PDA

View Full Version : IFFHS Ranks MLS as 88th in the World



drewski
07-22-2010, 11:12 AM
http://www.iffhs.de/?b6e20fa3002f70d00ee2d17f7370eff3702bb1c2bb0e

ginkster88
07-22-2010, 11:14 AM
Wow, I'd really like to see how those points are allocated. I seriously doubt the league from Yemen has more quality than MLS... and that's just one of the 87 leagues that are ranked as supposedly higher.

Nodoubtguy
07-22-2010, 11:16 AM
87. India 130,5
88. USA 129,0
89. Malawi128,5

really?? hahahaha

jaxul
07-22-2010, 11:17 AM
That looks about right as far as the MLS is concerned.

This ranking makes me want to stream games from Kuwait and Qatar and see how they are evaluated as being better than the Czechs and Danish. Is it all just cash? :D

STB
07-22-2010, 11:19 AM
When you see the performances in the champions league its hard to argue!!

ManUtd4ever
07-22-2010, 11:21 AM
I'm sorry but that ranking is the biggest crock of shit I've ever read. I think MLS should rank in the top 20 at the very least!

ginkster88
07-22-2010, 11:23 AM
I'm sorry but that ranking is the biggest crock of shit I've ever read. I think MLS should rank in the top 20 at the very least!

Exactly my point.

Parkdale
07-22-2010, 11:23 AM
E)
In Central and Northern America, the Mexican league at No 1 is well clear. But the clubs of the MLS disappointed in the CONCACAF Champions League, following the USA league is now in 88th place. The league from Guatemala is currently ahead of those from the USA, Honduras, El Salvador and Costa Rica, the No.2 in this region. But the margins of points are extremely small, so the positions behind the Mexican Primera División can change almost weekly.



yeah, I sense a big anti-USA/MLS slant to that whole thing.

Roogsy
07-22-2010, 11:27 AM
That it's not a top league...I agree.

That it's 88th??? That throws the entire results into doubt.

STB
07-22-2010, 11:27 AM
I'm sorry but that ranking is the biggest crock of shit I've ever read. I think MLS should rank in the top 20 at the very least!

Based on what ??

Surely the only way to judge a league is by how they do against other teams in the region. MLS has done pretty badly in the Champions league from what ive seen.

If you look at the concaf champions league wiki it shows the most successfull leagues in the competition:

Mexico
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Suriname
Guatamala
Honduras
Trinidad & Tobago
USA
Haiti

Azerban
07-22-2010, 11:27 AM
That looks about right as far as the MLS is concerned.


i hate the "you don't know football" argument so instead i'll just feign concern for your glaucoma or basic reasoning disability

if you unironically think the leagues of sudan, bahrain, moldova and india are all better than MLS, we might seriously need to refer you to camh

Azerban
07-22-2010, 11:29 AM
Surely the only way to judge a league is by how they do against other teams in the region.


or you could use your eyes and basic common sense

ginkster88
07-22-2010, 11:31 AM
In addition to the international leagues that rank higher, I'd also like to point out just how little MLS sides seem to care about CONCACAF Champions league matches. Champions League games are mid-week, mid-season and with the SuperLiga, US Open Cup, All-Star game and International Friendlies to play in addition to the MLS Schedule, the clubs participating are often playing two or three times a week. Not exactly a recipe for international success.

jaxul
07-22-2010, 11:32 AM
I'm sorry but that ranking is the biggest crock of shit I've ever read. I think MLS should rank in the top 20 at the very least!

Well let's see now, it has been proven before that most central american and south american leagues have better quality and I think we can all agree that the majority of european clubs are above MLS level of play. That puts the MLS in the 40-50 range. I assume most of us know close to nothing about asian/australian/african leagues therefore it is tough to compare and account for the other 40 spots this rating uses to sink the MLS.

ManUtd4ever
07-22-2010, 11:37 AM
Based on what ??

Surely the only way to judge a league is by how they do against other teams in the region. MLS has done pretty badly in the Champions league from what ive seen.

If you look at the concaf champions league wiki it shows the most successfull leagues in the competition:

Mexico
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Suriname
Guatamala
Honduras
Trinidad & Tobago
USA
Haiti

Granted, I don't have the official statistics regarding past CCL results at my disposal but I do recall that some MLS clubs have faired well in the past. Nontheless, I base my opinion primarily on the quality of football I've watched on television from various leagues around the world. I subscribe to Setanta, GolTV, and FoxSW which show a plethora of games from several leagues in Europe, South America, and Asia. Based on the games I've watched, I stand by my statement...

TFCtoMUFC
07-22-2010, 11:39 AM
or you could use your eyes and basic common sense

You should take your own advice....

jaxul
07-22-2010, 11:40 AM
i hate the "you don't know football" argument so instead i'll just feign concern for your glaucoma or basic reasoning disability

if you unironically think the leagues of sudan, bahrain, moldova and india are all better than MLS, we might seriously need to refer you to camh

I have actually seen games in Moldova live as well as Moldavian teams perform in the first stages of the CL and Europa League, and yes they are in better shape and show better technical ability than the majority of MLS players.

I cannot attest to the Indian league but in the middle east, they throw piles of cash at players to come play and the level in most middle eastern leagues is very decent.

STB
07-22-2010, 11:41 AM
or you could use your eyes and basic common sense


Granted, I don't have the official statistics regarding past CCL results at my disposal but I do recall that some MLS clubs have faired well in the past. Nontheless, I base my opinion primarily on the quality of football I've watched on television from various leagues around the world. I subscribe to Setanta, GolTV, and FoxSW which show a plethora of games from several leagues in Europe, South America, and Asia. Based on the games I've watched, I stand by my statement...

