That's true. And often coaches will play "B" teams in those games. I think they do consider that, and weigh friendlies a bit lighter. If you look below, the second bullet point is "Status of Match (1-4)" which I think means World Cup is heavy points, friendly is lightest. Qualifiers are medium. Etc.

This all made me curious, so I looked up some interesting info from FIFA:

WHAT COUNTS TOWARDS THE RANKING?
All international “A” matches played in the previous four years (48 months).

HOW ARE RANKING POINTS CALCULATED?
Points are won on the basis of a number of specific criteria:
• Points for a win, draw or defeat (3, 1, 0)
• Status of match (multiplication factor of 1 to 4)
• Strength of opponent (multiplication factor of between 0.50 and 2.00)
• Strength of confederation in question (multiplication factor of between 0.85 and 1.00)

WHO BENEFITS FROM THE REVISION?
Generally speaking, the biggest winners are the teams who win competitive matches, especially against highranking
opponents. Draws secure only limited gains, particularly in friendly matches, while defeats do not bring
any points.

WHO LOSES OUT?
Teams who often lose or draw matches will get fewer points. Furthermore, any team that records a major victory
(e.g. a continental championship title) will suffer losses in the ranking 12 months later if, by that time, it has not
gained lots of points in more recent matches.

WHAT HAPPENS TO TEAMS THAT HAVE NOT PLAYED ENOUGH?
If a team has played less than five matches in the preceding 12 months, its total for the year (e.g. for the three
matches it has played) is simply divided by five.

WHY DO TEAMS SOMETIMES LOSE POINTS EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT PLAYED?
The longer it is since a match was played, the less important it becomes for the ranking. This continues until,
after four years, the match no longer has any impact on the calculation of the ranking. As a result, it is possible
for teams to climb or fall in the ranking even if they have not played.

WHY IS THE RANKING NOT CALCULATED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE BASIS OF RESULTS IN MAJOR COMPETITIONS?
Because it would mean that small associations would not even make it into the ranking as they never qualify for
the top events. Moreover, the statistics show that 50% of matches taken into account in the ranking between
2002-2005 were friendlies. These matches are also important for the nations hosting major championships since
they do not usually have to take part in qualifiers.

WHY DOES THE CALCULATION INCLUDE A CONFEDERATION WEIGHTING?
Matches between teams from different confederations (interconfederational matches) are relatively rare. The
separate regions therefore retain the character of autonomous and relatively closed leagues that are only
partially comparable with one another.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE POTENTIAL POINTS GAINS BEFORE A MATCH?
Yes. Plans are being made to introduce a tool in 2007 that will allow anyone who is interested in the world
ranking to calculate potential and actual points gains and monitor the overall progress of their chosen team on
FIFA.com.

WHY ARE HOST NATIONS THAT DO NOT HAVE TO COMPETE IN QUALIFYING MATCHES NOT GIVEN A SPECIAL STATUS?
Because we do not want to jeopardise the desired transparency and also to take account of the fact that host
nations have the advantage of automatic qualification in any case. The host nations of major tournaments only
contest friendly matches for a certain period. As a result, they may fall in the world ranking.

 

Very nice goal by the Czechs

 

IMO they should change this rule. Look at Italy for example, they've won the World Cup in 2006, no team (besides Spain) has done better since.
Italy is ranked beneath teams like Chile, Croatia, Denmark and England who haven't won anything, they didn't even went to the final 8 of the World Cup.
I'm not a fan of Italy but I think that the way this ranking is made should change.

 

You have to look what has done Italy in the last 6 years, not only titles count.

 

Maybe they should have one ranking for actuality and one "marathon"-table?

 

At the end, titles is actually the only thing that counts.



Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

I agree. It's definitely flawed. I mean a few years ago USA was ranked 4th. FOURTH!!!!

Kristof has is right, that the only thing anyone cares about is titles. If you win the world cup it doesn't matter if you're ranked 1 or 20. You're considered the best. But also look at good teams who fail to qualify for big tourneys like the World Cup. That REALLY plays against them, but they may still be "better" than (say) Oceania teams who made it because they automatically get 2 spots or whatever. But they'll miss out on all the points of the tournament, including the possibility to win. But they're still a much better team. Usually, however, the finalists in the biggest tourneys are the people who are supposed to be there - the best anyway.

The thing is, it's like the BCS here in the USA. Everyone hates it, but nobody has a better idea to manage hundreds of teams and games. And in reality, I think the only thing that "ranking" even matters for is to determine the next ranking!

It's not like teams that are highly ranked can get players from other countries to play for them!

 

 

30 minutes before total Annihilation..

Hup Holland Hup!!!