If it was up to the FIFA world rankings England would have beaten Montenegro, Turkey would have beaten Azerbaijan, Slovakia would have beaten the Republic of Ireland and Austria would have beaten Belgium, just. This was not the case!
With a whole host of international matches being played on Tuesday a number of results broke the supposed norm of the FIFA world rankings. It certainly leaves me wondering whether it is worth taking any notice of the point system that ranks teams in terms of their ability, especially when football over the many years has proved to be a sometimes unpredictable game.
It seems I am not alone in my scepticism of the system. Through trawling the forums, websites and blogs on the internet there is an abundance of arguments that raise many different, but all valid reasons why we shouldn’t pay to much attention to the standings, and how they produce them.
One such argument that carries significant weight is the calculations used by FIFA and the resulting disparity between perceived quality and the actual world ranking of some of the teams. For example in 2006 the United States found themselves ranked 4th in the standings much to the surprise of even their own players. Furthermore, in 2008 Israel climbed the rankings up to 15th despite failing to reach a major international competition in recent times.
There is also a strong argument behind the notion that more points should be gained by the higher the ranked team a country beats. Simplistically speaking would it be fair for Wales to gain 2 points for beating Andorra and then only another 2 points for beating Brazil?
Then there is the large and complex discussion that comparing European national teams is fine, they all play the same opposition, they all play in the same format and the same seeding system. Comparing Asian and American national teams is fine too. The problem then arises when they are all compared. They all play different oppositions, they all play in different formats and have different seeding systems. At face value does that all seem a bit inconsistent? It also leaves us questioning if that is why the American national team where able to find themselves at the dizzy heights of 4th in the FIFA standings in 2006.
It also speaks volumes the fact that due to the perceived flaws with the FIFA system other rivaling systems have been established such as the World Football Elo Ratings. A system that has proved to be not only more respected but more accurate.
If the FIFA rankings are to be believed then we as a nation should be mounting a serious challenge in the tournaments we enter. This is simply not true, England have been high in the rankings for years now but have not mounted a serious challenge since Euro 96. Before that Italia 90, therefore the rankings are dubious and have very little meaning, other than initiating debate.