Dont get me wrong if we are talking player power then the MLS should be WAY higher however if you look at the bottom of the page:


If one looks at the football power-houses of the world, one notices that regularly 4 or 5 clubs of their leagues are always competing in continental competitions. By adding the points won in all competitions by the five best placed clubs of each league, we have the points for the country which in turn helps to establish a fair classification

Azerban
07-22-2010, 11:52 AM
well that certainly doesn't help mls

we're the only league in the world where every single club gets to play in international competition at some point

ginkster88
07-22-2010, 11:54 AM
^^ Seriously. Including one that pits the likes of Seattle against the best league in the region.

TorCanSoc
07-22-2010, 11:59 AM
iiiifffhhhsss.com
Who are these guys? Some random web developer puts up a site, me thinks.

Parkdale
07-22-2010, 12:03 PM
just a random thought

With a league like the one in Honduras, a team like Motagua will be stacked with national team players. Clearly that one team will do well in club competitions. If Honduras can make it to the World Cup, then a club team made up of those same players will probably do well.... BUT what's the 4th or 8th ranked team really like? How would the 8th place team in Honduras do against the 8th placed team in MLS? Actually Olimpia is a bigger club than Motagua, but I think that if you take the top3 clubs out of the picture and then compare leagues, the MLS would be MUCH higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.D._Motagua#Squad
^ worth noting that all but 4 players are Honduran nationals.

ginkster88
07-22-2010, 12:07 PM
^ This is the situation for most South American leagues. 1-3 dominant teams and a ton of ineffective sides.

Oldtimer
07-22-2010, 12:07 PM
About as meaningless as FIFA's ratings...

Nazzer
07-22-2010, 12:07 PM
The ranking system uses the last 5 years of international play to come up with their rankings. CONCACAF countries are at a disadvantage compared to other leagues because they play less games internationally. (the champions league is only in its third year, before that the champions cup had a total of 8 teams in a knockout competition). Every other federation has 2 tournaments with group stages.

I emailed the iiffhs once about this and their reaction was basically "the rankins aren't perfect... sorry". In three years as MLS teams play more games internationally the rankings will improve, as will the rest of concacaf countries.

Azerban
07-22-2010, 12:14 PM
are you trying to tell me that the zimbabwe premier soccer league may not be better than mls? but...i read it on the internet...

Parkdale
07-22-2010, 12:19 PM
are you trying to tell me that the zimbabwe premier soccer league may not be better than mls? but...i read it on the internet...

I heard that Henry was going to sign with the Bulawayo Highlanders but changed his mind at the last minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe_Premier_Soccer_League

JonO
07-22-2010, 12:24 PM
Suprised that nobody has pointed out that Brazil and Argentina are ranked higher than England. That's just crazy talk...

Parkdale
07-22-2010, 12:27 PM
Suprised that nobody has pointed out that Brazil and Argentina are ranked higher than England. That's just crazy talk...

I think that many people here would agree that England isn't an untouchable league. There was info about them swinging back into the top spot later in the year, but it's a very close setup. Sure the EPL has all the big deals (tv, sponsorship etc) but I think most people see that it's not really miles ahead of Spain, Brazil or Germany-Italy-France.

JonO
07-22-2010, 12:30 PM
I didn't say anything about Spain/Germany/Italy/France, did I? I know that's much more debatable. I don't know much about the local Brazil league, but Argentina's certainly isn't that impressive.

KezmanCCCC
07-22-2010, 12:31 PM
This ranking is complete bull shit... half the teams ranked before the MLS i would have imagined would have been closer to the bottom of the list.... wtf

Rudi
07-22-2010, 12:32 PM
Well let's see now, it has been proven before that most central american and south american leagues have better quality and I think we can all agree that the majority of european clubs are above MLS level of play.
No.

"Most" Central American leagues are nowhere near the level of MLS. Even the big ones, Honduras and Costa Rica, aren't at the overall level that MLS is. This is why many of their best players, indeed many of the best players from CA and the Caribbean, ply their trade in MLS.

And the "majority" of Euro leagues is a large amount. Sure, England, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Holland and maybe Greece and Belgium can boast better leagues, but there are many more countries in Europe with top tiers far below that of MLS.

Do you rate the Liechtenstein league higher than MLS? The Maltese First Division? The Andorran league?

There are many, many shit leagues all over the world, and quite a few of them are in Europe.

The reason Central American countries do better than MLS in the CCL boils mainly down to the fact that each of those leagues has 2-3 "superclubs" that all the best talent flocks to, while the rest of the league is canon fodder.

MLS' enforced parity doesn't allow this. If MLS was a free-for-all like all other leagues, allowing the best players to congregate on superclubs, you'd see three or four teams dominate (likely NY, LA and Chicago), both in the league and in CCL. Those teams would be on par with the top Mexican sides, and stupid ranking sites would place MLS higher.

Pachuco
07-22-2010, 12:39 PM
Well let's see now, it has been proven before that most central american and south american leagues have better quality and I think we can all agree that the majority of european clubs are above MLS level of play. That puts the MLS in the 40-50 range. I assume most of us know close to nothing about asian/australian/african leagues therefore it is tough to compare and account for the other 40 spots this rating uses to sink the MLS.

