Doesn't really make much sense off the back of just two draws while Scotland go up 25 places just for a fluke win over Croatia. What's the formula they're using?
While the rankings are complete shit, Brazil being that low is because they're hosting the next WC and don't have to qualify, so they haven't been playing any competitive games.
IMO immediately I see they award a point for losing a penalty shoot out but two points for winning one loses the ranking's any credibility at all. Surely it should be a simple "open-play" assessment? After-all Mozambique might play 20 games against the likes of Albania & win three in penalty shoot outs. That could fire them up the rankings even with opposition strength & regional strength considered.
What really matters is how the perform - ranking is not necessary other than to pacify FIFA & EUFA et al being scared of pitting the money-spinner teams against each other in the group stages...as the money might dry-up a little early.
You can almost read their thoughts..."The likes of Greece coming from nowhere to win a major tournament must never happen again"
With football, rankings will be dodgy because there's only a major tournament every 2 years, and national teams don't play frequently enough to provide an effective check, whilst we're all basking in Murray's Wimbledon win, I'll make the comparison with Tennis rankings, there are 4 grand slams in a year, as well as lesser tournaments so you can keep track of individual players performance, and therefore, rank them more effectively.