Elo Rankings vs Fifa Rankings

[soccerates]

Elo rankings have been around since the beginning of international soccer, whereas Fifa's ranking system began in the 80's sometime (if I remeber correctly). Both use a different formula, which I will be making a posting on, at a later date, in this thread. Looking at the relative placings below, which do YOU the read think is more accurate, and WHY? Please don't just pick the ranking which gives your team the better position either ;) but think through the points I've made below the respective rankings.

We can discuss the methods later.


Elo's Current Rankings (www.eloratings.net):

#...Team.............Pts

1....Brazil............2002
2....Netherlands...1959
3....France..........1946
4....England.........1933
5....Czechia.........1931
6....Spain............1928
7....Italy..............1909
8....Argentina.......1908
9....Portugal.........1880
10...Sweden.........1874
11...Germany.......1868
12...Denmark.......1854
13...Croatia..........1834
14...United States..1820
15...Romania........1817
16...Poland...........1812
17...Turkey...........1811
18...Mexico...........1806
19...Iran...............1801
20...Uruguay.........1799


Fife's Ranks (www.fifa.com):

#...Team...............Pts

1....Brazil...............841
2....Czech Republic...796
3....Netherlands.......791
4....Argentina.........774
5....France.............772
6....Spain...............771
7....Mexico.............768
8....USA.................766
9....England............757
10...Portugal...........754
11...Turkey.............749
12...Italy................741
13...Denmark..........732
14...Sweden ............731
15...Japan...............713
16...Germany..........710
17...Greece.............708
18...Urugual............706
19 Iran .................702
20 Croatia..............701

Now there are clear discrepancies between the two with the exception of Brazil sitting on top. In Elo we have the Czechs ranked 5th, then 2nd at Fifa (a difference of 3 spots). Holland are 2nd according to Elo but 3rd according to Fifa (1 spot difference). Spain somehow manage to remain 6th on both.

So there are some consistencies, but then there are some big discrepancies...

Take Argentina for example; 8th on Elo and 4th on Fifa (4 spot change)
Italy 7th on Elo and 11th on Fifa (5 spot change)
It grows with Mexico who are 18th!! on Elo and 7th on Fifa (a whoping 11 spot change).
England are 4th on Elo and 9th on Fifa (5 spot change)
The US sit at 14th on Elo and 8th on Fifa (6 spot change).
Japan doesn't make Elo's top 20 (sit at 21), but are 15th on Fifa (6 spot change).
Turkey are 17th on Elo and 11th on Fifa (6 spot change)
Greece are 23rd on Elo and 17th on Fifa (6 spot change)
Germany are 11th on Elo and 16th on Fifa (5 spot change)

Apart from some of the "newcomers" to the International game being the US, Mexico, Turkey and Japan (not in any particular order, but a few who fit this critera) all of whom score better on Fifa than Elo, some of the "bigs" show the reverse trend scoring better on Elo than on Fifa (Argentina, Italy, England, Germany etc).

So it appears that method used by Fifa somehow gives an advantage to teams like Turkey, USA, Mexico, Japan, or what can be relatively termed as the "non-giants" of football (I use that term loosely).

So what accounts for these gaps in a supposed 'objective' ranking system?

If we take the points earned by both systems and take the average this is what comes out as the top 10:

**NOTE** In the event that teams are tied below, I simply took the one who had the greater ELO score (not for any particular reason, simply because it was the first one listed in my posting here). Also teams in bold are teams who did not make this cup where as teams that are italicized are those that failed to make the last cup. **