There is no way in hell you would ever convince me that the MLS is worst then most leagues in South America. Aside from Argentina and Brazil, MLS in on par with the rest of the leagues (At worst). Same goes for Central America, maybe Mexico is better, but the rest I think are comparable if anything.

One thing about the MLS is it certainly has way more parity then most of these other leagues. That has to somehow be accounted for when you are judging league vs league. If you are comparing the best teams in the league then you should also be comparing the worst teams in the leagues in which case I'm willing to bet the MLS ranking would sky rocket.

Pachuco
07-22-2010, 12:42 PM
No.

"Most" Central American leagues are nowhere near the level of MLS. Even the big ones, Honduras and Costa Rica, aren't at the overall level that MLS is. This is why many of their best players, indeed many of the best players from CA and the Caribbean, ply their trade in MLS.

And the "majority" of Euro leagues is a large amount. Sure, England, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Holland and maybe Greece and Belgium can boast better leagues, but there are many more countries in Europe with top tiers far below that of MLS.

Do you rate the Liechtenstein league higher than MLS? The Maltese First Division? The Andorran league?

There are many, many shit leagues all over the world, and quite a few of them are in Europe.

The reason Central American countries do better than MLS in the CCL boils mainly down to the fact that each of those leagues has 2-3 "superclubs" that all the best talent flocks to, while the rest of the league is canon fodder.

MLS' enforced parity doesn't allow this. If MLS was a free-for-all like all other leagues, allowing the best players to congregate on superclubs, you'd see three or four teams dominate (likely NY, LA and Chicago), both in the league and in CCL. Those teams would be on par with the top Mexican sides, and stupid ranking sites would place MLS higher.

Wait I got one for you, Latvia is better then MLS :D. After all, Hscanovic and Usanov played in the Champions League didn't they? surely they are better then MLS :).

Roogsy
07-22-2010, 12:47 PM
There is no way in hell you would ever convince me that the MLS is worst then most leagues in South America. Aside from Argentina and Brazil, MLS in on par with the rest of the leagues (At worst). Same goes for Central America, maybe Mexico is better, but the rest I think are comparable if anything.

One thing about the MLS is it certainly has way more parity then most of these other leagues. That has to somehow be accounted for when you are judging league vs league. If you are comparing the best teams in the league then you should also be comparing the worst teams in the leagues in which case I'm willing to bet the MLS ranking would sky rocket.

I would agree in general except for the Mexico comment. Their league isn't possibly better, it is better. The quality is better. More players from Mexico get recruited into the top leagues in the rest of the world than from MLS. And they dominate the Superliga and Champions League.

TFC USA
07-22-2010, 12:47 PM
The MLS is one of the worst leagues for the developed world

But 88th? You gotta be fucking with me. I'll take these rankings lightly.

Parkdale
07-22-2010, 12:51 PM
MLS' enforced parity doesn't allow this. If MLS was a free-for-all like all other leagues, allowing the best players to congregate on superclubs, you'd see three or four teams dominate (likely NY, LA and Chicago), both in the league and in CCL. Those teams would be on par with the top Mexican sides, and stupid ranking sites would place MLS higher.

DC United as well. They are the 'winningest' team in MLS.

jaxul
07-22-2010, 01:05 PM
No.

"Most" Central American leagues are nowhere near the level of MLS. Even the big ones, Honduras and Costa Rica, aren't at the overall level that MLS is. This is why many of their best players, indeed many of the best players from CA and the Caribbean, ply their trade in MLS.

And the "majority" of Euro leagues is a large amount. Sure, England, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Holland and maybe Greece and Belgium can boast better leagues, but there are many more countries in Europe with top tiers far below that of MLS.

Do you rate the Liechtenstein league higher than MLS? The Maltese First Division? The Andorran league?

There are many, many shit leagues all over the world, and quite a few of them are in Europe.

The reason Central American countries do better than MLS in the CCL boils mainly down to the fact that each of those leagues has 2-3 "superclubs" that all the best talent flocks to, while the rest of the league is canon fodder.

MLS' enforced parity doesn't allow this. If MLS was a free-for-all like all other leagues, allowing the best players to congregate on superclubs, you'd see three or four teams dominate (likely NY, LA and Chicago), both in the league and in CCL. Those teams would be on par with the top Mexican sides, and stupid ranking sites would place MLS higher.

Central american club teams are better than we think. But I guess it is also a matter of opinion. I base mine on the principle that most MLS clubs are having a hard time linking 5 passes together and fitness levels of a good chunk of MLS players are below those of players playing in central american leagues. For the record, there are no current members of the Costa Rican national team playing in the MLS. Most are playing in Costa Rica. Only one or two Honduran nationals are playing in the MLS, about half are playing in Honduras. Only one player on the Guetemala squad is playing in the MLS and the rest in Guatemala. Just to show that it is not the cream of the central american crop that is moving over to the MLS.

On to Europe. Liechtenstein does not have a league, they are too small and their clubs play in Switzerland. In Malta and Andorra you picked indeed the weakest. I could find an argument for about 30 first leagues in Europe that are at or above the level of the MLS. (let me know and I will make a list).

I will agree on the parity issue, it puts the MLS at a disadvantage when it comes to league rankings. But as it stands, parity and all, the MLS's ranking is fairly accurate, give or take a few spots...nothing is exact. Now with players like Henry & others jumping on board things may change. I will also agree with what someone posted earlier about our CL being a young tournament. Let's give it a few more seasons. But as far as the MLS being a top 20 league (as it was suggested in this thread), it's impossible for me to agree with that.

