2020 Olympic Games - qualification

  • 😂😂😂😂😂 Well honestly italy at 8th position was a bit ridiculous expecially after world champion and after gran prix 2017

    As was Argentina higher than Turkey, or Poland lower than everybody else... Of course it's not like now it is 100% correct but at least the top 6 countries right now are indeed top 6 (just maybe not in this particular order).

  • As was Argentina higher than Turkey, or Poland lower than everybody else... Of course it's not like now it is 100% correct but at least the top 6 countries right now are indeed top 6 (just maybe not in this particular order).

    Yea I was thinking that, Serbia being 6th is quite ridiculous indeed (must be 1 or 2) but at least it looks like they are finally trying with rankings, I really like that and overall it actually looks waaaay more accurate and realistic than the old one lol.


    I hope more tournaments start counting in the rankings, just 2-3 big tournaments spread onto like 4 years is just very flawed imo.

  • This ranking should be even more accurate in the future, Idk I like effort in a good ranking system tbh *shrugs* this should be like a big wish coming true for us users who have been asking for a proper ranking for years and to me it is. :drink:


    I guess why the ranking is still a bit random is probably because it containst mostly recent tournaments and VNL counts too I think finally. World Cup I have to agree seems unnecessary. If Serbia was #2 here or someth I would legit not complain at all. But rankings go with recent results so I believe that will come too and am not angry about it. Overall it looks great.

  • I second the new ranking point system. Now everyone has to take VNL seriously(or not^^), we can have more competitive matches, it's good for us fans. Because I don't like to watch B team against B team. I know players will be tired, so I think they need to increase the prize, like, a lot! Not very likely, though. FIVB should work on attracting more people to follow the sport, it'll be good for all of us:super:

  • I second the new ranking point system. Now everyone has to take VNL seriously(or not^^), we can have more competitive matches, it's good for us fans. Because I don't like to watch B team against B team. I know players will be tired, so I think they need to increase the prize, like, a lot! Not very likely, though. FIVB should work on attracting more people to follow the sport, it'll be good for all of us:super:

    This I'm tired of watching unimportant matches vs big tournaments with 0 streams leaving us with barely anything.

  • I think this system is much better than the previous one, with counting all the matches and sets with different weight value. It shows the current strength of the countries much better than before. There are some weird standings but it just counts 1 year and it will become better as the year goes by. Serbia's fall is because they throw the vnl and world cup which counts the most in rhe current ranking system.


    But the one thing I cannot understand is too big counts of VNL. 50 for olympics, 45 for the Wch and 40 for the vnl?? Can't agree with this. VNL is for $$$ and it is so exhausting tournaments for the players.

  • I think this system is much better than the previous one, with counting all the matches and sets with different weight value. It shows the current strength of the countries much better than before. There are some weird standings but it just counts 1 year and it will become better as the year goes by. Serbia's fall is because they throw the vnl and world cup which counts the most in rhe current ranking system.


    But the one thing I cannot understand is too big counts of VNL. 50 for olympics, 45 for the Wch and 40 for the vnl?? Can't agree with this. VNL is for $$$ and it is so exhausting tournaments for the players.

    Not only 40, VNL is every year and olympics is every 4 years, and olympics is only 5 - 8 games and VNL is 15, 17, or 19 games, it makes an even bigger difference. Ask a team if they'd rather win VNL or an olympic ticket, the answer should be clear. Also this new system counts all matches equally, but if you lose the last game in a pool and you're guarenteed to advance -- nope, still gonna lose ranking points even though it literally does not matter. That just seems wrong to me.


    But in the end, the rankings are only an approximation. I fail to see how this one is superior to the old system. Yes, there can be more variety with teams moving up and down, but that is because the VNL wasn't counted for the first two years. I guess this is FIVB's way of telling everyone you have to take the VNL seriously now.

  • But the one thing I cannot understand is too big counts of VNL. 50 for olympics, 45 for the Wch and 40 for the vnl?? Can't agree with this. VNL is for $$$ and it is so exhausting tournaments for the players.

    VNL is an annual tournament and rewarded for it. Olympics are the biggest event in the volleyball world every four years. World Championship is 2nd biggest event. That is why those are higher.

  • I like that VNL is rewarded. Everyone still gets bragging rights and feel good memories for winning OG and WCh. VNL rewards teams/countries who can maintain and develop a dozen or more players who can compete at the international level instead of just one setter or one OH who can win it all for a team.

  • Without VNL, there is no much volleyball tournament anymore. Unlike football, the level of club league is not competitive enough to draw audience's attention. That's why VNL has to be rewarded.

    think of it before the World League and World Grand Prix, before the VNL. Continental Champs, World Champs, Olympics and World Cup. Throw in some smaller tournaments too.


    I disagree with the Club League level angle though. Yes you do have some strong teams in one country, but throw in some CEV Champions League chaos in the later rounds to see stars from national teams compete with each other not as teammates.