precision. To me, this situation is analogous to Liverpool F.C., which is about the English club even though there is a Uruguayan club of the same name (whose article is at Liverpool FC (Montevideo)), because the vast majority of searches will expect to find the English club. Probably more pertinently, FIFA World Cup is about the men's tournament with no redirect, and FIFA itself appears to use "FIFA World Rankings" and "FIFA Women's World Rankings" Oldelpaso 07:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I've added a link at top of page to the women's ranking page. Wantok 10:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, according to the FIFA website the official name of these is the FIFA Coca Cola World Rankings, and the womens ones are the FIFA womens world rankings, please see the duscussion above. Any gender bias here is on the part of FIFA, not wikipedia, and wikipedia as it should, has accurately recorded the information as the case is.Philc _T^E_C^I 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) IT'S OBVIOUS WHY IT'S MEN ONLY!! THAT"S WHAT IT SAYS! GO DO WHAT EARL ANDREW SAID IF YOU WONDER WHY!!

Footnote

Question - should a footnote be included, if one has to register with the site in order to read the full article. I refer what is currently number 7, linking to an article where the Americans can't believe they're ranked 4th. Surely if there is no article without registration, there should be no link? --Andymarczak 13:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the article used to freeview, I added it (I think), and I certainly haven't registered. Ohwell, I don't know what the appropriate thing to do is. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As it's from Associated Press, the story should be somewhere else that doesn't need registration. The Wikipedia policy has some suggestions for finding other online copies. Wantok 01:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Help please

I have started a fairly major task: to include the highest and lowest in these rankings into the infobox for every national side. This was inspired by a rainy day and a request on Talk:Republic of Ireland national football team. I duly made the changes to Template:Infobox National football team and have so far only altered Republic of Ireland national football team and the 10 members of CONMEBOL. The task basically consists of soucing the info at http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/rank/compare.html?static=5 and pasting the following code in each teams article, somewhere within the infobox brackets, with the relevant dates and rankings replacing these data(which are for Rep of Ireland). Perhaps anyone taking on part of this task could "baggsy" a set of nations here, to prevent duplication of effort. Kevin McE 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

1st ranking date = August 1993 |
FIFA max = 5 |
FIFA max date = August 1993 |
FIFA min = 57 |
FIFA min date = November 1998 |

Oceanea done as well, but the remaining confederations are biggies... Kevin McE 11:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done the UK nations Fedgin 11:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I've done the rest of UEFA (apart from Ukraine, which is under edit protection)...Kevin McE 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is a discussion ongoing in Template talk:Infobox National football team if these informations should be kept or removed.--Kwame Nkrumah 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Result of discussion was keep Kevin McE 08:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sept 06 update

I have done the FIFA rankings update for Sept 2006 for all federations apart from Africa and Oceania, but I will not be able to get at Wi9ki for about a week: anyone game to have a go at them rather than leave it out of date. If anyone is feeling really co-operative, or bored, the FIFA max/mins as in the heading above still need doing for CAF Kevin McE 08:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The table needs to be updated for November 2006, but I don't think I know much enough about wiki formatting, so perhaps someone could do something?--81.236.17.8 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

erm: I updated it on the day the new rankings came out. Not sure what this user is expecting to see. Kevin McE 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Explain Please

Can someone please explain the following The equation to give ranking points is given as

Ranking points = (Result points) x (Match status multiplier) x (Opposition strength multiplier) x (Regional strength multiplier) x (Date multiplier) x 100

Based on this, any team beating another team in the top 10 during the world cup finals would gain approx 3x3x1.90x1x1x100=1710 points

This is more than the total number of points that Brazil at the top of the table have.

Am I missing something? Should the the x100 multiplier be removed. Are the points on the table an average? Graemec2 09:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing from the figures that they're an average; but it needs explaining. --Robdurbar 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As the examples make clear, a team can get a maximum of 2400 points from a single game (Andorra beating Germany in the World Cup final?) so I assume the ranking is your average point score of all your matches. The maximum possible score would then be (somewhat less than*) 2400, which I guess fits with the 1500-1600 that the current top nation has. 213.112.249.100 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• ) unless all your five minimum matches in a single period are world cup finals against the highest ranking team... ;-)

Comparison with ELO Rankings

'Significant changes were implemented in 1999 and again in 2006, in order to allow FIFA's system to compete with the Elo ratings, which were considered a more accurate, credible guide to the teams' rankings.'

