World Cup seedings - WTF??

[glorygloryeze]

Can anyone explain the current seeding system that has left the following teams seeded for this tournament:

- Colombia (haven't actually qualified for a World Cup since 1998 - 16 years)
- Switzerland (ok have made the last two world cups, but didn't get out of the group stage in that last one, actually doing worse than the previous time when they weren't seeded; also they didn't even make the last Euros!)
- Belgium (haven't been to a world cup for 12 years; haven't been at a Euros since 2000)

So why the hell were these teams seeded?

 

[braineclipse]

Can anyone explain the current seeding system that has left the following teams seeded for this tournament:

- Colombia (haven't actually qualified for a World Cup since 1998 - 16 years)
- Switzerland (ok have made the last two world cups, but didn't get out of the group stage in that last one, actually doing worse than the previous time when they weren't seeded; also they didn't even make the last Euros!)
- Belgium (haven't been to a world cup for 12 years; haven't been at a Euros since 2000)

So why the hell were these teams seeded?

Based on the FIFA ranking, which is again based on results from the last 4 years.

Thus the results in games that helped Columbia finish 2nd, only two points behind Argentina over the last couple of seasons thus did count, whereas their games 12 years ago doesn't.

Not exactly a perfect system, but it makes sense to me at least.

 

[Seedy Ron]

Didn't Switzerland play the system a bit?

 

[Jordinho]

Didn't Switzerland play the system a bit?

Yes, long piece on it here: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/oct/17/england-seeded-switzerland-world-cup-draw-friendlies. It could have been England instead of them.

 

[Baleforce]

that should be changed, you shouldn't get ranking points for friendlies, hell, international teams shouldn't play friendlies

 

[glorygloryeze]

Based on the FIFA ranking, which is again based on results from the last 4 years.

Thus the results in games that helped Columbia finish 2nd, only two points behind Argentina over the last couple of seasons thus did count, whereas their games 12 years ago doesn't.

Not exactly a perfect system, but it makes sense to me at least.

My point about 12 years ago is surely if you fail to get into consecutive world cups it should make your 'coeffocient' as it were go down. A bit like if a team fails to get into the CL or EL for several years but have an outstanding season when qualifying again for it, you wouldn't expect them to suddenly be a top seed would you?

Uruguay being a seed makes sense seeing as they were runners-up last time and they also are S American champions.

Columbia finished 2nd and unless previously finishing 2nd in S American qualifying has always meant being a seed then it looks very random (e.g. I'm sure when Brazil and Argentina have finished in play-off positions that hasn't meant they have been dropped as seeds)

 

[braineclipse]

Yes, long piece on it here: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/oct/17/england-seeded-switzerland-world-cup-draw-friendlies. It could have been England instead of them.

I'm almost certain Norway have done the same.

Like I said, not a perfect system, but it's transparent and reasonably straight forward.

My point about 12 years ago is surely if you fail to get into consecutive world cups it should make your 'coeffocient' as it were go down. A bit like if a team fails to get into the CL or EL for several years but have an outstanding season when qualifying again for it, you wouldn't expect them to suddenly be a top seed would you?

Uruguay being a seed makes sense seeing as they were runners-up last time and they also are S American champions.

Columbia finished 2nd and unless previously finishing 2nd in S American qualifying has always meant being a seed then it looks very random (e.g. I'm sure when Brazil and Argentina have finished in play-off positions that hasn't meant they have been dropped as seeds)

A coefficient like that makes sense to me in a Champions League where teams play every season, it makes a lot less sense in a tournament that's played every four years.

Results in qualifying for the World Cup 4 years ago (results from 5-6 years ago) and a World Cup 8 years ago (results from 9-10 years ago) doesn't do much to reflect the ability of the current team. Their results over the last 4 years in all games is a much closer approximation I would think.

The fact that Belgium, Switzerland and Columbia are your go to examples of teams that are surprisingly highly ranked to me confirms that the system works at least somewhat well. Belgium just went through their group with 3 wins out of 3, Columbia have been one of the more impressive teams in the tournament and although Switzerland have disappointed they are clearly a team with ability (imo).

For me I would rater have those teams ranked highly than South Korea because they went on a run in 2002, or Honduras based on qualifying twice in a row from a (again, imo) softer qualification path.