Toronto Ruffrider
07-22-2010, 01:05 PM
No.

"Most" Central American leagues are nowhere near the level of MLS. Even the big ones, Honduras and Costa Rica, aren't at the overall level that MLS is. This is why many of their best players, indeed many of the best players from CA and the Caribbean, ply their trade in MLS.

And the "majority" of Euro leagues is a large amount. Sure, England, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Holland and maybe Greece and Belgium can boast better leagues, but there are many more countries in Europe with top tiers far below that of MLS.

Do you rate the Liechtenstein league higher than MLS? The Maltese First Division? The Andorran league?

There are many, many shit leagues all over the world, and quite a few of them are in Europe.

The reason Central American countries do better than MLS in the CCL boils mainly down to the fact that each of those leagues has 2-3 "superclubs" that all the best talent flocks to, while the rest of the league is canon fodder.

MLS' enforced parity doesn't allow this. If MLS was a free-for-all like all other leagues, allowing the best players to congregate on superclubs, you'd see three or four teams dominate (likely NY, LA and Chicago), both in the league and in CCL. Those teams would be on par with the top Mexican sides, and stupid ranking sites would place MLS higher.

Excellent post, Rudi. I would take the average MLS club over the average club from any country in this region except maybe Mexico. Yes, MLS clubs have struggled in the CCL, but the many reasons for this have been discussed at length. At the end of the day, common sense has to prevail with regard to ranking pro leagues.

Is MLS worse than the Indian pro league? Take a look at their national team and tell me how their league is helping in that regard. Does Brazil have the second best league in the world? Sure, that explains why so many Brazilian internationals stay at home. Does Peru, the lowest-ranked team in CONMEBOL, have the eighth-best league in the world? Sure, it must be one of the best kept secrets in football.:facepalm:

rocker
07-22-2010, 01:18 PM
India has a pro league!?!? I did not know this.

Shway
07-22-2010, 01:54 PM
This ranking is complete bull shit... half the teams ranked before the MLS i would have imagined would have been closer to the bottom of the list.... wtf


AGREED+1

I looked at it, and closed it IMMEDIATELY
i seen england at 5, lets be for real

there mixing up FIFA National team rankings with League rankings

Keystone FC
07-22-2010, 01:57 PM
If the rankings actually meant something I would be pretty upset seeing as how the Hong Kong league is ranked alot higher (53rd) than MLS, but at the end of the day these 'rankings' really mean dick as long as we have a league and it keeps growing in clubs, fanbase, sponsorship, and coverage.

Oldtimer
07-22-2010, 02:12 PM
I think that many people here would agree that England isn't an untouchable league. There was info about them swinging back into the top spot later in the year, but it's a very close setup. Sure the EPL has all the big deals (tv, sponsorship etc) but I think most people see that it's not really miles ahead of Spain, Brazil or Germany-Italy-France.

I don't know about Brazil. Their MNT is always one of the best, but isn't their national league more of a feeder league?

Steve
07-22-2010, 02:14 PM
Ok, I looked into their rankings, and there are a few problems with this:

1) That ranking is based on 2010 year to date. That means that MLS teams have had a chance to pick up points in their national league (2 for a win, 1 for a tie) but NO points in CCL since they didn't make last tourny's final rounds (9 for a win, 4.5 for a tie). Essentially, it biases the results so terribly it's essentially meaningless. If you look at the results from last year, USA was ranked 46th. Better than 88th (since there were teams that did OK in the group stages of CCL) but still a little far down for me, which brings me to my next point:

2) These rankings are based off of the weirdest formulas imaginable. Not only do they rank leagues (so if you are in england you get 4 points for a win, here 2 points for a win) which I suppose is acceptable, but they take all results from your national competitions (including leagues)! I'll let that sink in for a second. Since the national competitions count, and not just things like CCL, your league is ranked "better" if a) you have a completely unbalanced league and b) You play MORE GAMES.

Yes, that's right, see, by playing more games in your national leauge, you get more points, and move up the ladder. Seems fair right? MLS is crippled right off the start for a 30 game schedule. Want to know what would have happened in 2009 if we had played 38 games? Keeping the points/game ratio constant (with the 2/1 points used in this system MLS comes out with 425 points, enough to vault the Korean republic and take 31st place! Yep, that's right, merely by changing the number of games played in an internal league, MLS gains 82 points and 15 spots. Of course, if our league was as top heavy as the premier league, we would gain an additional 48 points and move up to tie Columbia at 27th place. And that is while being crippled by being ranked a tier 3 league (out of 4). Now, what would happen if we were ranked a tier 2 league instead? We'd gain a whopping 151 ADDITIONAL points, for a total of 624 points, which is good enough for a cosy 14th place overall. (if we were ranked top tier, it would be 757 points for 9th place overall)

So, what's my point in all of this? Just that these numbers are pretty much arbitrary, and don't rely as much on actual strength or numbers as they want you to think. By merely changing number of games played and RELATIVE strength within a league (which, in the grand scheme of things, is irrelevant), I could change USA by 19 spots. By further changing a completely arbitrary designation, I could raise it by another 13 spots. Essentially, they are completely meaningless when trying to compare leagues with different structures. That said, they are probably a pretty good approximation when comparing leagues that play the same number of games, have a similar level of disparity, and are ranked on the same tier.

Parkdale
07-22-2010, 02:16 PM
^ that's some math right there!

