Top Stories

USA falls to No. 34 in FIFA rankings

MNTHCS20111011015

Photo by Howard C. Smith/ISIphotos.com

With the results not going the United States national team's way, it's no surprise that Jurgen Klinsmann's side continues its slide down the FIFA rankings.

The United States fell three spots to No. 34 — sandwiched in between 2010 World Cup foes Ghana and Algeria — following its win over Honduras and loss to Ecuador.

The U.S. opponents for next month's friendlies, France and Slovenia, come in at Nos. 15 and 27, respectively, while former U.S. coach Bob Bradley inherits an Egypt team ranked No. 29.

Mexico remains the highest-ranking CONCACAF team at No. 22, followed by the United States and then Jamaica (No. 50). 

The top four teams in the world remained unchanged, with Spain leading the way followed by the Netherlands, Germany and Uruguay, respectively.

What do you make of the latest rankings?

Share your thoughts below.

Comments

  1. “There is not a signle thing that would change if the US were instead ranked #3 or ranked #103.”

    Agree wholeheartedly with this if you mean that the ranking speaks very little about a team’s quality (as that very mediocre 2006 WC team ranked top 10 showed), but don’t the rankings matter somewhat for seeding?

    I am of course too lazy to look this up myself.

    Reply
  2. The top 8 ranked countries, minus Brazil, in December 2013 will be the seeded teams in the 2014 World Cup draw. Pretty relevant if you ask me.

    Reply
  3. To be fair, the US has a great advantage in reaching the World Cup because of the lack of competition in our region.

    Do you think the US team has been significantly better than some of the South American or European teams that just miss the cut?

    Do you think this US squad would be a lock to qualify for the Euros?

    Yes, we’ve had some good results, but we’ve had some bad ones too, and to be fair, we’ve been put into position to earn some of those good results due to our favorable region. Its something you can’t discount when discussing rankings like this.

    Reply
  4. Our record against good teams is atrocious. Occasionally doing OKAY against a good team is not indicative of anything really.

    We lost to Panama in a real competition. We tied England. You listed a few teams we either tied or beat over a decade. A decade.

    Reply
  5. Let’s adopt a new rule. You may not call for a coach to be fired when has not been around long enough for you to know how to spell his name.

    Reply
  6. For the record, my comments are meant to be tongue in cheek (even the grammar correction).

    I’m no Bradley fan. While I’m happy about the change that Klinsmann represents, I just don’t feel like there was a legitimate search for the best candidate.

    Kenny from WFD said it best several years ago, (paraphrase) “The guy got GERMANY to third place on their OWN SOIL.” In an of itself, that’s not really that much of an accomplishment considering Germany’s track record in tournaments.

    Bob was never going to take us to the next level. But the jury is still out on Klinsmann.

    Meanwhile, Bob’s team is ranked higher than us.

    Crossing my fingers that the next friendlies go better.

    I for one actually put a bit of stock in the rankings. Take a look at the top five and tell me they aren’t deserving.

    Reply
  7. How do people think the US is not a top 20 team? Over the past 3 world cups we have averaged a round of 16 placement, gotten great results against Portugal, Mexico, almost Germany, Italy in 06(only team not to lose), England, winning the group, etc. I totally understand that the formulaic ranking is what it is, but I don’t get people who think this ranking is ‘about right’

    Reply
  8. Elo ratings are significantly more accurate. However, they have the U.S. even lower at 38th. Not saying that’s the level the U.S. is truly is, but simply where results place us. Once CONCACAF qualifying starts I’d expect the U.S. to move into the low 20s and high teens, because they should be victories and will be weighted more heavily than a friendly.

    This ranking pretty much slashes all hope of being the head of a group though for the Brazil World Cup. Jumping 26-30 places isn’t feasible with the limited amount of time left. That is the only reason to care about these ratings.

    Other than that, I’d much rather have the U.S. playing tough road games in France and Slovenia (as they are doing) that will be a tall task to get points from, rather than hosting Norway and Guatemala in L.A. Come the world cup, we will have a much better team, no matter what the rankings display.