IIRC the CL coefficients deciding the number of teams from each league is based on the last 4-5 seasons, as is the ranking of each team I tihnk. That's essentially the same time frame as the FIFA rankings.

 

[glorygloryeze]

I'm almost certain Norway have done the same.

Like I said, not a perfect system, but it's transparent and reasonably straight forward.



A coefficient like that makes sense to me in a Champions League where teams play every season, it makes a lot less sense in a tournament that's played every four years.

Results in qualifying for the World Cup 4 years ago (results from 5-6 years ago) and a World Cup 8 years ago (results from 9-10 years ago) doesn't do much to reflect the ability of the current team. Their results over the last 4 years in all games is a much closer approximation I would think.

The fact that Belgium, Switzerland and Columbia are your go to examples of teams that are surprisingly highly ranked to me confirms that the system works at least somewhat well. Belgium just went through their group with 3 wins out of 3, Columbia have been one of the more impressive teams in the tournament and although Switzerland have disappointed they are clearly a team with ability (imo).

For me I would rater have those teams ranked highly than South Korea because they went on a run in 2002, or Honduras based on qualifying twice in a row from a (again, imo) softer qualification path.

IIRC the CL coefficients deciding the number of teams from each league is based on the last 4-5 seasons, as is the ranking of each team I tihnk. That's essentially the same time frame as the FIFA rankings.

Well those go-to examples can be compared with others and then the questions get murkier:

Belgium in qualifying won 8 out of 10 qualifiers, drawing the other 2; meanwhile the Netherlands won 9 out of 10, drawing 1 AND having been the last world cup losing finalists are NOT seeded! Yes, they had a poor Euro 2012, but unlike Belgium, they at least got there.

Switzerland won 7 out of 10 qualifiers (drawing the other 3), not as good as Belgium and again not as good as the Netherlands. Go figure.

Columbia: well if the last 4/5 years are what forms Fifa's rankings then they shouldn't have been seeded by the fact that they didn't make the last world cup alone. Certainly not ahead of Chile, who were just behind them in the final qualifying table AND have made the last TWO world cups.

Of course those high seedings will inevitably lead to more favourable groups so it's more likely they'll go through the group stage with good records! That's why it's such a shock usually when a seeded team doesn't (like Argentina, France in 2002, Italy in 2010 etc etc).

I think it's all too random...

 

[braineclipse]

Well those go-to examples can be compared with others and then the questions get murkier:

Belgium in qualifying won 8 out of 10 qualifiers, drawing the other 2; meanwhile the Netherlands won 9 out of 10, drawing 1 AND having been the last world cup losing finalists are NOT seeded! Yes, they had a poor Euro 2012, but unlike Belgium, they at least got there.

Switzerland won 7 out of 10 qualifiers (drawing the other 3), not as good as Belgium and again not as good as the Netherlands. Go figure.

Columbia: well if the last 4/5 years are what forms Fifa's rankings then they shouldn't have been seeded by the fact that they didn't make the last world cup alone. Certainly not ahead of Chile, who were just behind them in the final qualifying table AND have made the last TWO world cups.

Of course those high seedings will inevitably lead to more favourable groups so it's more likely they'll go through the group stage with good records! That's why it's such a shock usually when a seeded team doesn't (like Argentina, France in 2002, Italy in 2010 etc etc).

I think it's all too random...

It's not random!

It's based on the results over the last 4 years (not 4/5 years, why the previous World Cup qualifier isn't included) and the process is transparent, that's why teams like Switzerland (allegedly?) managed to gain the system a touch.

Of course there will always be teams you can point to and say "shouldn't X be ahead of Y", in an objective based ranking like this based on results that will be the case just about regardless of what system you use. There is no perfect ranking system, and I think your proposed system of highly valuing recent World Cups going back 4 (or even 8-12?) years would be a worse measure of the current quality of the teams.

At least this system from FIFA is objective, transparent, non-random and based on results in recent/relevant history.

 

[glorygloryeze]

It's not random!

It's based on the results over the last 4 years (not 4/5 years, why the previous World Cup qualifier isn't included) and the process is transparent, that's why teams like Switzerland (allegedly?) managed to gain the system a touch.

Of course there will always be teams you can point to and say "shouldn't X be ahead of Y", in an objective based ranking like this based on results that will be the case just about regardless of what system you use. There is no perfect ranking system, and I think your proposed system of highly valuing recent World Cups going back 4 (or even 8-12?) years would be a worse measure of the current quality of the teams.

