Remove this ad

#44 [url]

Oct 24 14 10:03 AM

FIFA rankings are self-respecting in the sense that only FIFA respects them.
Other rankings are more respectable generally.

10.18g WPL (Official world rankings champion)

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,444 Site Admin

#45 [url]

Nov 9 14 1:34 PM

ASEAN FIFA rankings
1. Philippines
2. Vietnam
3. Burma
4. Laos
5. Malaysia
6. Indonesia
7. Singapore
8. Thailand
9. East Timor
10. Cambodia
11. Brunei

RESULT TODAY:
Thailand 3-0 Philippines

FIFA: "WOW, What a complete shock result!".
Everyone else: "Yes, that's approximately the result I expected".

Quote    Reply   

#46 [url]

Nov 9 14 2:54 PM

Also when Qatar beat Australia 1-0 last month a lot of media reports considered it as a shock upset, which I found quite strange.

Would we be better off (compared to FIFA rankings) with just a basic ladder system, where teams swap rankings after playing each other?
Has this been done already?

Quote    Reply   

#48 [url]

Nov 9 14 5:23 PM

TheRoonBa wrote:
ASEAN FIFA rankings
1. Philippines
2. Vietnam
3. Burma
4. Laos
5. Malaysia
6. Indonesia
7. Singapore
8. Thailand
9. East Timor
10. Cambodia
11. Brunei

RESULT TODAY:
Thailand 3-0 Philippines

FIFA: "WOW, What a complete shock result!".
Everyone else: "Yes, that's approximately the result I expected".

I am totally shocked Thailand did not win 4-0Tongue02

Quote    Reply   

#49 [url]

Nov 9 14 5:26 PM

pieter wrote:
as everybody of us expected Thailand to beat Philipines, it seems once again we do not need rankings.....here we go again...:)

According to the Elo Rankings Thailand is ahead of Philipines. So we can say Elo Rankings are better as FIFA Rankings a.k.a. Boss Hogg RankingsTongue02

Quote    Reply   

#50 [url]

Nov 9 14 6:33 PM

I do not need (FIFA-) rankings to expect this result; surely FIFA-rankings are nonsense....

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#51 [url]

Nov 9 14 11:29 PM

nfm24 wrote:
Would we be better off (compared to FIFA rankings) with just a basic ladder system, where teams swap rankings after playing each other?
Has this been done already?


  

Yes, it has been done already. “Nasazzi’s baton” or UFWC are two examples. Defeating no.1 then means that the winner is the new no.1 …
Example: after World Cup 2010 Spain was #1

07/09/2010 Argentina 4-1 Spain (Argentina swapped the position with Spain …)
08/10/2010 Japan 1-0 Argentina
15/11/2011 North Korea 1-0 Japan
North Korea defended position number one against Kuwait 1-1, Tajikistan 1-1, Philippines 2-0 etc. …
23/01/2013 Sweden 1-1 (4-1 pens) North Korea

Compared with basic ladder systems FIFA rankings are excellent …

Quote    Reply   

#52 [url]

Nov 10 14 1:26 AM

I know about those, but that is looking only at No.1 position.   I was talking about a full ladder of all teams, operating under the same rules of position swapping.


Excerpt from UFWC website FAQ:  
Who created the UFWC?
The UFWC was created and is owned by freelance journalist and author Paul Brown. He wrote the original Unofficial Football World Champions article in FourFourTwo magazine in 2003,



Hmm...   so clearly Jostein Nygard must have travelled forward in time to steal Paul Brown's "idea", before posting it on RSSSF in 2002.  

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,444 Site Admin

#53 [url]

Nov 10 14 10:54 AM

nfm24 wrote:
Hmm...   so clearly Jostein Nygard must have travelled forward in time to steal Paul Brown's "idea", before posting it on RSSSF in 2002.  

It's unbelievable the lengths some people will go to. I wonder if Jostein still has his 'reverse time machine', or if he destroyed the evidence?

Quote    Reply   

#55 [url]

Nov 12 14 1:49 AM

nfm24 wrote:
I know about those, but that is looking only at No.1 position.   I was talking about a full ladder of all teams, operating under the same rules of position swapping.


Excerpt from UFWC website FAQ:  
Who created the UFWC?
The UFWC was created and is owned by freelance journalist and author Paul Brown. He wrote the original Unofficial Football World Champions article in FourFourTwo magazine in 2003,



Hmm...   so clearly Jostein Nygard must have travelled forward in time to steal Paul Brown's "idea", before posting it on RSSSF in 2002.  