Toronto Ruffrider
07-22-2010, 02:33 PM
AGREED+1

I looked at it, and closed it IMMEDIATELY
i seen england at 5, lets be for real

there mixing up FIFA National team rankings with League rankings

I never thought I'd say this, but these rankings are an insult to the FIFA rankings!

mmmikey
07-22-2010, 03:17 PM
interesting aspect of these rankings that i take away is that every time we have a new DP sign, or a great talent stay in MLS we think.. yes! we are going to get respect! i think these rankings indicate that while we have gained profile, we haven't gained respect as a league. we may be viewed as that wacky league in qatar that hands out $$$ to aging players. your aware of them but don't really care.

its stupid to base rankings on it, but there is a bit of truth in saying that MLS won't gain respect until the teams start doing better in international competition. we all know we are better than most teams in the other countries, but there is knowing, and there is proving. forced parity will make this hard since we will come up against top 4 (or 2, or top 1) teams from those leagues, but one day mls's overall talent level will rise to the point where we are still better even after parity is forced on the teams. USA's performance at the WC has also helped gain respect in addition to US players doing well in the premiership etc.

with that said, i agree with u guys, 88th? bs.

mmmikey
07-22-2010, 03:21 PM
Ok, I looked into their rankings, and there are a few problems with this:

1) That ranking is based on 2010 year to date. That means that MLS teams have had a chance to pick up points in their national league (2 for a win, 1 for a tie) but NO points in CCL since they didn't make last tourny's final rounds (9 for a win, 4.5 for a tie). Essentially, it biases the results so terribly it's essentially meaningless. If you look at the results from last year, USA was ranked 46th. Better than 88th (since there were teams that did OK in the group stages of CCL) but still a little far down for me, which brings me to my next point:

2) These rankings are based off of the weirdest formulas imaginable. Not only do they rank leagues (so if you are in england you get 4 points for a win, here 2 points for a win) which I suppose is acceptable, but they take all results from your national competitions (including leagues)! I'll let that sink in for a second. Since the national competitions count, and not just things like CCL, your league is ranked "better" if a) you have a completely unbalanced league and b) You play MORE GAMES.

Yes, that's right, see, by playing more games in your national leauge, you get more points, and move up the ladder. Seems fair right? MLS is crippled right off the start for a 30 game schedule. Want to know what would have happened in 2009 if we had played 38 games? Keeping the points/game ratio constant (with the 2/1 points used in this system MLS comes out with 425 points, enough to vault the Korean republic and take 31st place! Yep, that's right, merely by changing the number of games played in an internal league, MLS gains 82 points and 15 spots. Of course, if our league was as top heavy as the premier league, we would gain an additional 48 points and move up to tie Columbia at 27th place. And that is while being crippled by being ranked a tier 3 league (out of 4). Now, what would happen if we were ranked a tier 2 league instead? We'd gain a whopping 151 ADDITIONAL points, for a total of 624 points, which is good enough for a cosy 14th place overall. (if we were ranked top tier, it would be 757 points for 9th place overall)

So, what's my point in all of this? Just that these numbers are pretty much arbitrary, and don't rely as much on actual strength or numbers as they want you to think. By merely changing number of games played and RELATIVE strength within a league (which, in the grand scheme of things, is irrelevant), I could change USA by 19 spots. By further changing a completely arbitrary designation, I could raise it by another 13 spots. Essentially, they are completely meaningless when trying to compare leagues with different structures. That said, they are probably a pretty good approximation when comparing leagues that play the same number of games, have a similar level of disparity, and are ranked on the same tier.

wow, i hadn't looked at the formula.. that is alot of statistical no-no's. these guys must work for city of toronto accounting dept.

BayernTFC
07-22-2010, 03:40 PM
1) That ranking is based on 2010 year to date.
You may have saved yourself some time if you bothered to read:


Every July it is possible to make the first assessment of the relative strengths of the various leagues. The methodology for determining the current strength of the national leagues is unchanged since 1991 and has proved to be a sensitive and accurate indicator. It also takes into consideration that, because of the national and international schedules, the South American and West Asian leagues are better placed in the first half of the year and those from Northern and Eastern Europe less so. The current trends by area are as follows:and


It is important to note that only the yearly classification is representative, since all competitions move along the whole season and over twelve months, we have an objective view of the best.http://www.iffhs.de/?b6e20fa3002f70d00ee2d17f7370eff3702bb1c2bb0e


"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 230



Some people need to get a grip. It's a ranking system. Take it for what it's worth...

Dirk Diggler
07-22-2010, 03:48 PM
Brazilian league is solid ... their teams dominate all forms of CONMEBOL competitions and for the past year or so, teams like Santos have been on an absolute tear. Also, in terms of excitement, all their competitions (the state championships, campeonato brasileiro etc) seem to come down to the wire so it seems as if they also have a decent amount of parity unlike a lot of European leagues. I don't know whether they are better than the Prem simply because it is impossible to compare but it is one of the best leagues in the world, no doubt.

Fushida
07-22-2010, 05:43 PM
Apparently the league in Hong Kong is ranked in the 50s... higher than China and of course our MLS. Did these people just pull numbers out of a hat after the top 10 or something?

DichioTFC
07-22-2010, 07:59 PM
I've actually seen club soccer in India and the two matches I've seen are comparable to really crappy MLS matches (which happen all too often).

In the other leagues there is a greater focus on fundamentals like passing and dribbling because most athletes lack physical ability. MLS have athletes who are great physical specimens but wouldn't know what to do with a ball or the awareness of whats going on around them (see Wynne, Marvel).