At least this system from FIFA is objective, transparent, non-random and based on results in recent/relevant history.

Hi there,

Let me be clear that I am not proposing that performamces at world cups going back 8 or 12 years should be taken into account when forming seedings/ranking, but i have always assumed (perhaps blindly) that this is actually what FIFA do. I myself assumed that this is why teams like Argentina, Germany, Brazil and often England have been commonly seeeded in each world cup for the last 20 years. Yes Brazil have won it twice in that time, but other times have stil been seeded even though they may have even scraped to reach the world cup (like in 2002).
If only the last 4 years is taken into account, it seems and sounds fair, but then the question will still need to be answered by someone at FIFA as to why, say, Columbia who came second in their group behind Argentina (themselves having not won anything since GHod knows when, so why should finishing 2nd behind them mean anything significant) got seeded whilst Bosnia who topped their qualifying group with one of the best records (won 8 out of 10, losing 1) did not get seeded.
Another 'hole': Uruguay finished 5th and needed a play-off to even qualify yet are seeded. One assumes if was not becuase they were semi-finalist in the last world cup the it was perhaps because they are the current South American champions (2011 Copa America winners).
This then begs the question as to whether the Asian and African championship holders should also get a higher ranking if not actually getting seeded. Nigeria are the current African champions (just last year) but they had a lower ranking going into the world cup than Bosnia and Iran.

In fact, a fair question would be apart from staging a world cup, what would it take for an African or Asian team to be a seed?
Italy, were the runners-up of the last European championships (beaten by an all-conquering Spain) yet are ranked lower than Uruguay in terms of world cup seeding.
All odd.
Then again, this is FIFA who make up the rules as they (and their sponsors) go along, such as when they changed the rules at the last-minute in a previous play-off round to ensure Portugal and France were seeded so they had as much likelihood of reaching the world cup.
I guess I've answered my own question at the end there lol!

 

[braineclipse]

Hi there,

Let me be clear that I am not proposing that performamces at world cups going back 8 or 12 years should be taken into account when forming seedings/ranking, but i have always assumed (perhaps blindly) that this is actually what FIFA do. I myself assumed that this is why teams like Argentina, Germany, Brazil and often England have been commonly seeeded in each world cup for the last 20 years. Yes Brazil have won it twice in that time, but other times have stil been seeded even though they may have even scraped to reach the world cup (like in 2002).
If only the last 4 years is taken into account, it seems and sounds fair, but then the question will still need to be answered by someone at FIFA as to why, say, Columbia who came second in their group behind Argentina (themselves having not won anything since GHod knows when, so why should finishing 2nd behind them mean anything significant) got seeded whilst Bosnia who topped their qualifying group with one of the best records (won 8 out of 10, losing 1) did not get seeded.
Another 'hole': Uruguay finished 5th and needed a play-off to even qualify yet are seeded. One assumes if was not becuase they were semi-finalist in the last world cup the it was perhaps because they are the current South American champions (2011 Copa America winners).
This then begs the question as to whether the Asian and African championship holders should also get a higher ranking if not actually getting seeded. Nigeria are the current African champions (just last year) but they had a lower ranking going into the world cup than Bosnia and Iran.

In fact, a fair question would be apart from staging a world cup, what would it take for an African or Asian team to be a seed?
Italy, were the runners-up of the last European championships (beaten by an all-conquering Spain) yet are ranked lower than Uruguay in terms of world cup seeding.
All odd.
Then again, this is FIFA who make up the rules as they (and their sponsors) go along, such as when they changed the rules at the last-minute in a previous play-off round to ensure Portugal and France were seeded so they had as much likelihood of reaching the world cup.
I guess I've answered my own question at the end there lol!

I have no idea what your complaint is at this point. You seem to be complaining based on a lot of assumptions that aren't true.

Finishing 2nd behind Argentina in the South American power group of qualifying that includes teams like Chile and Uruguay seems more impressive to me than topping a group with Greece, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Lichtenstein.

Yes, games in the Copa America counts, obviously. Yes winning that means racking up a good looking result list that will boost your ranking.

Seriously, the formula is all there in the open, it's not something hidden with FIFA doing what they feel like to please their sponsors. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings for example.

