USMNT fall three places to No. 18 in latest FIFA rankings

USMNT starting eleven

Photo by ISIPhotos.com

By DAN KARELL

FIFA’s updated world rankings for August weren’t kind to the USA.

The U.S. Men’s National Team fell in the FIFA World Rankings for the second consecutive month, dropping another three places to No. 18 in the August 2014 edition. The new position puts the USA one place behind Mexico and three places behind Costa Rica, which at No. 15 is in its highest-ever position.

The ranking of No. 18 is the lowest for the USMNT since August 2013, when they were ranked No. 19. In September 2013, they jumped up as high as No. 13, and remained around there for the next 11 months.

Germany has remained the top team in the world rankings, followed by Argentina, the Netherlands, Colombia, and Belgium, in an unchanged top five. Spain jumped up one spot to No. 7 in a tie with Brazil, both behind Uruguay, and Switzerland and France round out the top 10.

—————–

What do you think of this news? Disappointed to see the U.S. fall so far? Think they’ll jump back up toward the top 10 before the end of the year?

Share your thoughts below.

This entry was posted in Featured, FIFA, U.S. Men's National Team, U.S. Soccer. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to USMNT fall three places to No. 18 in latest FIFA rankings

  1. Shawn says:

    so why is spain so high?

    • Jake says:

      It’s all based on #s only. Its not all about the WC.

      For the US, this is likely because the 2013 Gold Cup is now weighted less.

    • slowleftarm says:

      Probably has something to do with them winning the last 2 Euros and the 2010 world cup. One bad group stage doesn’t totally wipe out 6 years of winning everything in sight.

      • Adam says:

        Those older results matter less. Ranking is dependent on data in a certain time frame. Spain will start feeling it soon.

      • JayAre says:

        The ranking is based on who you’ve played recently. History is History! Spain lost 2 games at the WC and won just 1. The US lost 2 games won a game and tied a game so we were only a tie better than them.

  2. Del Griffin says:

    This is based on Landon’s retirement announcement.

    • Quit Whining About Soccer in the US says:

      Probably the problem with doing it the way FIFA does..and I don’t have an opinion.
      But JK doesn’t take or Landon retires…and it does NOT impact the ranking.

      I realize it is less of factor now..but still. If Messi retires from Argentina tomorrow, type thing.

      • TheFrenchOne says:

        I’ve read and re-read you comment a couple of times and honestly don’t understand any of it…

      • Old School says:

        What on earth are you rambling about Donovan? SBI has become Donovan Apologist.com

        This stuff has become disturbing. Ya’ll need Jesus.

        • TheFrenchOne says:

          Just to be clear, I am an Landon whore, so I was not commenting on Quit’s referene to LD, just that I honestly and genuinely don’t understand what the crap he is trying to say.

  3. georkt says:

    In other FIFA news, Antarctica is now being considered to host the next World Cup. The surface will be frozen field turf painted green. It will be held on alternate months because of the weather conditions.

    • Dave says:

      Their bid package said that they would use infra red heating for the stands, so despite July being the dead of winter, the games would be played in heated stadiums. The organizers guaranteed the health of the workers, and stated coats and gloves would be supplied

    • Quit Whining About Soccer in the US says:

      Sweet, I am Antartic…auto qualification ! Starting RB, baby !

      Can my son play on the team too, since he was born in the states ?

  4. Tony in Quakeland says:

    But the world is supposed to be marveling at our Great Leap Forward? How can we be falling when we gloriously achieved exactly what we did last time? I suspect a communist plot!

    Okay, I’ll stop trolling now

    • William the Terror says:

      Actually, we gloriously achieved less than last time. Far less. Last time, we won our group. Last time, we had an even record (one win, one loss, two ties). Last time, we had an even goal differential. Last time, we were not forced to bunker in defense the entire tournament. This time, we repeated 1994.

      • fifawitz1313 says:

        Last time we had the easiest group in the tournament.

        • Kosh says:

          Yeah, but why let that fact get in the way of a rant?

          In the very same post where folks have emphasized that past performance is taken into consideration with these rankings you still get remarks like this.

        • wandmdave says:

          Why would you mention facts that conflict with his opinion? That isn’t nice.

        • AcidBurn says:

          2010: England, Slovenia, Algeria, Ghana

          2014: Ghana, Portugal, Germany, Belgium

          2010′s group was a cakewalk compared to 2014. The toughest team in 2010 (Ghana) was the easiest in 2014 (Ghana).

          • argh says:

            agreed.

            It was the Group of Death and we struggled

            4 years ago we struggled in the easiest group ever. But we advanced both times which is positive. The odd thing is both tournaments were outside of Europe. Can we try for a 3 consecutive round of 16 finish?

      • dave says:

        statistically, perhaps it wasn’t quite as good as 2010, but it’s hard to see it as “far less” achievement. in 2010 the group was considered far easier. i think we expected rightfully to make the second round in 2010 and even then it was a massive goalkeeping blunder that got us a tie with england, and a last ditch winner against algeria that ultimately won the group.
        2014 had us in the group of death, including eventual winners germany, whereby only a last ditch goal by portugal against us kept us from winning 2 in the group stage for the first time.

        i think we are making progress. it’s slow, but i’d count 2014 more successful than 2010 given the quality of the teams.