This appears to be a highly biased statement. I mean the FIFA rankings obviously have their problems - I'm not a massive fan - but I've never heard anyone say that the ELO ratings are considered any better (in fact, one hears very little of them). If this could be changed to a sourced comment stating that 'some commentators' consider the ELO rankings better, then fine; but for now its got to go. --Robdurbar 14:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism...

I don't understand why it is so surprising that Norway was on the 2nd place in October 1993. They did beat Turkey 3-1, Poland 3-0, England 2-0, and played a raw against Holland. Right now they are at 51st, that I understand...

and results like that are why they were so ranked. But very few football fans if asked in 1993 to name the best two sides in the world would have placed Norway among them: that is why an editor found it surprising. But who is to say that the statistics are wrong and common perception is right...Kevin McE 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"A" Match

Could anyone explain me about the All international "A" matches? I quite don't understand what the meaning of this. I found it in the first criteria in the FIFA Web. Thank you --Manop - TH 23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"A" in the sense that it is in contrast to a "B" international, or an under-age selection, an A match is more commonly referred to (in the UK at least) as a full international: it is the designation given by FIFA to games in which the nation's strongest team could be selected, although in practice it often is not. FIFA lists all A internationals (its designation" since 1980: prior to that, whether games were full internationals is not always clear, and is in effect a matter of the intention of the FAs involved.Kevin McE 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What is Guinea doing on there?

Guinea has never qualified for a World Cup or done anything else.They've never won an African Nations Cup well Poland's won the Olympics.And they're ranked higher than Poland.What a joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.68.34.126 (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

What is Guinea doing on there? Reflecting their position as calculated and reported by FIFA: there would be no justification for the Wikipedia article doing otherwise. There is no real surprise that they hold this position: they were higher a few months ago. Citing a 1972 Olympic vitory by another team shows that you have not read the article closely enough to realise that the rankings are based on the last 4 years, and that Poland's rank is entirely unaffected by that win. You might find it surprizing that Guinea is so highly rated, but unless you can scrutinise their results for the last 4 years and demonstrate that FIFA have miscalculated, then their ranking is no more than a reflection that reputation and performance are not always closely correlated, which is, IMHO, what makes such rankings interesting. Kevin McE 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But,the thing is,that Poland actually has done better in the past 4 years than Guinea.They did qualify for all the world cups in the past 4 years and Guinea's Africa Nations Cup Runner-Up place was in 1976 (the only thing they've ever done) which was not in the past 4 years.So,Poland should probably be ranked ahead.

Your perception is that Poland have done better in the last 4 years, but the FIFA World Rankings are based on a formula that considers match results and the statistical strength of the opposition, with weighting adjustments, not subjective perceptions. There has only been one World Cup in the last 4 years, and the fact of qualifying does not earn rankings points: read the article to see how points are gained; as I said above, if you can demonstrate that FIFA have miscalculated, I'm sure they would be delighted to know. But this page is for discussing the article, not the merits or faults of FIFA's formula for calculation, and all the article can do, if it is to avoid OR, is to report the rankings as published by the relevant authority. Kevin McE 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am almost sure that Rank 23 for Guinea is a mistake made by FIFA. Most probably some of the good results made by Ghana were attributed also to Guinea since the introduction of the new calculation after last world cup. Ghana and Guinea sound almost equal in several languages (like German and English), so they might have been confounded. I even e-mailed my suspicion to FIFA, but there was no reaction at all. But concerning Guinea I have another question concerning the calculation: Normally a team can only win points by playing matches and can only loose points by devaluation of matches already over a year old. But Guinea won 37 Points (from 819 in November up to 856 Points in December), although they played their last match in October 07. And Ghana too have not played since the deadline (November 16.) for November ranking. Or have I missed a rule in the calculation? How can Guinea win points without playing?!

My guess: In this case the matches of Guyana (also similar to Guinea) have been attributed also to Guinea. Guyana wins 35 points and Guinea wins 37 points. Guyana won against Antigua and Barbuda (November 24.), Guadeloupe (November 26.) and Dominican Republic (November 28.). But Guinea itself has not played since October 07. --Rheinländer 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How many matches has Guinea played and won? Somebody who knows should tell us!Actually,never mind.I just found out that Guinea's match on October 7 was a 1-0 loss to Cape Verde. I also discovered that Guinea's record in the past 4 years (From December 21,2002) was 13 wins;9 draws and 8 losses. I don't think they should be on there.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a ääähm Nachrichten page!