Asia and Africa have lower rankings than the UEFA and Conmebol regions due to worse World Cup results, although that seems to play a fairly small role. The main point is how you do against other teams, how they place in the FIFA rankings etc.

 

[braineclipse]

One more question popped into my mind.

The seeded teams in this World Cup draw were:
Brazil (hosts)11
Spain 1
Germany 2
Argentina 3
Colombia 4
Belgium 5
Uruguay 6
Switzerland 7

Which African or Asian teams do you think should fairly have been ahead of which of those seeded teams? Not someone that "could have been" ahead, plenty of European and South American teams could have been ahead of Switzerland for example. But which African or Asian team would you say is flat out better than which of these European and South American teams?

 

[SpursLodge]

The ranking system is just fine as it is, qualifying for past world cups has no bearing on the current team at all.

FIFA just need to do something about countries playing all their friendlies against San Marino or some other ****e team to boost their own rankings.

 

[glorygloryeze]

One more question popped into my mind.

The seeded teams in this World Cup draw were:
Brazil (hosts)11
Spain 1
Germany 2
Argentina 3
Colombia 4
Belgium 5
Uruguay 6
Switzerland 7

Which African or Asian teams do you think should fairly have been ahead of which of those seeded teams? Not someone that "could have been" ahead, plenty of European and South American teams could have been ahead of Switzerland for example. But which African or Asian team would you say is flat out better than which of these European and South American teams?

Imo Nigeria are better than Switzerland. That's debatable i realise but that's my opinion.
Bear in mind as well that Nigeria are currently African Champions, so there may be an argument for them to be seeded on that basis alone seeing as Uruguay are seeded on the basis of them being current Copa America champions from 2011 (which i assume is what put them in that top 8 grouping seeing as they had to win a play-off match vs Jordan).
Their form has obviously not been very good since winning the Copa America otherwise they wouldn't have needed the play-off...so I have to assume it's their status as Copa America champions that put them in the high seeding.

Taking a broader view of this, i'm not neccesarily saying Nigeria or any other Africn/Asian team should have been seeded in this World Cup. However the fact that Switzerland and even Belgium were seeded above Netherlands (who had a better qualifying campaign than both) calls the process into question imo. I would love to know what it would take for a team from Africa and Asia to become seeded.
Would it take a WC semi-final appearance AND being continental champions AND an almost flawless qualifying campaign? Or would it only happen if a world cup was actually won?

IIRC Argentina were seeded in the 2010 world cup as well. They finished 4th out of 10, below Brazil, Chile and Paraguay. Brazil were also seeded for that World Cup whilst Chile and Paraguay were not. I'd love to know why that was: Argentina haven't done jack for 20 years or so.
It does seem like it takes a lot for certain teams to fall out of being seeded, whilst it takes a lot for other teams to be seeded (aside from hosting a world cup that is).

 

[glorygloryeze]

The ranking system is just fine as it is, qualifying for past world cups has no bearing on the current team at all.

FIFA just need to do something about countries playing all their friendlies against San Marino or some other ****e team to boost their own rankings.

In principle I agree this should be the case.
However, you have to ask why Argentina are always seeded when (since 1990) they never get past the quarter-final stage at a world cup, haven't won the Copa America for years and have sometimes finished relatively low in their qualifying group yet are seeded when some of those who finished above them are not. Also, in qualifying for the 2002 World Cup Brazil finished 3rd in the South America qualifying group behind Argentina and Ecuador. Argentina and Brazil were seeded, Ecuador (who in 2002 played their first world cup) were not. If qualification for previous world cups were not taken into account why were Brazil (who were a basket at that time, Scolari having taken over when they were a shambles) seeded and Ecuador not?

 

[braineclipse]

Imo Nigeria are better than Switzerland. That's debatable i realise but that's my opinion.
Bear in mind as well that Nigeria are currently African Champions, so there may be an argument for them to be seeded on that basis alone seeing as Uruguay are seeded on the basis of them being current Copa America champions from 2011 (which i assume is what put them in that top 8 grouping seeing as they had to win a play-off match vs Jordan).
Their form has obviously not been very good since winning the Copa America otherwise they wouldn't have needed the play-off...so I have to assume it's their status as Copa America champions that put them in the high seeding.