The growth potential is obviously higher for the MLS and this will probably be the last time you'll ever see the MLS ranked so low. But for now, the quality is comparable.

Steve
07-23-2010, 06:48 AM
You may have saved yourself some time if you bothered to read:

and

http://www.iffhs.de/?b6e20fa3002f70d00ee2d17f7370eff3702bb1c2bb0e


"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 230



Some people need to get a grip. It's a ranking system. Take it for what it's worth...

Thanks, I did. That's why my first point (the one dealing with the 88th place) was that it was YTD and skewed the results, saying exactly the same thing. The rest of my post (which is, I assume, what you were referring to when you said I could have saved myself some time, since that's the only part that actually took time) was based off of last year's full results, hence my using 46th instead of 88th, therefore has nothing to do with what you posted.

Cashcleaner
07-23-2010, 07:47 AM
What a crock this ranking is. The IFFHS must surely be run by a bunch of amateurs if they are going to place Syria, Vietnam, or Morocco ahead of the United States/MLS. It's hard to say exactly where MLS does fit in, but 88th is far too low on the list.

BayernTFC
07-23-2010, 12:44 PM
Thanks, I did. That's why my first point (the one dealing with the 88th place) was that it was YTD and skewed the results, saying exactly the same thing. The rest of my post (which is, I assume, what you were referring to when you said I could have saved myself some time, since that's the only part that actually took time) was based off of last year's full results, hence my using 46th instead of 88th, therefore has nothing to do with what you posted.
And here I assumed that it was your objection to the 88th ranking given to the MLS, or some other incorrect ranking of another league, in this year's first assessment that caused you to examine the "flawed" methodology and formulas used by the IFFHS in their attempt to compare the football leagues around the world. Silly me. Here's an idea. Instead of complaining about how wrong someone else's attempt to compare different leagues that play during different times of the year is, why don't you produce your rankings? Then everyone who cares about rankings can see how well you do and how knowledgeable you are. I'd rather just enjoy something that I find entertaining instead of relying on others to tell me whether it's worthwhile or not. To each his own...

Pachuco
07-23-2010, 01:24 PM
And here I assumed that it was your objection to the 88th ranking given to the MLS, or some other incorrect ranking of another league, in this year's first assessment that caused you to examine the "flawed" methodology and formulas used by the IFFHS in their attempt to compare the football leagues around the world. Silly me. Here's an idea. Instead of complaining about how wrong someone else's attempt to compare different leagues that play during different times of the year is, why don't you produce your rankings? Then everyone who cares about rankings can see how well you do and how knowledgeable you are. I'd rather just enjoy something that I find entertaining instead of relying on others to tell me whether it's worthwhile or not. To each his own...

I found Steve's research on the rankings quite insightfull. I have no idea why you are breaking his balls about this. Unless you are behind these rankings or something?

Vindaloo
07-23-2010, 10:16 PM
This thing is a steaming crock. There is no way that leagues in Singapore and Hong Kong, who are CITIES, are better than MLS!

Auzzy
07-23-2010, 10:37 PM
This thread seems dangerously international. Board going down for maintenance in 3, 2, 1.... :D

UltraSuperMegaMo
07-23-2010, 11:23 PM
The League in Northern Ireland is ranked above both the MLS and the Russian league in this ranking.

I've sent better International ranking lists swirling down the toilet.

DichioTFC
07-24-2010, 08:13 AM
If one looks at the football power-houses of the world, one notices that regularly 4 or 5 clubs of their leagues are always competing in continental competitions. By adding the points won in all competitions by the five best placed clubs of each league, we have the points for the country which in turn helps to establish a fair classification.So the two factors are 1. how the top MLS teams fare in CONCACAF qualifying and 2. how the top teams fared in league play.

Last year's CONCACAF, Columbus, Houston, NYRB and DCU all qualified with TFC.

The results:
Columbus 2-3-3, eliminated first round of championship bracket
Houston 2-1-3, lost in group stage
NYRB 0-1-1, lost in preliminary round
DCU 3-1-2, lost in group stage
TFC 0-1-1, lost in preliminary round

so of the 5 teams, 7 wins in 24 games, one team advancing to the actual tournament.


And of course, for league play, the parity in the league, where 1st and 12th were separated by only 10 points is not conducive to higher IFFHS league ratings (i.e. in La Liga the top 6 teams have more points combined than the rest of the league).


As a growth league, MLS cannot be subjected to the same standards that one would hold Liga, EPL or Serie A. But it is interesting to see how we stack up. If the top 5 or 6 teams had the majority of points and if we were able to have some CONCACAF success, MLS (129) could easily double its point total and be on par with the Japanese league (269).

prizby
07-24-2010, 08:24 AM
in no particular order

EPL
La Liga
Serie A
Bundisliga
Ligue 1
Brazilian League
Portugal League
Russian League
Dutch League
Argentian League
Mexican League
Turkish League
J League
K League
Norweigen League
Danish League
MLS
Ukrainian League
Scottish League
Romanian League
Swiss League
Belgium League
A League
Egyptian League
Chilean League
Peruvian League
Paraguayan League
Uruguayan League
...
CSL

lol

TFCRegina
07-24-2010, 08:45 AM
India has a pro league!?!? I did not know this.