        • Jack says:

          Algeria took Germany to extra time this World Cup, so at least they are a hard team to break down. We also had a goal from Dempsey taken away that was onside earlier in that match. A winner against Slovenia, and still the team over came those things.

        • Jack says:

          At the end of the day it’ll be viewed as the same as 2010 but not as good as 2002.

  5. Joe says:

    …in other news, the Dow Jones shows modest gains.

    Who cares about FIFA rankings? Seriously.

  6. Clover362 says:

    Yea the formula FIFA uses for these rankings always produce some interesting results. They creat a ranking that is correct in general terms but usually off when you look at teams individually and compaired tot he teams around the. For instance you will not convince me that Uruguay is one of the 10 best teams in the world. They are good but somewhere in the 10-20 spot. Also I believe the US would be favored in a neutral field game against Mexico and Costa Rica but the US does definitely reside in that 14-20 range.

    • Ian says:

      you could believe that the US would be favored against Costa Rica and Mexico but the rest of the planet is going to compare the lineups and previous achievements and tell you that Mexico and Costa Rica are superior.

  7. argh says:

    it’s accurate. we’re a top 20 nation.

    I’m content

  8. Keith says:

    Looks like we are right where we are supposed to be. We are not better than any of the teams above us.

    • argh says:

      agreed. no probs here

    • James says:

      Despite Costa Rica’s great WC run, I think we’re still easily the better team. Same with Mexico. Not that I really care about the rankings, especially 4 years out of the WC, but there’s teams ahead of us who we’re probably better, and likewise a few times behind us who are probably better than us.

      • John says:

        Easily? We beat them 1-0 in the snow and they beat us 3-1 in San Jose.

        It’s as if people think “2013″ is the only thing that counts when it comes to the USMNT.

      • Ian says:

        maybe you are right with Costa Rica but when you see how Mexico played in the WC compared to what the US did, their possible line up and the teams their players are at they look stronger.

        • Increase0 says:

          Cameroon made everyone look goos. They were perhaps worse than Honduras. Honduras actually tried.
          Croatia was a good win though.

    • twosevenstreet says:

      I would argue that we are better than Greece and Croatia

      and on par with Switzerland, Portugal, Chile, Italy, Costa Rica and Mexico

  9. Tutul says:

    Elo rankings has it Mexico (11), Costa Rica (15), US (17)

    Either way, having 3 CONCACAF teams in the top 20 in rankings is a very good thing.

    CONCACAF THUNDER!

  10. Tom says:

    Mex, USA, probably accurately placed in the bottom half of the top 32. CRC may have dramatically overachieved at the WCF… we’ll see over the next year if that was the case. Provisionally I will accept them in the next 16, so FIFA has them too high ;)

  11. Javier says:

    Wait why we lose spots when no games were even played this months? lol Not to mention behind Croatia and Mexico #fifadontknowmuch

  12. dude1 says:

    What did we do?!?! But seriously, this means freaking nothing. Have plenty of time to lower that number, and it still won’t get us a favorable seed.

  13. NATO says:

    we’re a top 20 nation.

    That’s good. Nothing wrong with that. We’re not a top 10. On our best day we can hold our own but we’re not top 10. But our team performs better than the sum of its parts.

    Russia 2018. I wanna see a quarter-final finish. If we achieve that, then I say keep JK as manager forever

    • twosevenstreet says:

      This is my exact feeling.

      QF or better at WC2018 and he can stay on.

      I really feel 2018 we could be a dark horse to win it all, contingent on us making the final of COPA America2016 as well as the final of CONFED Cup 2017

  14. bryan says:

    eh, whatever.

  15. FSegaud says:

    I noticed elsewhere on the ‘net that the confederation weighting system has changed after this past World Cup…my understanding is that CONCACAF matches are on par with AFC, CAF and OFC!!!!!! What is that all about?!?!?!?!?!
    ***********************
    FIFA also reset the Confederation weighting system following the 2014 World Cup. CONMEBOL matches are weighted at 1.0, UEFA at 0.99, and the other confederations at 0.85. This means CONCACAF games count the same as CAF, AFC, and OFC. Strength of Confederation depends on performance at the World Cup. During the last World Cup cycle, UEFA and CONMEBOL carried a 1.0 weight with CONCACAF at 0.88, AFC and CAF at 0.86, and OFC at 0.85.
    **************************

    Now this is the most outrageous thing from these awful rankings. So much for CONCACAF getting 3 teams in the final 16.

    • Increase0 says:

      It favors Uefa so much. They have teams just as weak as Cuba but they count more. Cuba is probably better than San Marino to be honest….

      Conmebol well no easy games really. Only Boliva away games really.

    • Tom says:

      2002 WCF just fell out of their weighting formula. 2002 was a good year for everybody NOT in UEFA and CONMEBOL. 2006 WCF was catastrophic for everybody but UEFA and CONMEBOL, 2010 and 2014 were more balanced.

      So, simple: a good year for “everybody else” rolled out, and so no longer balances a terrible one!

  16. Joe says:

    Fifa rankings are pointless even though I don’t necessarily have a problem with the us being 18th. The United States has always shown well as a collective even if we’re not as far ahead in terms of individual talent but that has great poteintal to change. Right now for my money Germany is the well deserved number one team in the world

  17. Ski Fast! says:

    FIFA rankings are more pointless than college football rankings (which do matter for that sport’s top teams),and ELO rankings are more pointless than FIFA rankings (because FIFA does not use ELO to seed the top WC teams).