.....Team.............ELO......Fifa.......................Average
1....Brazil............2002 + 841 = 2843 / 2 =....1421
2....Netherlands...1959 + 791 = 2750 / 2 =.....1375
3....Czechia.........1931 + 796 = 2727 / 2 =.....1363
4....France..........1946 + 772 = 2718 / 2 = ......1359
5....Spain............1928 + 771 = 2699 / 2 = .....1349
6....England.........1933 + 757 = 2690 / 2 = .....1345
7....Argentina.......1908 + 774 = 2662 / 2 = .....1331
8....Italy..............1909 + 741 = 2650 / 2 = .....1325
9....Portugal.........1880 + 754 = 2634 / 2 = .....1317
10...Sweden.........1874 + 731 = 2605 / 2 = .....1302
11...Denmark.......1854 + 732 = 2586 / 2 = .....1293
12...United States..1820 + 766 = 2586 / 2 =......1293
13...Germany........1868 + 710 = 2578 / 2 =.....1289
14...Mexico...........1806 + 768 = 2574 / 2 =.....1287
15...Turkey...........1811 + 749 = 2560 / 2 =.....1280
16...Croatia..........1834 + 701 = 2535 / 2 =.....1267
17...Poland...........1812 + 696 = 2508 / 2 = .....1254
18...Romania........1817 + 686 = 2503 / 2 = ......1251
19...Uruguay.........1799 + 706 = 2505 / 2 = .....1252
20...Iran...............1801 + 702 = 2503 / 2 = .....1251

So when we take the average the ratings look a little more similar to what Elo currently has, however that is also influenced by the fact that ELO's point system gives a higher score and a wider gap between the countries, so it will naturally still favor the same sort of rank.

Now, teams like The Dutch and The Czechs score high on both, however both teams failed to make the last cup. Furthermore, France is also high on both but went out early in the last cup and both Spain and the Czechs went into the playoff this time around, so those particular failures have "failed" to make a difference in their current rankings, therefore putting more emphasis on what has happened in between these tournaments, which means friendlies and qualifiers alike. It should also be noted that both ranking systems give points for goals scored as well, therefore they will favor teams that not only win but also pad their 'stats' by running up the score on lesser competition.

So...in YOUR OPINION which ranking is more accurate?

[RaulMadrid7]

Elo simply has been around more... so my vote goes for them. But basically both FIFA and Elo give fair statistics IMO.

[soccerates]

Well, let's be a little more clear shall we? Accurate would mean which you think is more based on the current status of teams, because in terms of "fairness" both are "fair" simply because they are only a representation of the methods...which I will post later.

[Tottenham Dave]

Good thread.

I dunno which is better, seems to me, having checked out the elo site that they give points on an opinion basis rather than any strict rules:

eg

November 16 Cyprus 1 Wales 0
Friendly
in Cyprus
Cyprus +12 Wales -12


November 12 Netherlands 1 Italy 3
Friendly
in the Netherlands
Netherlands -23 Italy +23

Whilst it's a great result for Italy, do Holland really deserve to lose 23 points on the basis of one game?
I think, even though Wales aren't exactly flying right now, that is a really good result for Cyprus, and perhaps deserves more, especially if a top side like Italy earn 23 in one game.


I cannot comment on FIFA's rankings as, since the day I started following football, FIFA have confused me on just about everything :rolleyes:

[brazuca5copas]

Both are stupids. Every ranking is ridiculous, 'cause SOCCER ISN'T TENNIS. Soccer is soccer. Soccer is a coletive sport, is totally different. Points will never determinated a national qualification.

[PunkguyEG]

I think Elo makes a better job.

[SE7E]

Brazil leads both...

[BRISTOLUK]

I dunno which is better, seems to me, having checked out the elo site that they give points on an opinion basis rather than any strict rules:eg
November 16 Cyprus 1 Wales 0
Friendly
in Cyprus
Cyprus +12 Wales -12

November 12 Netherlands 1 Italy 3
Friendly
in the Netherlands
Netherlands -23 Italy +23

Whilst it's a great result for Italy, do Holland really deserve to lose 23 points on the basis of one game?
I think, even though Wales aren't exactly flying right now, that is a really good result for Cyprus, and perhaps deserves more, especially if a top side like Italy earn 23 in one game.

Agreed. I'm not sure why there has to be negative points anyway. Unless it was a truly embarrassing result. And losing to Italy should not be embarrassing for any team. And certainly not worse than losing to Cyprus.
There seem to be anomalies in both lists. I tend to favour the Elo list since it places the USA further down but then I'm not sure why they place England (and I speak as an England fan) so much higher than FIFA.

