PING soccer fans - this guy is an idiot

[bhlloy]

From Frank Deford's SI column this week:

Among the endless number of lists and rankings that appear in profusion on the sports pages, was this tidbit that surfaced the other day: the United States national soccer team is now ranked eighth in the world. The U.S. -- No. 8 in soccer ... ahead of such dyed-in-the-wool football countries as Germany, England and Italy. This is like the U.S. being ahead of Saudi Arabia in oil or China in plastic toys.

It is just another example of how big we are, how rich in facilities and coaching, that we can casually succeed in a sport that everybody in the world cares about more than we do. And here, too, comes Lance Armstrong, going for his sixth straight Tour du France, in cycling -- another sport that barely dents our consciousness.


Wow... so many things wrong with this article. USA a better team than Italy, Germany and England? FIFA rankings actually meaning something? Casually succeeding in a sport that has been on the up for 15 years and now has millions upon millions of dollars pumped into it? I've always though Deford was an idiot and I've never read something remotely enlightening in his columns but this one is a masterpiece of uninformed, zero research and zero knowledge sports journalism. It doesn't get any better either and I'm really not sure what his point is.

I'd send him an e-mail, but it wouldn't get a reply so I'm not sure I can be bothered.

(for people who don't know about the FIFA rankings - here are the really good ones:

IRAN ranked 18th
South Korea ranked 19th
Costa Rica ranked 22nd
Saudi Arabia ranked 23rd
40-50 gets really funny - Ecuador, Mali and IRAQ - my personal favourite. Yes folks, that's IRAQ as a better team than Ukraine, Wales, Scotland, Austria, Australia and so on and so on.

I really could go on all day so I'll stop but I hope people see the point.

To be fair, the rankings do have a purpose. They make sure that teams from other continents other than Europe and South America get seeded properly for tournaments, and it's useful for comparing teams in an area. But to take it like Deford has done to indicate that one team is better than another shows he knows nothing about soccer and has made no attempt to learn )

[Ryan S]

40-50 gets really funny - Ecuador, Mali and IRAQ - my personal favourite. Yes folks, that's IRAQ as a better team than Ukraine, Wales, Scotland, Austria, Australia and so on and so on.
I have never seen Iraq play, but I would not be suprised if they were better than Scotland. I think a FOF Central XI would give Scotland a tough game.

I think Iraq have just qualified for the Olympics. I know the Olympic soccer tournament is a bit of a joke, but there must be some talent there if they have managed to qualify.

[bhlloy]

They are currently touring Division 3 sides. They had a game with Hartlepool on the weekend I believe that was cancelled when Hartlepool made the playoffs and they have a game with someone that I can't remember this week sometime. Even Scotland aren't that bad :)

Qualifying for the Olympics from the Middle East region I'd imagine is not the hardest thing to do in the world either and certainly doesn't mean you are in the top 40 teams in the world. I don't have a huge problems with the rankings system - they are a joke but they do serve a purpose. I do have a problem with the uninformed jingoistic journalism in the article though. Maybe I'm being hyper sensitive.

[Chief Rum]

They are currently touring Division 3 sides. They had a game with Hartlepool on the weekend I believe that was cancelled when Hartlepool made the playoffs and they have a game with someone that I can't remember this week sometime. Even Scotland aren't that bad :)

Qualifying for the Olympics from the Middle East region I'd imagine is not the hardest thing to do in the world either and certainly doesn't mean you are in the top 40 teams in the world. I don't have a huge problems with the rankings system - they are a joke but they do serve a purpose. I do have a problem with the uninformed jingoistic journalism in the article though. Maybe I'm being hyper sensitive.

So you have any scores from that tour? Saying games got cancelled doesn't prove a team is bad. Telling us how they did does.

Also, "the Middle East" isn't a region for the Olympics anymore than it is for the World Cup. Iraq has to qualify with plenty of solid teams throughout Asia.

I'm not saying they're good. I really don't know. But you're barely using more facts than Deford was.

CR

[bhlloy]

True, but I'm making a post in 20 seconds on a public message board. Deford is reporting for one of the most respected sports magazines in the world. Plus I was making fun of Ryan S and his Scotland team (still trying to find a video of my boy Earnshaw putting 3 past you) rather than making a concrete point.

However you are right, and looking up Iraq's record they are a pretty respectable team. Still don't think they deserve to be where they are , but they did beat Saudi Arabia to get to the Olympics. Maybe I have been harsh on them.

Their high ranking may well have something to do with the fact that FIFA recently reinstated them and their record since then has been impeccable. I don't know if that factors in or how good they were before that.

And yes Asia is the region, not "the middle east". Still one of the weaker regions in the world by a long way.

[Mr. Wednesday]

FIFA rankings actually meaning something?They actually do mean something -- three snapshots of the FIFA rankings make up half the formula used to determine the seeded teams in the next World Cup.

(The other half is a points formula based on performance in the last three World Cups.)

[GoldenEagle]

****EuroSnot Alert*****

I will play for FOFCCentral XI.

[Ragone]

I was a pretty good Goalie.. in high school :)

[Fonzie]

I warm a mean bench. Sign me up!

[GoldenEagle]

I was a pretty good goalie...in college :)

I am retired now though and coaching. I could be a player/manager!

[andy m]

From Frank Deford's SI column this week:

It is just another example of how big we are, how rich in facilities and coaching, that we can casually succeed in a sport that everybody in the world cares about more than we do.



this guy is an absolute wanker.

i guess it is a great and marvellous achievement to be more successful at football than nations like cameroon who have such a ridiculously small fraction of the resources to fund development in sports as the USA.