The National Football League (NFL), I shit you not.

sully
07-24-2010, 09:12 AM
League of Ireland (eire) is ranked at 55th and MLS at 88th! Wow..clearly I don't know anything.

sully
07-24-2010, 09:35 AM
The classification of the best leagues of the world is made objectively without any outside influence of any sort. We follow the criteria that the level of performance of a league is reflected by the best classified teams of that league who in turn usually represent their country in international club competitions. If one looks at the football power-houses of the world, one notices that regularly 4 or 5 clubs of their leagues are always competing in continental competitions. By adding the points won in all competitions by the five best placed clubs of each league, we have the points for the country which in turn helps to establish a fair classification. It is important to note that only the yearly classification is representative, since all competitions move along the whole season and over twelve months, we have an objective view of the best. This system has been used since 1991, and it is recognized today as the most precise in rating the leagues of the world.


I see. So this ranking basically looks at the 2 or 3 best teams in a respective league and determines how good its league is by analyzing how well those teams do in their regional competitions. So a team in India might be compared with a team in Pakistan and if that team in India consistently beats that team in Pakistan then the league as a whole in India has a better ranking.

This is like comparing apples to oranges...it's not indicative of the quality of football in a league, but the quality of a few teams representative of a national league relative to their regional neighbours. I think.

Davenport
07-24-2010, 11:43 AM
You're not taking that website seriously ?

Any ranking that has the Northern Ireland league above the Swiss league is having a laugh.

TorCanSoc
07-24-2010, 12:20 PM
We need a UEFA Anti-Champion's League. Where each team that finishes last spot (before relegation ?) plays teams in the last spot in the other leagues. Battle for bottom table supremacy.

Alonso
07-24-2010, 09:57 PM
Ok, I looked into their rankings, and there are a few problems with this:

1) That ranking is based on 2010 year to date. That means that MLS teams have had a chance to pick up points in their national league (2 for a win, 1 for a tie) but NO points in CCL since they didn't make last tourny's final rounds (9 for a win, 4.5 for a tie). Essentially, it biases the results so terribly it's essentially meaningless. If you look at the results from last year, USA was ranked 46th. Better than 88th (since there were teams that did OK in the group stages of CCL) but still a little far down for me, which brings me to my next point:

2) These rankings are based off of the weirdest formulas imaginable. Not only do they rank leagues (so if you are in england you get 4 points for a win, here 2 points for a win) which I suppose is acceptable, but they take all results from your national competitions (including leagues)! I'll let that sink in for a second. Since the national competitions count, and not just things like CCL, your league is ranked "better" if a) you have a completely unbalanced league and b) You play MORE GAMES.

Yes, that's right, see, by playing more games in your national leauge, you get more points, and move up the ladder. Seems fair right? MLS is crippled right off the start for a 30 game schedule. Want to know what would have happened in 2009 if we had played 38 games? Keeping the points/game ratio constant (with the 2/1 points used in this system MLS comes out with 425 points, enough to vault the Korean republic and take 31st place! Yep, that's right, merely by changing the number of games played in an internal league, MLS gains 82 points and 15 spots. Of course, if our league was as top heavy as the premier league, we would gain an additional 48 points and move up to tie Columbia at 27th place. And that is while being crippled by being ranked a tier 3 league (out of 4). Now, what would happen if we were ranked a tier 2 league instead? We'd gain a whopping 151 ADDITIONAL points, for a total of 624 points, which is good enough for a cosy 14th place overall. (if we were ranked top tier, it would be 757 points for 9th place overall)

So, what's my point in all of this? Just that these numbers are pretty much arbitrary, and don't rely as much on actual strength or numbers as they want you to think. By merely changing number of games played and RELATIVE strength within a league (which, in the grand scheme of things, is irrelevant), I could change USA by 19 spots. By further changing a completely arbitrary designation, I could raise it by another 13 spots. Essentially, they are completely meaningless when trying to compare leagues with different structures. That said, they are probably a pretty good approximation when comparing leagues that play the same number of games, have a similar level of disparity, and are ranked on the same tier.


^^^^ Best post in this thread. You did the homework and actually enlightened me with facts.

Alonso
07-24-2010, 10:00 PM
I found Steve's research on the rankings quite insightfull. I have no idea why you are breaking his balls about this. Unless you are behind these rankings or something?


Agreed. Dude did an excellent job with his post. Blew me away that he went through all the time firstly to crunch the numbers, and secondly to post it so that it could be understood.

Thanks Steve.

Cashcleaner
07-25-2010, 12:36 AM
in no particular order

EPL
La Liga
Serie A
Bundisliga
Ligue 1
Brazilian League
Portugal League
Russian League
Dutch League
Argentian League
Mexican League
Turkish League
J League
K League
Norweigen League
Danish League
MLS
Ukrainian League
Scottish League
Romanian League
Swiss League
Belgium League
A League
Egyptian League
Chilean League
Peruvian League
Paraguayan League
Uruguayan League
...
CSL

lol

For the most part, that list seems fairly accurate in my mind - at least more than the one the IFFHS released.

LesH
07-25-2010, 07:25 AM
This ranking is the most useless pile of shit and waste of time to even discuss about I probably ever seen on these boards.

As for the 1 or 2 guys who said that the ranking of MLS in the 88 th place is about correct... well, we can not insult fellow forum members, because we get banned...

Steve
07-26-2010, 08:28 AM
And here I assumed that it was your objection to the 88th ranking given to the MLS, or some other incorrect ranking of another league, in this year's first assessment that caused you to examine the "flawed" methodology and formulas used by the IFFHS in their attempt to compare the football leagues around the world. Silly me. Here's an idea. Instead of complaining about how wrong someone else's attempt to compare different leagues that play during different times of the year is, why don't you produce your rankings? Then everyone who cares about rankings can see how well you do and how knowledgeable you are. I'd rather just enjoy something that I find entertaining instead of relying on others to tell me whether it's worthwhile or not. To each his own...

