World Cup rankings through time - Part 2
In Part 1 I listed the results of every World Cup up to and including 1994, presented as a series of cumulative rankings divided three ways: the Early Years, Classic Period and Transitional Phase. Now I'll add the results of the most recent tournaments, including the recently completed Russian edition, and explore how best to combine all the results to produce a fair, clear and meaningful ranking.
In 1998 the World Cup finals expanded to 32 teams and reverted to the elegant format of the Classic Period: half the teams go home after three group games; neat knockouts ensue, with an extra round in the new double size version. The format has persisted for six consecutive tournaments, exceeding its smaller predecessor, and only the avaricious or idiotic would consider changing it...
As a result, and in the spirit of recognising every single finals appearance, there are now 63 nations listed, with improving geographical spread. Debutants Japan are ever-present, and qualify from the group at every second attempt; Ecuador's appearance now leaves only Venezuela yet to qualify from South America; there are new names to the north in Panama, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago.
Togo and Angola, among four African debutants in 2006, haven't returned, whereas Ivory Coast have since matched South Africa's three visits without success. Ghana negotiated their group at the first attempt in '06, then in 2010 became Africa's third quarter-finalist after Senegal's stellar 2002 debut.
Eastern Europe features heavily: Turkey's '02 semi-final was their first and only appearance since 1954; Ukraine made the 2006 quarter-final but are yet to return; all of Europe's eight first-timers are new nations from dissolved eastern states, except for this year's far-western vintage, Iceland.
The Modern Era
Despite Ghana and Senegal's efforts, Nigeria are the highest ranked African team, reward for regular qualification and occasional, limited success. The proliferation of African nations in mid-table here reflects a continent with teams capable of going deep at the World Cup, but not enough qualification spots for them all, resulting in inconsistency of representation and a lack of tournament experience.
Above Nigeria, the table illustrates that second tier representatives of the two powerful continents have a similar problem. Denmark and Paraguay can reach quarter-finals and usually get out of the group, but crucially miss one in three tournaments altogether; above them, the second best teams from the two weakest continents, U.S.A. and Japan, achieve only sporadic success but gain valuable experience and trend upwards because they (nearly) always qualify for the finals.
Further up, there it is again: Belgium, Uruguay and Portugal have justifiably been among the dark horses at all recent tournaments except for those where they failed to qualify; above them, the best of the weak continents have no qualification concern and complete the top 10 through consistency - Mexico's staggeringly repetitive, Korea's somewhat mercurial, if consistency can be mercurial...
Australia are one of only 12 teams to have qualified for all of the last four World Cups, but are the least successful among that group. 2006's late, late defeat to eventual champions Italy, a quarter-final with Ukraine tantalisingly out of reach, was a breakthrough display by a golden generation on which the Socceroos have been unable to build. Nevertheless, history shows that such consistent qualification will eventually be converted to deeper tournament runs, if it can be maintained.
France are suddenly top of the table. Having never reached the final before, they won as hosts in 1998 and have reached half of all Modern Era finals. They top the table despite twice going out at the group stage - both times having reached the previous final. In fact, four out of five Modern Era world champions have fallen at the first hurdle next time, with Brazil in 2006 the only exception.
Only just below France, level on points, are Brazil and Germany, traditionally the best teams, from the best two continents. Brazil are poorly served by the division of eras, because three consecutive finals from1994-2002, with two wins, was their second golden age. For Germany, the one nation for whom losing in the quarter-finals has been a rare blip, this year's failure was truly calamitous.
Spain's famous tiki-taka team became the eighth different world champions in 2010 and are fourth, a big improvement. Only just below them, level on points, are Argentina and Italy, traditionally the second best teams from the best two continents: Argentina are more consistent, with a final and three more quarters; Italy won in 2006 but have been awful since, and stayed at home this year. Netherlands are only a point behind those two after reaching three semi-finals, winning one.
The irony of England's exciting run this year is that semi-final defeat saw them leapfrogged by their opponents; we've been more consistent than Croatia over 20 years, but the top eight all reached a World Cup final in that time. 1998 is fondly remembered but a group stage stumble against Romania left us playing Argentina too soon. 2010 was the same - failure to beat U.S.A. or Algeria setting an early collision course with Germany - leaving 2014's squad low on confidence in the Group of Death.
Defeat in '02, like three of our previous knockout exits, was to eventual winners - Brazil beating us in the quarters for a second time. That leaves 2006's frustrating loss on penalties to Portugal: a good squad, well coached, fell just short of a semi-final against France - noone's favourites for the trophy; Portugal had their own golden generation, but more than any other year 2006 asks what might have been. This year doesn't ask that: a semi-final can't ask what might have been; it's just what was.
Full Historical Ranking Version 1 - quarter-finals
As before, the next step is an overall ranking using only quarter-finalists; it's in depth enough to separate the top teams, but exclusive enough to limit the numbers. There are now 36 nations to have reached the last eight, with eight new entries in the modern era: 2010 and 2014 (the first two consecutive tournaments hosted outside Europe) both saw two first-time quarter-finalists, none of them European; this year, back in Europe, traditionally successful nations were back on top.
