Remove this ad

#61 [url]

Nov 17 14 10:11 PM

Different ranking systems might rate tournaments with different importances - indeed in my view even that is too simple, and always the context of the match should be considered. A World Cup final or semi-final is much more important than a game like Spain vs Australia last time when both were already eliminated. The latter was not much higher than a friendly.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,500 Site Admin

#62 [url]

Nov 19 14 9:13 PM

Luca wrote:
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.
FIFA is inconsistent in almost everything it does.  It is almost a waste of time to try to help them by pointing out errors.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,500 Site Admin

#63 [url]

Nov 19 14 9:18 PM

nfm24 wrote:
Different ranking systems might rate tournaments with different importances - indeed in my view even that is too simple, and always the context of the match should be considered. A World Cup final or semi-final is much more important than a game like Spain vs Australia last time when both were already eliminated. The latter was not much higher than a friendly.
I think giving different importance to matches within the same tournament could be problematic.  Maybe it should only happen in situations like you mention, when both teams are already eliminated.  These matches could be relegated to "friendly" status  (for rankings purposes), but then again, both teams might be trying just as hard in order that they don't go home without a win.  We have to introduce a lot more subjective issues like "how hard teams are trying", and even "how good the players are that were selected".  For simplicity, I think it's advisable just to classify 2 types of match - competitive (those played as part of an official world, continental or regional tournament and the qualifications matches therefor), and non-competitive (friendly matches, friendly tournaments).  Individually anomalous cases such as the Merdeka Tournament can be considered competitive rather than non-competitive if desired.



Quote    Reply   

#64 [url]

Nov 19 14 9:59 PM

TheRoonBa wrote:
We have to introduce a lot more subjective issues like "how hard teams are trying"


And consequently award both the Ivory Coast and Cameroon nul points following today's match passing drill: 

Last Edited By: Kaizeler Nov 19 14 10:01 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#65 [url]

Nov 20 14 12:19 AM

Yes throw them both out and let Morocco back in along with DRC.
Seems that was based on the tiebreaker of away goals in head-to-head, DRC would advance if Ivory Coast lost 1-0. I would punish Cameroon more for not trying to tackle the Ivorians.
Probably an ineligible player will be found somewhere to confuse things further. Interesting that Nigeria has failed to qualify.

Edit: I know that DRC has qualified anyhow as best 3rd place, but that was not certain at the end of the Ivory Coast match as other matches were still playing  (I think?)

Last Edited By: nfm24 Nov 20 14 12:58 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#66 [url]

Nov 20 14 12:33 AM

It depends if the "match importance" is supposed to be accurate to give a realistic weighting to the match and hence interpret the outcome correctly for the ranking.  If the aim is to rank teams as accurately as possible then some element of subjectivity has to come into it eventually.  This will annoy ranking purists no doubt, but it is clear that it is always possible to "improve" any objective system by making a subjective decision on anomalous cases. 

Anyway, it's arguably not subjective to say that a match between eliminated teams is not really part of the competition any more per se, and hence downgrade it.  Unless you award some kind of kudos for finishing 3rd in groups.  If one team is eliminated and the other is already guaranteed progression (and/or first place), that match could be equally less important.  Likewise if both teams have already progressed.

Whereas stuff like "did they use a B team" is clearly subjective.

Quote    Reply   

#67 [url]

Nov 20 14 5:03 PM

On another note, has anybody every tried to make a combined ranking of both men and women's teams?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#68 [url]

Nov 20 14 5:22 PM

it could make sense to make a ranking based on youth teams , Olympic teams, B-teams and A-teams...

sorry, i forgot I am against ranking national teamssmiley: eek

Quote    Reply   

#69 [url]

Nov 20 14 5:55 PM

I was thinking about ways that the inequality between men's and women's football could be addressed.   I.e. to make women's football more important for FAs and fans in general.   To me it seems at the moment that women's football is widely considered just an afterthought, or something like youth matches which are not too important compared to senior men's. 

FIFA already has a spending percentage allocation for each FA towards women's football.  I suggested before that the male and female World Cups should be hosted simultaneously in the same location. 

Supposing that men and women's matches counted equally for the unisex ranking points, would this make certain countries put more effort to develop women's football?
Note that FIFA uses different ranking systems for the two genders.

Currently women's teams play more international matches (major countries at least) than men, presumably because club football is less "important", so this would have to be addressed.   Perhaps things could be made completely symmetric so that every men's tournament has a mirror women's tournament happening concurrently, with the same groups and same fixtures.

Another way to make the two equally important would be to incorporate results of both genders into the same competition.  Either by  cumulative points (men + women) or by taking the best of both  (max(men,women)).  