So, sorry, what was your point again? Firstly you told me I should have just read the bottom and I could have saved myself time. When I told you that I did, and in fact that wouldn't have saved me time at all since I was referring to their general ranking criteria, you tell me that the rankings are fine, and why bother criticizing them because I don't have a better solution? Is that really how your world works? If there is a pretty substantial flaw in statistical modeling, you don't just say "no big deal, since I don't want to go through the effort of developing my own model, this one is perfect".

Of course, you are free to enjoy these standings and trust them if you want, feel free, I don't really care. I posted because there seemed to be a good number of people that didn't agree with the way the rankings were done, I merely wanted to let people know why these rankings may not seem realistic.

As to what I would do? Well, you're right that there is no real way to compare leagues around the world well, but I definitely wouldn't start with giving leagues points by anything they do in their national competitions (including leagues) since that says nothing about relative strength of the league, and only serves to introduce confounding data into your model (as I said, number of games and disparity). Essentially using those data, you gain nothing in terms of predictive power, and potentially lose a lot of accuracy because of factors that have nothing to do with anything. Of course, it would also be tough to use merely international competitions, since different countries tend to have different number of spots in international competitions. Yes, I know they are awarded based on previous performance, but then you might as well just rank based on number of spots in things like UEFA instead of having a separate system.

So, what would I do? I'd probably start with a modified Elo system which, instead of being based on points per competition, would be based solely on head to head, country to country, competitions. It would have problems as well (since with a straight Elo system you would gain as many points from beating a 4th seed from a country as a 1st seed, as well as from a secondary competition like UEFA europa league), but I think that those could be mitigated from preferentially weighting matches from later rounds, and primary competitions. Also, a system like that would probably take a few years to establish itself correctly, but wouldn't fluctuate as much year to year (and would depend on the club world cup to keep conferences at the appropriate levels, an admittedly flawed mechanism, but possibly the best possible since it's the only competitive place teams from difference conferences meet).

VPjr
07-26-2010, 09:44 AM
^ This is the situation for most South American leagues. 1-3 dominant teams and a ton of ineffective sides.

Do you actually watch South American Football? That statement proves you do not. :picard:

In fact, I think that statement best reflects the current state of Scottish football, which is a league that I would rank below MLS, even with Rangers and Celtic factored in.

MLS is most certainly NOT an 88th ranked league. At the same time, it is not a top 20 league either.

More accurate would be that it falls in between 25 and 35, especially because there are plenty of 2nd divisions in Europe (and a couple in South America) that are better in terms of overall quality of play and players.

I don't personally judge a league's quality by its record in international competition alone. MLS, in all its wisdom, puts little or no emphasis on CONCACAF play, largely because they are afraid to play soccer in cold weather (early March, later in November), thus resulting in horrible fixture congestions for clubs who might qualify for those tournaments. Coupled with a pathetic lack of depth due to tiny roster sizes, you simply cant expect MLS to do well internationally.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time researching this but i would say that the following all need to be ranked ahead of MLS simply in terms of quality of play and players:

- England (Premiership and Championship, maybe even League 1)
- France (Ligue 1 and Ligue 2)
- Germany (BL1 and BL2)
- Italy (Serie A and Serie B)
- Spain (La Liga and 2nd division)
- Holland (Eredivisie 1, maybe div 2 as well)
- Denmark (1st division)
- Russian 1st division
- Czech 1st division
- Portugal's 1st division
- Turkish 1st division and maybe 2nd division
- Greek 1st division
- Norway's 1st division
- Serbian 1st division
- Croatian 1st division
- maybe Swiss 1st division (its getting much better, as is Swiss foootball in general)
- maybe Belgian 1st division (not as good as it used to be)
- Japan's J-League
- Mexican 1st and maybe even 2nd division
- Argentina's 1st and 2nd division
- Brazil's top state league and the next division below
- Colombia's top division
- Uruguay's top division
- Paraguay's 1st dvision
- Egyptian 1st division
- I'm sure I'm missing a few others.


MLS is a league on the rise but the overall quality is still pretty mediocre. It has been getting better (although it feels to me that the league took a small step backwards this year....not sure if I'm the only one who feels that way but I have seen very little to be excited about in MLS this season...maybe its because it is a world cup year).

To vault into the upper echelons (which I believe will happen over the next 15-20 years), MLS needs to:

a) get more money into the league to bring up the overall level. Its pretty simple.

b) simply roster rules and expand rosters. I'd like to see a minimum of 28 players that must be signed to a pro contract in MLS. If you have that + modified rules that allow a member of the senior academy squad to be able to move up and down on an emergency call-up basis without having to sign a pro contract, that should give MLS team the depth they need to juggle domestic league and international play.

c) invest far more heavily into professional player development rather than rely on the college system. to be a truly professional soccer club, you must have your own development system.

d) improve global scouting for import players. its nice that they bring in big names but they do a very poor job of scouting the world for talent that can bring up the overall level of the league and who can work with young domestic players to make them better....believe it or not, young players often learn as much or more from experienced teammates than they do from coaches.

e) bring up the level of the coaches....there are some good gaffers in the league but some of the stuff I see makes me scratch my head. Not enough US (and Canadian) coaches ever leave the comfy confines of home to learn from people in countries where soccer is king. that is important. if you want to be the best, you have to learn from the ones who are currently the best.