[Toke-E-Yo]

Frankly, I dont think that the Elo ratings are wrong. I mean lets be serious.


1....Brazil............2002
2....Netherlands...1959
3....France..........1946
4....England.........1933
5....Czechia.........1931
6....Spain............1928
7....Italy..............1909
8....Argentina.......1908
9....Portugal.........1880
10...Sweden.........1874
11...Germany.......1868
12...Denmark.......1854
13...Croatia..........1834
14...United States..1820
15...Romania........1817
16...Poland...........1812
17...Turkey...........1811
18...Mexico...........1806
19...Iran...............1801
20...Uruguay.........1799


BOLD=TEAMS THAT ARE WRONG

Im sorry, but IMO Uraguay, Poland and Romania should be replaced. I know sure as hell that Japan should be up on that list as of now, but since Elo is older, and Japanese football didnt come up the ranks until 1994 i can understand y there not on there.

[ricoo9]

Elo defenitly superior to fifas ranking. Its more accurate in level of teams as to fifas who has mexico as 7th which is unbelievable in my opinion.

[bartolommeff]

i think elo rankings are better. they seem just.

as far as toke-e-yo's comment: sure you think japan should be there, you're from japan or are a japanese living somewhere else. therefore, you think that, "gee.. my team has to be up there." its getting there (21st) and good luck to them.
but using that same logic, i am saying that poland deserve that spot they have on the elo rankings. 16th place is right for them IMO. but i will go one step further and say that poland, in the WC qulifying, has gone:

8-0-2 in 10 games for 24 points while scoring 27 and giving up 9

They finished second in the group only behind england which managed first place with 25 points. our 2 losses both coming to england were two 2-1 losses. thats not bad considering the names on the english side. therefore, i think that 16th is justified based on recent months and games played leading up to WC2006. thats my opinion and reasoning for the spot Poland have which i think is fair.

[WeeMan]

Both are stupids. Every ranking is ridiculous, 'cause SOCCER ISN'T TENNIS. Soccer is soccer. Soccer is a coletive sport, is totally different. Points will never determinated a national qualification.

Agree completely. Rankings are a load of rubbish. Scotland (while being relatively piss poor) are still a lot better than Bahrain etc which are all a above us in the FIFA rankings. They are based on games played in competitive tournaments but is anyone seriously trying to say that a win against the UAE in the middle east is as good as a draw against Italy?

Rankings are required when it comes to seeding in major tournaments but it still means hee-haw whem it comes to actual ability.....

[Lusitânia Power]

Elo Rankings are simply better than FIFA, period ahahah

[theman]

There shouldn't be rankings - they mean absolutely nothing. The fact that U.S.A are so high in both of them speaks volumes. It's ridiculous, I mean according to FIFA they are the 5th best team in the worl, better than England :rolleyes:

[ekeane99]

I would say elo because they have been around longer. And as someone said before rankings dont mean squat on the day.

[BRISTOLUK]

It's not that 'Rankings' are a daft idea, it's that they need to be done in a way so as to properly reflect ability, success, results, performances etc.
Clearly, when a team can be highly placed because of the relatively poor quality of their opponenets, it will be misleading.
Equally, a system based solely on success in tournaments is likely to throw up anomalies too. It's accepted that Holland are a pretty good side, but they wouldn't even be in the top 32 if the previous WC performance was the only guide. Argentina would be ranked lower than South Korea merely because they were a victim of 2002's Group of Death.
For this WC, FIFA combined the two and the resulting rankings are a lot more accurate than their normal rankings. They could do a lot worse than adopt this method until they come up with something better.

[handofgod]

No there should be rankings but Fifa Rankings are like Ea Fifa game. Stinks!!!!!!!!!!!

Mexico seeded to be head of a group???!!!! What a f*** joke!!!!

[WeeMan]

No there should be rankings but Fifa Rankings are like Ea Fifa game. Stinks!!!!!!!!!!!

Mexico seeded to be head of a group???!!!! What a f*** joke!!!!

Heh-heh!! Like the name!!!! His holy fatness will always have a special place in every Scotsman's heart. We even have a song about it.....