Taking a broader view of this, i'm not neccesarily saying Nigeria or any other Africn/Asian team should have been seeded in this World Cup. However the fact that Switzerland and even Belgium were seeded above Netherlands (who had a better qualifying campaign than both) calls the process into question imo. I would love to know what it would take for a team from Africa and Asia to become seeded.
Would it take a WC semi-final appearance AND being continental champions AND an almost flawless qualifying campaign? Or would it only happen if a world cup was actually won?

IIRC Argentina were seeded in the 2010 world cup as well. They finished 4th out of 10, below Brazil, Chile and Paraguay. Brazil were also seeded for that World Cup whilst Chile and Paraguay were not. I'd love to know why that was: Argentina haven't done jack for 20 years or so.
It does seem like it takes a lot for certain teams to fall out of being seeded, whilst it takes a lot for other teams to be seeded (aside from hosting a world cup that is).

All the games count, to varying degrees. I don't think the status as Copa America champions put Uruguay that high, results across those last 4 years did. I think the games from the previous World Cup still counts (within 4 years at the time of the draw) and they were in the Semi-Finals for that. Add that to the Copa America and relative strength of their opposition in the qualifiers and their results in friendlies and you have your answer I think...

What it would take is better results over that 4 year period. I'm sure someone would calculate just how much better Nigeria's results would have had to be to get into the top 8 (or actually 7 as Brazil were 11th), but it's not going to be me. It would be rather silly to say that "this team won this specific tournament and should thus be seeded" imo. Particularly for the ACN perhaps as there are tournaments every two years and two champions in between each World Cup.

I think the inconsistencies of African teams is at least part of the deciding factor, again without doing any maths.

As I've said all along, one country (Switzerland) perhaps "unfairly" being above some other countries (here Belgium and Netherlands) doesn't invalidate the entire concept, this is expected in a strictly results based ranking system.

It's not surprising to me that teams like Argentina or Uruguay are highly ranked despite finishing 4th-5th in the very tough South American qualifiers where they play against a lot of relatively highly ranked teams.

 

[braineclipse]

In principle I agree this should be the case.
However, you have to ask why Argentina are always seeded when (since 1990) they never get past the quarter-final stage at a world cup, haven't won the Copa America for years and have sometimes finished relatively low in their qualifying group yet are seeded when some of those who finished above them are not. Also, in qualifying for the 2002 World Cup Brazil finished 3rd in the South America qualifying group behind Argentina and Ecuador. Argentina and Brazil were seeded, Ecuador (who in 2002 played their first world cup) were not. If qualification for previous world cups were not taken into account why were Brazil (who were a basket at that time, Scolari having taken over when they were a shambles) seeded and Ecuador not?

How much research do you do for these questions?

Brazil did considerably better at the 2001 Copa America, and were runners up in the 1998 World Cup where Ecuador didn't even qualify.

I'm guessing that along with results in friendlies added up to more points in the FIFA rankings than the results of matches that saw Ecuador finish one single point ahead of Brazil in the South American qualifiers.

 

[glorygloryeze]

How much research do you do for these questions?

Brazil did considerably better at the 2001 Copa America, and were runners up in the 1998 World Cup where Ecuador didn't even qualify.

I'm guessing that along with results in friendlies added up to more points in the FIFA rankings than the results of matches that saw Ecuador finish one single point ahead of Brazil in the South American qualifiers.

Actually i do a decent amount research actually. Not foolproof and am happy to be corrected of course.
In your answer above lies the contradiction to this whole thing; If participation in the last world cup AND the last continental championships are taken into account then the following things are highlighted:

Italy did considerably better than Switzerland AND Belgium in the last Euros (finishing as runners-up no less, whilst Belgium didn't even qualify) and as well as Switzerland in the last world cup (both going out at the group stage). Italy also did better than Belgium in that they actually qualified for the last world cup, whilst Belgium didn't. Yet Belgium and Switzerland were seeded ahead of Italy.

The Netherlands did better than Switzerland AND Belgium in the last Euros - even though the Dutch bombed out, they actually qualified whilst neither Switzerland and Belgium did. The Netherlands did better than Switzerland AND Belgium in the last world cup as well as they finished runners-up. Yet Belgium and Switzerland were seeded ahead of the Netherlands.