The top four is unchanged since the Early to Transitional ranking, but France have soared from 12th to fifth, pushing Uruguay and England down a place. Netherlands, who didn't win a World Cup match until 1974, climb again, from 11th to eighth. Sweden and Hungary relinquish their single digit rankings, the former despite a good effort this year, whereas Hungary continue to languish.
Serbia, home to Yugoslavian capital Belgrade, is widely recognised as a modern continuation of the former federation, and even competed as Yugoslavia in 1998. However, neighbours Croatia reached the semi-final that year, and this year's performance cements their right to inherit Yugoslavia's prior results and retain ninth place. Czechoslovakia doesn't require a name change for this table, because neither constituent nation reached a quarter-final after 1990's brief pre-dissolution resurgence.
Rather than continue to analyse this ranking though, I prefer to ask: "Is it fair?" Well, by featuring only quarter-finalists it's incomplete, which means it must lack some fairness; this is the last time you'll see Mexico, who've qualified for 16 World Cups, ranked below Poland (8), Portugal (7) and Ireland (6). However, even a complete ranking, using this points method, would lack something.
The issue is recency. While a comprehensive ranking should take into account all historical results, there's still a sense that, over time, the World Cup has become harder to win, with more global competition, higher standards and increased intensity to the tournament. In short, should Uruguay rank sixth due mostly to two wins when the tournament was still getting its act together? should Hungary be 12th having not qualified in 30 years, or got through the group stage in 50?
The simplest way to reflect the notion that each World Cup is inherently more important than the last is to allocate a points multiplying factor to each tournament, starting at 3 for the first one in 1930. [Always start at 3. If you start at 1, the proportional increases quickly render early items completely irrelevant.] This yields the following points scoring system to apply to the existing results:
Sliding Scale
(This is to achieve recency, not currency. For currency, you can just check the FIFA rankings, or Arpad Elo's arguably superior alternative. Actually you can check which team just won the World Cup.)
For these experimental converted rankings, we'll stick to the top 16, suggesting which nations would qualify for a truly classic World Cup. There's also a colour scale in the points column, which neatly shows where the big gaps in the ranking are, and which teams are grouped closely together.
Full Historical Ranking Version 2 - sliding scale
Germany and Brazil are still well clear of everyone else. Italy, Argentina and France are still next, in that order, and well clear of sixth place. Uruguay, though, drop four places to 10th - pretty much what this system was designed to do. The big climbers are Spain, from 11th to seventh with England and Netherlands in close points proximity on either side, and Belgium, from 16th to 11th, fractionally above Sweden but well short of the top 10. Both nations' performance improved in recent years.
Hungary, Czechia and Austria disappear from the top 16 as the Central European success of 1934-'62 recedes from memory. Korea climb from 21st to 15th because FIFA made room for Asian nations in the '80s. Mexico shoot up to 13th because reaching the last 16 is much more meaningful since the tournament expanded. All of these recent developments give this ranking list a more global feel.
The sheer quantity of points available also prevents nations being tied on equal points, which is a bonus, but this pursuit of recency doesn't seem quite right. Is the 2014 World Cup really worth twice as much as 1970? Is 2018 worth nearly eight 1930s? Instead of literally placing more value on each consecutive tournament, let's focus on the reason that the modern World Cup is worth more.
In 1986, at the second 24-team World Cup, an extra knockout round of 16 teams was introduced after the group stage. It would have been neater to achieve this by doubling the tournament size directly from 16 to 32 teams, rather than edging towards progress over 20 years. However, the extra round is what has made the World Cup deeper, tougher and harder to win. This can be reflected by building the points system from the bottom up, rather than from the top down, thus:
Split Scale
This far simpler adjusted points system yields a different top 16 ranking.
Full Historical Ranking Version 3 - split scale
Germany and Brazil are still well clear of everyone else. Italy, Argentina and France are still next, in that order, and well clear of sixth place. The next eight nations are fairly close together and evenly spaced, but Uruguay are nearly all the way back, up to seventh, still below England. Czechia and Hungary scrape back into the top 16, joining Russia in an old school, aptly coloured 'red zone'.
This ranking discards the modern thrust of Korea in favour of European nations still living on past glories, but in doing so it more accurately reflects the fact that FIFA haven't yet given the world's most inhabited continents sufficient opportunity to fulfil their potential. Portugal are also gone, but that seems fair for an overrated nation, their two semi-finals stark exceptions to a rule of mediocrity.
It's still not right though, cleaving World Cup history in two as it does, based on a single aspect. Did '80s icons like Zico, Platini, Maradona and Rummenigge really play in two tournaments of such entirely different value? That's not where the line is. A slightly more linear approach is required:
Hybrid Scale
In the hybrid scale, the dividing lines are based on the original divisions that I made in order to present the results data: the Early Years are lesser tournaments, so score the least; the Modern Era gives us the best World Cups yet, and scores most. There's just one multiplying factor across the middle half though: the Classic Period refined the format but remained insular; the Transition Phase saw welcome expansion but a return to chaos - the two sections are opposite, but equal.
This, finally, seems satisfactory. Here's the top 32 using the hybrid scale, showing what a modern World Cup would look like if qualification had been gradually building in intensity for 90 years.
