Latest updates

Check the Important info page for latest updates! (2 December 2016)
TwitterLinked In

Monday, January 19, 2009

2010 WC: Seeding formula based on current standings (14 January 2009)

Seeded teams for the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa.

Qualified teams determined using the current standings and the FIFA rankings.

New Zealand replaces Qatar.
 1 Germany        60.3 30.3 30.0
2 Brazil 58.3 29.3 29.0
3 Italy 56.7 27.3 29.3
4 Spain 56.3 25.3 31.0
5 England 51.0 26.3 24.7
6 Argentina 49.7 21.0 28.7
7 Netherlands 43.7 14.7 29.0
--------------------------------
8 Mexico 35.7 19.3 16.3
9 Croatia 35.0 9.0 26.0
10 Turkey 32.7 10.0 22.7
11 USA 31.3 13.7 17.7
12 Paraguay 31.0 11.7 19.3
13 Ghana 25.0 13.3 11.7
14 Russia 25.0 3.0 22.0
15 Cameroon 23.3 3.0 20.3
16 Japan 23.0 13.3 9.7
17 Nigeria 22.0 2.7 19.3
18 Korea Republic 21.7 15.7 6.0
19 Australia 20.7 11.3 9.3
20 Greece 19.7 0.0 19.7
21 Israel 17.7 0.0 17.7
22 Cote d'Ivoire 17.3 6.0 11.3
23 Uruguay 17.3 2.7 14.7
24 Egypt 17.3 0.0 17.3
25 Denmark 16.7 7.7 9.0
26 Serbia 16.3 5.3 11.0
27 Iran 10.7 5.3 5.3
28 Chile 8.3 0.0 8.3
29 Honduras 5.3 0.0 5.3
30 South Africa 5.0 3.0 2.0
31 Slovakia 3.3 0.0 3.3
32 New Zealand 1.0 0.0 1.0
Top 7 + South Africa seeded.

The pots:

Pot 1: Argentina, Brazil, England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain
Pot 2: Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Israel, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey
Pot 3: Australia, Honduras, Iran, Japan, Korea Republic, Mexico, New Zealand, USA
Pot 4: Cameroon, Chile, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, Paraguay, Uruguay

Possible draw (using random.org):

Group A: South Africa, Denmark, Korea Republic, Uruguay
Group B: Germany, Israel, Honduras, Chile
Group C: England, Greece, New Zealand, Paraguay
Group D: Argentina, Slovakia, Japan, Cote d'Ivoire
Group E: Netherlands, Serbia, Australia, Cameroon
Group F: Italy, Russia, USA, Ghana
Group G: Brazil, Turkey, Mexico, Egypt
Group H: Spain, Croatia, Iran, Nigeria

7 comments:

  1. Can you please break out your computations for each team, I get different numbers for many teams.

    The error could obviously be mine, but if so I'd like to understand were my calculations went awry.

    Assuming the 2006 formula carries over.
    50% Past 2 WC's (1/3 '02, 2/3 '06)
    50% Last 3 FIFA Ranks (1/3 each).

    Now, you can't do the FIFA Rankings yet, as the 32 Qualified teams are ranked in order, and those aren't determined yet, but the WC points should be fixed, and I get different numbers.

    Here's an easy one, South Korea.

    Finished 4th in '02.
    4 = Rank = 4 = Pts 29
    29 x .3333 = 9.66657

    Finished 17th in '06.
    South Korea was the only 4 point team not to qualify for the Round of 16. There can be no doubt (tiebreakers) about their finishing in 17th place.
    17 = Rank 17 = Pts 16.
    16 x .66667 = 10.666667

    10.66667 + 9.666657 = 20.333237

    Yet you have them at 15.7.

    What am I missing? Or what are you missing?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. South Korea gets 9 points for 2006, not 16.

    See this pdf document.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Edgar, but I'm still unclear on the tie-breakers for 1-16.

    I was using:

    1) Pts (overall record, including knock-out games).
    2) GD
    3) Goals scored
    4) FIFA Ranking

    But this also produced inconsistent results, is there some sort of preference for teams knocked out in a.e.t. or on penalties?

    And I'm still unclear on the rankings of the bottom teams as well. Do 3rd place teams automatically get spots 17-24, even if a 4th place team has a better record (say, a 2 pt Uruguay team in '02 finished 3rd, but Poland finished 4th on 3), is Uruguay 26th or 24th?

    Or is there a PDF which shows the point allocations for the whole tournament. If I had that, I could probably figure it out for myself.

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To follow up my confusion:

    Take WC '98:

    Italy is ranked 5, Argentina 6.

    Argentina has a better record in Group (3-0-0) vs. Italy's (2-1-0).
    As they lost in the same round, they have a better record overall. And a better GD.

    Yet, Italy gets ranked above Argentina, why? Even if one county the game as a draw, they are still behind on points.

    Yet Italy gets ranked as 5 and Argentina 6.

    So I figure, PK loss means you get the highest ranking for that round.

    Korea '02. Spain beats Ireland on PK's in the 16's, but Ireland doesn't get ranked 9, Japan does?

    What, no PK boost for the Irish?

    If there is no such thing, that's fine, then why the Italy boost in '98.

    Just an example, but it still seems inconsistent to me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi! I assume you're TrueCrew from BigSoccer.

    This is not official, but I get the same results as FIFA do using these rules.

    Bottom teams:

    It's based on total points, not ranking within the group. In 2002, Ecuador (ranked 4th in a group with Mexico, Italy and Croatia) receive 9 points, while Uruguay (ranked 3rd in a group with Denmark, Senegal and France) receive 8 points.

    Italy vs. Argentina - 1998

    Group stage

    Italy 3 2 1 0 7-3 7p +4
    Argentina 3 3 0 0 7-0 9p +7

    Round of 16

    Argentina-England 2-2 (4-3 PSO)
    Italy-Norway 1-0

    Quarter-finals

    Italy - France 0-0 (3-4 PSO)
    Netherlands - Argentina 2-1

    Now, we add them up. A PK loss/win counts as a draw.

    Italy 5 3 2 0 8-3 11p +5
    Argentina 5 3 1 1 10-4 10p +6

    Italy ranked above Argentina.


    Ireland vs. Japan - 2002

    Group stage + Round of 16

    Japan 4 2 1 1 5-3 7p +2
    Ireland 4 1 3 0 6-3 6p +3

    Japan ranked above Ireland.

    I will post a FAQ when I can find the time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks,

    Count PK's as a draw, and move on from there, just like in group.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I never realized that their non-advancing teams were simply broken into ranks of 8 by points etc., rather than by positional finish in their group. I've been telling people otherwise, I'll have to correct that going forward.

    ReplyDelete