[GoldenEagle]

Great. Another EuroSnob joins the thread.

[Marc Vaughan]

LOL :D

The FIFA rankings are used mainly for International tournaments and as such are naturally biased to the area that teams use for Qualifacations in such tournaments.

Hence if you are placed in a geographical area where there is relatively minor opposition for your team you will tend to be artificially ranked higher than you might otherwise.

Similar things happen in other 'artificial' comparisons of teams - for instance Celtic and Rangers dominate their league year in year out, does this mean that they are the best team in the world - no, its impossible to judge because the standard of their opposition is different.

My judgement is that the American soccer team is of a pretty good standard and has come on leaps and bounds in recent years - I also believe they will continue to improve in the future.

Are they 'truly' the 8th best national team in the world - in my opinion no, but again its impossible to truly judge as soccer is an unpredictable sport at the best of times and as with most people I know I'm biased anyway.

Marc (still thinks the Rep. of Ireland are too low in the rankings) Vaughan

[mckerney]

I suppose I could join the team. I've always been fairly good at ruffianism, and I usually know when hooliganism is needed as well.

[bhlloy]

I don't think I am being a snob in saying that the US isn't number 8 in the world (yet - I have no doubt they are going to be there and higher in 5 years) and I don't think I'm being a snob saying that casually succeeding at a sport does not involve pumping millions of dollars into it. Deford's reasoning is a joke and if this was an article saying for example that Argentina are a better basketball team than the US, this board would be all over it.

America is the best in the world at track, baseball, football, basketball. But not soccer. Yet. Give us this one it's all we're hanging onto :)

And yes, the rankings are used in seedings. And it gives the whole thing a semblance of fairness. But they don't mean a thing (except when comparing teams in the same region) when truly looking to see how good a team is. Looking at Wales I can honestly say we could be expected to tie or beat almost half of the teams ranked above us.

[cartman]

My prediction is that the US will win a World Cup at one of the next 4 competitions. We came so close to beating Germany in the last World Cup, and that would have put us into the Final Four. Most observers feel we outplayed Germany in that match, but were unfortunate to run up against a hot goalie in Oliver Kahn.

I have no question that the US has the athletes to win the World Cup, it's just a matter of identifying them, and having them choose soccer over football, baseball, basketball, or the other sports. If Freddy Adu stays healthy, and gets the right teammates to play with him, we could be entering the golden age of American international soccer.

[Calis]

Wales isn't ranked in the top 50?

How often are the rankings updated? That seems pretty wild that they're that low after the Euro Qualifying showing they've made, but before that I can definitely understand it.

[Huckleberry]

Hey, we finished in the final 8 at the last World Cup and showed very well in the quarterfinal. That screams Top 8 team to me. ;)

You're all welcome for the brilliant in-depth analysis and justification of the rankings.

[cthomer5000]

http://www.uit.no/mancity/pictures/cantona2.jpg

[Alf]

Yeah, the Eric Cantona kung-fu kick picture ! Haven't seen it in ages !

[bhlloy]

Wales isn't ranked in the top 50?

How often are the rankings updated? That seems pretty wild that they're that low after the Euro Qualifying showing they've made, but before that I can definitely understand it.

Number 52 in the ones released a couple of days ago I believe. That's gone up something ridiculous (may be wrong but I think I remember us being close to 100) since Hughes has taken charge.

Not exactly sure of the formula but pretty sure it's either results over the last 3 or 4 years OR the last 3 or 4 competitions entered that are all given equal weight. Which explains why Wales aren't higher as it's only the Euro 2004 campaign we have shown well in.

[Calis]

Ah, didn't realize it went so far back. Guess it's not too far off then.

Well, at least you're going the right way. :)

[PraetorianX]

Hey, we finished in the final 8 at the last World Cup and showed very well in the quarterfinal. That screams Top 8 team to me. ;)

You're all welcome for the brilliant in-depth analysis and justification of the rankings.

Yeah...but we've really not done much since then. :( Dreadful performance in the Confederation Cup and didn't do all that much better in the Gold Cup, plus we didn't even qualify for the olympics. But then again, the only time we've had the entire starting cast of the US team together was, I believe, against Holland (maybe against Poland, too). So that may be partly why. Should put up a good showing in Germany though.

[Mac Howard]

I thought the first paragraph of the quote in the first post made sense - that the ranking of the USA team at 8 is a nonsense. To that extent he's right. But the second paragraph putting this down to the US's affluence, size etc is also nonsense.

The rankings are not worth a lot and nor do FIFA take them seriously themselves - the seeding for international competitions are not based on these without considerable modification. There is far too little information on which to base the statistics and international teams tend to play in their own geographical groupings with limited competition with other groups. Consequently the margin of error in these stats is very high rendering them almost worthless and littering the rankings with anomolies. It's particularly true when looking at teams from different groups.

[Mr. Wednesday]

The rankings are not worth a lot and nor do FIFA take them seriously themselves - the seeding for international competitions are not based on these without considerable modification.That depends on what you mean by "considerable." The World Cup seeding formula is half past WC performance and half points from three FIFA ranking snapshots (for the next WC, end 2003, 2004, and 2005, roughly). I don't think that's much modification, personally, but YMMV.

[Mac Howard]

How long is a piece of string? :)

Let's say the three separate years rankings are mixed on a 50/30/20 basis (no idea what it is) then the current rankings contribute 50%. Then split that 50/50 with the previous world cup results etc and they only directly contribute 25%. 75% comes from elsewhere.

But I think the fact the FIFA doesn't simply use the latest rankings for the seedings suggests that they themselves have little faith in them. They have a passing interest but usually merely generate :rolleyes: