But I doubt that there is a big policy of anybody to try and cheat the system en masse.
In almost all cases, we agree completely. I wrote that I do not
see dark forces at work everywhere. That's exactly the same. My statement, ‘in many (most) cases the organization of competitions is not connected by evil intentions’
, complemented your thoughts … even before they were written. I supported – and not ‘opposed’ - your comment that not every extension is suspicious and explained this by the example of South America.
I defended FIFA. I defended also Libya against charges of manipulation (‘manipulation’ in an evil
sense). However, there is of course (what we can call)
‘cheating’ – very often interpretable as ‘poetic justice’
.Note: ‘you’ refers generally to all readers.
And - if you
analyze the FIFA ranking system, maybe you will have some understanding for those that (try to) ‘fiddle’.
The FIFA ranking is not as transparent, as alleged by FIFA. It's a small grab bag filled with many surprises. The points for a single match is calculated by multiplying the four factorsM
(points for m
mportance of the match – 4
Confed Cup + Continental finals, 2.5
(strength of opposing t
(strength of c
Each factor by itself contains distorting tendencies you never would expect. With one post in a forum, I can point to specific issues only briefly. The issues are very complex. The rules for factor M (especially 3 points for a victory, 1 point for a draw) hurt tendentially African teams (and favour teams from Asia and CONCACAF). That was the main cause that old system failed.
Easiest to understand is the tendency of distorting when looking at factor C: “When calculating matches between teams from different confederations, the mean value of the confederations to which the two competing teams belong is used.”
Question to all who believe in the transparency of the FIFA ranking:
Can you really recognize from this official FIFA text that 'mean value'
means: an African team
will receive for the same outcome
of a match in all cases less ranking points
than a European team? (Exception: a loss – then FIFA says: to lose against Guam is the same as to lose against Spain).Europeans should not be outraged and blame Libya manipulation. Here again, a small table. Consider the comparison between the points for Libya and for a team from UEFA (for same results).
The factor C increases from 0.86 to 0.93, in the case of a match against Belarus from 0.93 to 1.
2011/03/09 Mozambique (99) 1-0 3 2.5 101 0.86
– as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 704.475
2011/08/10 Zambia (83) 0-0 1 2.5 117 0.86
– as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 272.025
2011/11/15 Belarus (61) 1-1 1 1 139 0.93
– as UEFA-Team: 1.00 / 139.00
2012/16/01 Cote d’Ivoire (16) 0-1 0 1 184 0.86
– as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 0.00
2012/21/01 Equatorial Guinea (151) 0-1 0 3 50 0.86
– as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 0.00
2012/25/01 Zambia (71) 2-2 1 3 129 0.86
– as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 359.91
2012/29/01 Senegal (43) 2-1 3 3 157 0.86
– as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 1314.09
2012/03/06 Togo (88 ) 1-1 1 2.5 112 0.86
– as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 260.40
2012/10/06 Cameroon (64) 2-1 3 2.5 136 0.86
– as UEFA-Team: 0.93 / 948.60
Total 9 results 3698.27
– as UEFA-Team: 3998.50
– as UEFA-Team: 444.28As a UEFA member Libya would have received for the same results more rating points!
Folks in Libya (… who neither read nor hear me) ! Don't be outraged! Relax!
Someone to assess just because of the origin, is a classic definition of racism. But the FIFA ranking is not racist, and you are not crooks.
The rules for factors M, T and C were set. (The result of this multiplication corresponds to the measured power).
Thereby African teams would have been sorted far too weak. Therefore they have received a compensation
for it! Factor I (importance) was bent as long as, the football experts liked the sorting of the teams.
(I-factor determines the meaning (weight) of measured power in a single match).So, FIFA ranking is a "system with compensating for ‘injustices’".
The average I-factor was much higher for African teams, because they played a lot less friendly matches 2002-5. By (seeming)
depreciation of friendlies (by appreciation of the factors for competitive games)
increased the advantage. To compensate the African teams enough, I-factor for friendlies (in relation to competitive games)
but was reduced so far
, that absurd side effects were produced.
One side effect: if African teams now play more friendlies, the average I-factor decreases. The seeming privileging (by the action of the I-factor)
also decreases or is eliminated. But don’t forget: this ‘privilege’ is compensation for ‘injustices’ in other parts of the system… And what else is happening: by participation with A-team in regional competitions
(COSAFA. CECAFA, Arab Nations Cup etc.), which are defined as friendlies
, the ranking points decrease.On the other side: Asia
by the action of the I-factor was intended - as compensation for the preferential treatment at M-factor. If the friendly matches or regional competitions
will be extended (EAFF or WAFF Championship etc.), the balance between the effects of M-and I-factor gets out of control.
To prevent a fall
in the rankings, which is not caused by poor results
, but by an absurd system, there are only three possibilities:
1. Not to play (can that be the goal of a ranking system or football fans?)
2. to play with a (the best possible) team and declare it is not the A-Team
3. In order to maintain the balance between competitive games and friendlies, I increase also the number of matches with I-factor of 2.5 (even if I invent competitions or extend it nonsensically)
At least the items 2 and 3 look like ‘cheating’. But ultimately they are only defences against unreasonable effects in FIFA system. And do not forget: you can only do what is allowed by FIFA.
And FIFA is watching and allowed … because in a grotesque way the ‘ranking system’ is protected. - What’s this …?
We have to realize: the method of calculation of the FIFA system is not bound to any objective standards. Elementary rules of logic are systematically violated. The whole thing is only a big bluff
. If you only use arithmetic operations to verify the calculation system, then FIFA system makes a monkey out of you! Even, if you are a smart person! To recognize the bluff, you have to have a lot of experience with computational models (in order to refute them / in science, a common method) ... or you have to work as an auditor (e.g. CPA) … [Then you know that accounting fraud on a grand scale are almost always based on ‘assessments’ (of assets)].
are thinking about the basics of the system, you might fall asleep … If you start to dream, you might ‘hear’ the following dialogue: Hey, I've got a great idea! Let us create an honest ranking, based on the judgment of football experts! This ranking would certainly become very well, but subjective. But the public wants an objective rating! --- No problem! I know some quite excellent folks! They can prove any result you want by numbers! … They work in our accounting …
The described method can be applied to produce a snapshot; only by playing games with numbers – even without any rhyme or reason. A logical context or causality need not exist. (Just as well could have been taken into account the assumed average ‘size of the organ’ of players. If there are different values for the individual continents, we can work with it. Do we want to prefer the continent with the larger value we use this value as a multiplier - in the other case as a divisor …)
By the way, without irony
: the football experts really did a great job. They deserved to enjoy the canapés. The sorting of teams from different continental federations in 2006 was much better and more realistic than, say, at eloratings (which is otherwise much more accurate). With reputable scientific methods, this can be ‘proven’. This means that the experts were competent and acted honourably.
Due the interaction of football experts and so called ‘statistical experts’, teams were not disadvantaged (maliciously)
. The deception
was only that the ranking was not created on an objective basis but on a subjective
To produce a snapshot on a subjective basis, you don’t need a system that is based on principles of logic and causality. Something completely different is a ranking system. If this system is not aligned on objective criteria and violates the principles of logic and causality, the system will implode like a soufflé.
What is the logic, if I say, a team that has won against a stronger team, is therefore weaker, because it was a friendly? A stronger team to defeat always means that an above-average performance was achieved. (If it were only an average performance, then the opponent would not have been assessed as stronger)
. With additional consideration of an above-average value, never decrease the overall average. An above-average income in one month can not reduce the average monthly income.
What is the logic, if (after only two games) a team can get fewer ranking points for a victory and a draw (against the same opponents) than a team which lost one match? Logic system: 4 points based on results mean fewer ranking points than 3 points (based on results). Note:
this applies even if the opponents did not change their ranking positions and also the I-factor was always the same.
Why I defend the FIFA anyway? The public demanded something that was not producible! A definition of a (just) four-year observation period - the fulfilment of the demand for a differentiated ranking -, can only come from someone who has no clue. Their motto was: I determine that the earth is a cube! FIFA, calculate it into a ball!If you want someone should conjure up rabbits out of his hat, then do not call it fraud if he does it.
With these preliminary determinations, FIFA could not do otherwise than to ‘trick’
. And - a serious ranking ultimately is not desired by the public. Those who cannot stand without proper rankings can wait until Roon Ba released new updates...