Of course, I had realized that you’ve talked about a full ladder of all teams. My ‘real life’ (not hypothetical) example shows, in which direction can (or 'will') lead the application of a system working by swapping the positions. So – if North Korea was in a ranking No.1 from Nov 2011 until Jan 2013, then that tells us almost everything about such a ranking system. Then we actually do not need consider other possible oddities between No. 2 and No. 200.

On the other hand: I know in several clubs (individual sports. e.g. tennis or table tennis) ladder systems were successfully used. Under certain conditions, they are highly effective. More important than the ranking positions per se: they are supportive in the development and enhancement of skills (for weaker players).

To utilize the advantages of a ladder system - but on the other hand to prevent the aforementioned absurd consequences, the international football must be organized completely differently. (At least in this very moment) I see no meaningful approach or solution.


Thanks for your entertaining comments to Paul Brown and Jostein Nygard. By the way, North Korea was not the biggest “outlier” of UFWC. We learn: In March 1963, Netherlands Antilles were accordingly to UFWC No.1 (or ‘unofficial football world champion’). And if the Netherlands Antilles were unofficial world champions, we may assume that Paul Brown is a being with (at least) unofficially brain. But – Paul Brown’s (official) brainpower does not manifest itself in UFWC (as a system), but in his social psychological experiment ...

The resulting UFWC net community shows that the group behavior of humans is very similar to the individual behavior of blowflies. UFCW is so important (like manure for blowflies) … UFWC are dedicated Wikipedia articles in 15 languages. Who probably launched this?

We must recognize that the era of enlightenment seems to be over. People want to have back their superstitions (Boom of the irrational!). And to whip up such a general mood is currently simply a model of success - politically or economically.

And also the FIFA ranking is just a product of the present time – in many respects.

It is no surprise that Jostein Nygard obviously used a time-machine. Considering his idea he posted in 2002 I would think: Those who can develop such ideas must have tremendous skills which are out of this world.
  

Quote    Reply   

#56 [url]

Nov 13 14 12:40 AM

ctr wrote:
Of course, I had realized that you’ve talked about a full ladder of all teams. My ‘real life’ (not hypothetical) example shows, in which direction can (or 'will') lead the application of a system working by swapping the positions. So – if North Korea was in a ranking No.1 from Nov 2011 until Jan 2013, then that tells us almost everything about such a ranking system. Then we actually do not need consider other possible oddities between No. 2 and No. 200.


But number 1 is an irrelevance!  I am interested in the middle to lower end.

"Ladder rankings" are not rankings in the sense of giving correctly all the relative strengths of teams to each other, but are instead a way of motivating the fixtures in themselves.   It provides an instantaneous ordering, which oscillates (perhaps quite violently) about the "true" ranking without converging.  Indeed it should not converge otherwise the fixtures stagnate.  But one can then average positions over several years to fudge a measure of typical ability.

Normally ladders are used in situations where players/teams are expected to play only those with a nearby ranking.  Minnows are not supposed to challenge the best...


My point was to emphasize a major bug with any ranking system for internationals : teams do not play frequently enough against a wide enough range of opponents to statistically overrule the fluctuations in time of their own actual instantaneous ability. 
Rankings are never a reflection of current ability, but of recent activity.  The points of measurement (matches) are not sufficiently highly resolved to detect the variations.   But ladders, by contrast, detect every variation, albeit in an exaggerated way.

Also one significant advantage that a ladder system has over FIFA is that it properly penalizes a "good" team for losing to a "bad" team.


ctr wrote:
It is no surprise that Jostein Nygard obviously used a time-machine. Considering his idea he posted in 2002 I would think: Those who can develop such ideas must have tremendous skills which are out of this world.  

I'm sure the idea is far older than 2002.  But I don't recall it being published online before that.   And the raw data was much harder to find online at that time...

Anyway, it seems common practice now that people will not cite sources properly when they write these gimmicky books.  They like to pretend it was original.


Last Edited By: nfm24 Nov 13 14 12:47 AM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   

#57 [url]

Nov 14 14 2:32 AM

Also any ranking system should not itself influence match results. Whereas some countries are exploiting the FIFA ranking method to discount matches they don't want, or to choose opponents to their advantage. Essentially, to choose which matches to consider important. This kind of phenomenon clearly contradicts the principle.

Quote    Reply   

#59 [url]

Nov 16 14 9:57 PM

They can't be continental matches if they involve more than one continent. FIFA made some lazy categories, so anything that isn't X or Y will be called Z, even if it is none of XYZ.

Quote    Reply   

#60 [url]

Nov 17 14 8:32 PM

But then they cannot be classified as friendlies either. The same applies to the CCCF and NAFC championships as well. FIFA counts them as friendlies, but they were proper continental tournaments.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help