Full Historical Ranking Final Version - hybrid scale
Germany and Brazil are still well clear of everyone else. The next three are the same, with Italy third and a gap to sixth, but France have leapfrogged Argentina. The shift in emphasis has reduced the effect of Argentina's two wins and France's consecutive failures to qualify in the 1990s. Basically, the three teams to have won the World Cup twice are now ranked in order of the recency of their wins.
Uruguay's ninth place seems about right: they're below Spain, who have a recent win and haven't missed a tournament since 1974, while Uruguay have missed five; they're also below Netherlands, the best team never to win the World Cup, with three finals and two semis over the last 50 years. Croatia and Sweden, with one final each but, crucially, plenty of other decent showings, are next, with Croatia's better recent form putting them ahead, inside the top 10 and closing on Uruguay.
Hungary and Czechia, with their two finals each in the dim and distant past, are clinging on inside the top 16, but well behind more consistent recent performers like Mexico and Belgium. Russia's surprise showing this year - hosts just always find a way to do well - keeps them in 14th.
Korea are just one point outside the top 16, and on course to climb the table. In fact, many of the nations with recent form that suggests future improvement are from the 'new continents' - U.S.A., Japan, Nigeria, even Colombia to stretch the point - whereas those starved of success and sliding down the table - Hungary, Czechia, Austria, Bulgaria, Ireland, Romania, Scotland - are European.
Furthermore, the nations immediately outside the top 32 with solid recent results, who look likely to break through, will make the list more cosmopolitan as a result: Cameroon, Costa Rica, Peru, Ghana and Australia will soon scratch Scotland's particularly underwhelming record from the list.
Some Final Conclusions
Despite some quite violent data manipulation, many elements of the ranking are always the same:
-Germany and Brazil remain well clear of everyone else as the best two World Cup nations in history.
-Germany outrank Brazil, no matter what you do with the data. Consistent German excellence wins in every possible analysis, except the pertinent matter of Brazil's unmatched five tournament wins.
(Even Brazil's five wins came in two short bursts, over seven tournaments in total. The other two-thirds of the time, their record is good but unremarkable. The aura about them is unjustified.)
-Italy are always third, with four tournament wins, albeit two of them in the Early Years. They've done enough elsewhere to justify this ranking, but on recent form, they might fall from it soon.
-France and Argentina are evenly matched in fourth and fifth spots, but recent form trends suggest that France are more likely to climb the table. Most fans can't remember Maradona's 1986 win.
-The rest of the top 16 comprises the same teams, except for when Korea and Portugal, with their recent semi-finals, replace fallen European giants Hungary and Czechia, under the sliding scale.
-Positions throughout the top 16 are largely consistent, except for that of ancient double champions Uruguay, whose points total suffers when data is adjusted for recency. Even in the most sympathetic ranking, they're the third best team in South America, having been usurped in the '70s by Argentina.
-Mexico are the fourth best Latin American nation, and even then have never reached the last eight when not hosting the tournament. Otherwise, Europe have dominated the World Cup - so far...
Finally: England are good!
I'm always wary of appearing biased towards England, and would gladly have accepted any ranking version that exposed a weakness in our World Cup history. I was sure that one interpretation or another would somehow show that we've been bluffing all along, lowly also-rans masquerading as former world champions and regular quarter-finalists... but that book refused to be written.
The top five are well clear of the rest, as I've said, and the top two especially so. However, beyond those elite five, who have all won multiple World Cups, including exactly two wins each over the last 11 editions, there's a strong case to say that England are the next best team in World Cup history.
Even as an ardent, observant and partisan England supporter, I find this surprising. Like most other fans, I've spent too long reading internet message boards full of doom and gloom to truly appreciate the team's consistent quality and high achievement. Typical comments say: "We're kidding ourselves if we think we can match the technique of the top nations," "We'll be lucky to reach the knockout stage and lose to the first decent team we play," and "We're just a mediocre football country."
Sixth place isn't mediocre. More semi-finals than Spain, who are so much better at passing than us, isn't mediocre. More quarter-finals than France - France! with their grandiose blueprint for youth development that supposedly puts us to shame! - isn't mediocre. I've tried everything to manipulate the data to show some mediocrity, to give the internet naysayers something, but it can't be done.
This year's run didn't hurt the ranking of course, and it felt like an outlier because it was - we reach the semi-finals roughly every six tournaments. We're always in with a decent shout of doing it though, and anything less than quarter-finals is a disappointment. Not many nations can say that.
Germany will be back, and they'll no doubt hurt us again. Brazil will always be there or thereabouts, although they're not as special as they think. France might build on this year, and on their modern success in general, to become the dominant force in future. Beyond these three though, whom should we really fear? Argentina are stagnating somewhat, and Italy are in total freefall.
Other top quality contenders will come and go, like Croatia and Belgium this year, but that's all that even the likes of Spain and Netherlands have ever really done, whereas we've cringed at the sight of them, needlessly. Next time, or the time after that, when three nations host the World Cup jointly, 48 teams are in it and the whole thing becomes a transitional mess again, why shouldn't it be our turn?