    Reply
  9. Even FIFA accepts the Elo approach as proper and valid — for women’s soccer.

    Too much of an old boy network to introduce it for men’s, though, it seems. Might ruffle too many feathers on too frequent a basis.

    Reply
  10. The changes have happened much quicker than anticipated, you can see the players adapting right before your eyes. It’s exciting to see triangle passing, give-and-goes in the final third instead of what we had.

    Reply
  11. wrong again, I get it very well, and it has nothing to do with “the last 2 years we have dropped considerably in our team quality,” as you claim, which I am happy to continue to point out. Our recent drop in form has knocked us down a little though.

    I bet we can agree on something…these rankings are _______ 🙂

    Reply
  12. I’m also curious how that was spin?

    Listen, it’s possible to be honest, at times critical but still maintain a reasonable perspective.

    Far too many people on here disregard any opinion that isn’t lavishing praise on Bob Bradley or his son, for that matter.

    Both polarizing sides are ridiculous. There IS a gray area with valid points.

    Reply
  13. Fire Klinsman is pretty funny considering he has

    not put his a-team on the field yet and has been

    changing lineups, positions and players along with our style of play and everyone is in an uproar that we lost a couple of games and have not scored. That is funny.

    Give it a chance. I for one am happy to see us playing a more attacking style of play compared to the bunker down counter attack we have been playing.

    Reply
  14. Yes, I was not disagreeing with you, just adding that point. Indeed I agree with your comments here. Like someone said above, I prefer to look at the Elo rankings.

    Reply
  15. Exactly correct. These ranking are utterly, absolutely irrelevant. There is not a signle thing that would change if the US were instead ranked #3 or ranked #103.

    That said, it’s always fun to argue about rankings in sport – whether it’s the Best XI or national team rankings or whatever. I’d say that the ranking is slightly better than where the US really is. I tend to trust the ELO ranking more, and ELO has the US at #38.

    Reply
  16. It’s top 30 man. I would say somewhere in the low 20’s. Might be a good idea to have a league ranking – good for debate. Just curious – where would you put these leagues:

    The A -League
    J-league
    Egyptian League

    As per level with league 1 or Spanish third I think you are one rung low.

    Reply
  17. last 2 years? wrong again

    at the WC, for example, the USMNT won their group for the first time in some 60 years by winning their final group stage game ever, overcoming two honest goals disallowed in the process to do it. That is much less than 2 years ago.

    That is also Quality, even if you don’t get it…and you don’t.

    Reply
  18. I believe we’re a top 30 country. Now if only our league was in the top 30 in the world. Arguably MLS is on the level of League One or 3rd division Spanish football. Once we improve, the NT improve. but probably won’t be a decade or more til the NT is consistently in the top 20 and MLS is one of the best leagues outside of Europe

    Reply
  19. You took the words right out of my mouth. I believe at that time people just assumed we’d walk over Czech Republic and Ghana at the WC

    Reply
  20. For those saying that Bradley is the reason our rankings are so low, look at Klinsmann’s results if results before the Klinsmann era weren’t included we’d be below 50th.

    Reply
  21. Bob: Losing.

    These rankings are far more reflecting on Bradley then Klinsmann. Don’t forget, this formula factors in results for a couple years.

    Reply
  22. Rankings have a purpose, and it’s a general overview based on your recent results. Is it perfect? No. But it does its job and is fairly accurate in showcasing a recent string of results over a few years.

    If we are ranked 34 it is because over the last 2 years we have dropped considerably in our team quality. I would say that is very accurate.

    Reply
  23. The ranking system is the least of FIFA’s concerns. I’m sure others can come up with alternative methodologies, but I don’t think the rankings would be that much different.

    Reply
  24. Only time we were lower was when we were 35th in October 1997. It is true that these rankings don’t mean a lot, but they mean something.

    Reply
  25. Lowest since 1997, which I presume was under Bob Bradley…..

    FIFA rankings are irrelevant, but I seem to remember numerous people using them to argue that Bradley should be fired only a few months ago. Just sayin.

    Reply

Leave a Comment