Love and hate for FIFA rankings: When Taifa Stars fall 22 places -------------------------------------------- Notice has just been received on what is seen in the latest rankings of national soccer sides in the periodic review of the international federation, FIFA. The review has an intriguing datum that Taifa Stars have now come down 11 places to descend to 121 having basked in ‘sub-hundred’ glory for a while, before their recent losses to Morocco and then to the Cote d’Ivoire took their toll on the ranking robotic mechanism. When the sub-100 position came about for the first time during the tutelage of Brazilian coach Marcio Maximo there was some understandable fanfare, as then it seemed to be a proper rank. Now it would appear that this is merely transit positioning like possession ranking in a live soccer match. What is means is that it is a bit suggestive of what is happening on the ground, that is may even give a hint of which side is likely to win that match, etc but is hardly the final word about the matter. There is still all the chancy events that can happen, the specific accuracy of each move and any particular move for that matter, that could alter the score even if possession suggests otherwise. If Tanzania falls 22 placed by losing 2-1 to Morocco and a slightly wider margin to Ivory Coast, how did it climb the two dozen positions in the first place? Was it perhaps because it was exposed to weaker competition, and the FIFA robotic counting or ‘ranking’ system simply counts goals and points, not opposition strength? When one looks at the rankings a little closer, it will be easy to find out that it isn’t just Tanzania which would have reason to complain as to their positioning, though, it must be said, it compensates an earlier loss, the sub-100 ranking given at an earlier instance. Since the same robotic mechanism has been at work, to have taken the first transitory ranking enthusiastically simply because it gives a laudable image of the country’s soccer prowess and then reject the second ranking is inconsistent, as it is precisely from the same measurements that the second ranking was obtained. Tanzanians may indeed have a reason to look askance at the rankings but have to accept them; when they are good for us we get convinced. So there is a hypothetical question that comes up about the rankings, as to when there was a robotic mistake in the rankings, if it was when we shot up to sub-100 positioning, or when we came back to 20 places or so below 100 – the old position that we were used to for many years. The reason that this reflex comes about is that the rankings have two related images either of which might be right and the other wrong, when for instance we shot to sub-100 positioning, and now going back to old positioning. The impression one gets is that soccer had improved in the country and now it is in decline, which is unlikely to be factually correct; at the same time, it means soccer has vastly improved elsewhere, now. When one tries to seek out the dynamic in the rankings, chances of making sense what sort of motion (movement of quality) in a country’s soccer are few. At best it is a measure of luck, and truly we have been a bit unlucky lately, and when this is added to our structural weaknesses, we could factually be at number 121. But unless luck is taken into account, how does Spain retain number one position after they were thrashed 3-0 by Brazil lately? And it is by magic that Ivory Coast basks at number 13 in the world and Brazil finds itself at a ‘respectable’ number nine after reaching number 22 earlier? Foolhardy?
Posted on: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 07:09:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015