Both Italy and especially the Netherlands had comparable qualification records to Belgium and Netherlands: Italy's was lower than both, but then they were also undefeated AND as stated above they had better recent histories than both in the most recent world cup and Euros so unless Friendly results count much more than results at two recent tournaments then I can't see why Italy getting 4 and 2 less points than Belgium and Switzerland respectively should put them below those countries.
The same could be said for the Netherlands, and even more so as they gained more points than BOTH Belgium and Switzerland in qualification.

So again, the seeding system seems inconsistent just taking Europe and South America alone - the most recent world cup, continental championship and qualifying results have counted towards Columbia being seeded (and other S American teams in the past), whilst in Europe it doesn't seem to have helped Italy and Netherlands who have been overtaken by two countries who have not got as good recent World Cup or European championship histories and whose qualifying records were not much better (or were not even as good in the case of the Netherlands).

 

[braineclipse]

Actually i do a decent amount research actually. Not foolproof and am happy to be corrected of course.
In your answer above lies the contradiction to this whole thing; If participation in the last world cup AND the last continental championships are taken into account then the following things are highlighted:

Italy did considerably better than Switzerland AND Belgium in the last Euros (finishing as runners-up no less, whilst Belgium didn't even qualify) and as well as Switzerland in the last world cup (both going out at the group stage). Italy also did better than Belgium in that they actually qualified for the last world cup, whilst Belgium didn't. Yet Belgium and Switzerland were seeded ahead of Italy.

The Netherlands did better than Switzerland AND Belgium in the last Euros - even though the Dutch bombed out, they actually qualified whilst neither Switzerland and Belgium did. The Netherlands did better than Switzerland AND Belgium in the last world cup as well as they finished runners-up. Yet Belgium and Switzerland were seeded ahead of the Netherlands.

Both Italy and especially the Netherlands had comparable qualification records to Belgium and Netherlands: Italy's was lower than both, but then they were also undefeated AND as stated above they had better recent histories than both in the most recent world cup and Euros so unless Friendly results count much more than results at two recent tournaments then I can't see why Italy getting 4 and 2 less points than Belgium and Switzerland respectively should put them below those countries.
The same could be said for the Netherlands, and even more so as they gained more points than BOTH Belgium and Switzerland in qualification.

So again, the seeding system seems inconsistent just taking Europe and South America alone - the most recent world cup, continental championship and qualifying results have counted towards Columbia being seeded (and other S American teams in the past), whilst in Europe it doesn't seem to have helped Italy and Netherlands who have been overtaken by two countries who have not got as good recent World Cup or European championship histories and whose qualifying records were not much better (or were not even as good in the case of the Netherlands).

I don't know how to explain this any better than I already have.

Did you read the wiki link I posted above, it seemed to make things pretty clear even when skipping all the mathy-parts like I did?

I don't understand why you keep bringing up Switzerland as an example. As recently as the post I quoted I said " As I've said all along, one country (Switzerland) perhaps "unfairly" being above some other countries (here Belgium and Netherlands) doesn't invalidate the entire concept, this is expected in a strictly results based ranking system." And it's been pointed out that they've been trying to maximize their FIFA ranking through choosing the right friendly opposition.

I don't know about Belgium, but the fact is they're a good team that have been doing well at the World Cup that are highly ranked despite not having recent success in tournaments. Why is this a problem with the ranking system?

The system is not inconsistent, but it's imperfect. In an imperfect, transparent, objective, results based ranking system you would expect there to be differences when compared to subjective, personal, insight and performance based rankings. I'm glad FIFA are using one over the other though, and I'm sure you are too. These are not inconsistencies as you claim, the system is consistent, just not in the fashion you're expecting it to be.

All games count, to various degrees. You can keep pointing out individual batches of games (either qualifiers to tournaments or tournament outcomes) whilst ignoring the other matches that makes up the total score and keep scratching your head wondering why team A is above team B if you want to. I see no point in it personally. So Belgium did worse than Holland in the qualifiers for the two previous tournaments, and didn't participate in those tournaments. So most likely they did better in the qualifier for this tournament and/or in the various friendlies in between. If you think FIFA are adding up the numbers wrong do the maths or pay someone to do it for you.

 

[jts1882]

How does number of games effect the rankings? If it is points for each game, then more friendlies will give more points. If it is averaged per game, more friendlies could dilute points won in competitive games.