For example, in the last (men's) World Cup we had Group H

 1.Belgium           3  3  0  0   4- 1  9
 2.Algeria           3  1  1  1   6- 5  4
 3.Russia            3  0  2  1   2- 3  2
 4.South Korea       3  0  1  2   3- 6  1
If women's teams had the same fixtures, let us suppose the outcome was:
 1.South Korea       3  2  1  0    -    7
2.Russia 3 1 2 0 - 5 3.Belgium 3 1 1 1 - 4 4.Algeria 3 0 0 3 - 0
Then you could have, overall (cumulative):
 1.BELGIUM           6  4  1  1    -    13
2.SOUTH KOREA 6 2 2 2 - 8 3.Russia 6 1 4 1 - 7 4.Algeria 6 1 1 4 - 4
or (best result of both)
 1.BELGIUM           9
2.SOUTH KOREA 7 3.Russia 5 4.Algeria 4

So then Belgium and South Korea would advance to the second round in both the men and women's tournaments. Russia and Algeria eliminated from both.


Last Edited By: nfm24 Nov 20 14 6:22 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#70 [url]

Nov 20 14 6:31 PM

Especially "punished" by such a unisex ranking would be many of the South American and Gulf/Middle Eastern countries, while Far Eastern nations would gain a lot of ground.

I've aggregated my latest men's and women's rankings (they're on the same scale, unlike their FIFA counterparts), and a Top 20 would look like this:
image

Quote    Reply   

#71 [url]

Nov 21 14 4:48 PM

Thanks. The highest in either to drop out of the combined top 20 is #7 and #9 of both genders.
Could you also do a continental top 10, if it is quick.

Aggregating the ranking points from two separate gender rankings (as you have there) would presumably give a different outcome to having a single ranking with both gender's matches counting equally. is there a quick way, in your data, to output the latter? Obviously that would no longer be an accurate ranking when comparing just men's teams to each other, nor women's.

Can you also put a table of the countries with the biggest differential men to women? We can guess most of these as you said before.

Quote    Reply   

#72 [url]

Nov 21 14 11:33 PM

The ranking system I use is Elo-like in nature and therefore not particularly suitable to have matches of both genders combined, as it attempts to measure 'current strength' more than 'compounded (recent) achievement' (to which your idea of a cumulative World Cup is closer).

While in theory I could calculate 'combined' ratings with my current model, they would at this stage be a (unequally) weighted average of the male and female points totals columns, given the number (and recency) of games played by each side. More significantly, it would create an incentive for FAs to stop fielding the gender in which they are (relatively) weaker, so as to stop them losing points and bringing the combined rating down.

Still, using the two-ranking aggregate I could derive continental subrankings and largest men - women differentials (do note that men's positions are out of 223, while women's positions are out of 190). Indeed, full tables are available here for any further anlyses.

Last Edited By: Kaizeler Nov 21 14 11:36 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#73 [url]

Nov 22 14 1:09 AM

Yes I did realise that an Elo ranking would be rather inappropriate to calculate the hybrid ranking I suggested because the "actual current strength" of a country is now multivalued (one for each gender), and so, without totally symmetric fixtures, the ranking of the country will oscillate wildly depending on which gender played last. But the suggestion was based on drastic bloody-mindedness, something which I and FIFA share ;-)

As the idea was to promote inequality, there would be restrictions imposed to ensure a reasonable number of fixtures for each gender, or the complete symmetry I suggested in fixtures. In that sense every "ranking match" becomes two legs, male and female.

Interesting that West Asians have the largest male bias, East Asians female. Not clear to my why the latter should be the case (the former is obvious). I suppose it may be an economic effect. Though that is the discussion on another topic...

I find it quite amusing that FIFA uses such different systems for men and women.

Quote    Reply   

#74 [url]

Nov 22 14 10:21 AM

TheRoonBa wrote:
For simplicity, I think it's advisable just to classify 2 types of match - competitive (those played as part of an official world, continental or regional tournament and the qualifications matches therefor), and non-competitive (friendly matches, friendly tournaments).  Individually anomalous cases such as the Merdeka Tournament can be considered competitive rather than non-competitive if desired.



This is surely a good solution. But note that the term "competitive" sometimes is subject to interpretations. There are a lot of tournaments whose status is quite difficult to classify.
For example, the 1980 Mundialito. Although it was never recognised as a FIFA competition, it was everything but a friendly tournament.
Or consider the Olympic, the Asian and the Caribbean Games, which saw the presence both of "A" teams and of restrictive teams.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help