Remove this ad

Lead

Mar 24 17 5:43 PM

Tags : :

Are there any rating systems still in existence that go back in time? It appears even FIFA only goes back to the 1990s. I remember someone posting a website a while back where you could go back to any time in history, but can't find the link here
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#2 [url]

Mar 24 17 11:33 PM

The FIFA rankings were only founded in the early 1990s. Before this they had a sort of unofficial one used for seeding purposes, but not what you are looking for.

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Mar 25 17 12:14 AM

nfm24 wrote:
The FIFA rankings were only founded in the early 1990s. Before this they had a sort of unofficial one used for seeding purposes, but not what you are looking for.

They are such slackers, it's not even funny. How can they have so much money and power while simultaneously be such slackers.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Mar 25 17 12:45 AM

abramjones wrote:
Luca wrote:
It should be the World Football Elo Ratings website.
I don't think this is it because I remember being able to select parameters on the historic search. anyway, can you direct me on how to view historic ratings on this site? I can't seem to find it.

If you're looking for rankings as of a given date (say, 1/1/1921), then the Elo site does not provide that information. You'd have to go through every single team's page and see how many points they had by that date.

Last Edited By: Kaizeler Mar 25 17 9:33 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Mar 25 17 1:46 AM

Kaizeler wrote:
abramjones wrote:
Luca wrote:
It should be the World Football Elo Ratings website.
I don't think this is it because I remember being able to select parameters on the historic search. anyway, can you direct me on how to view historic ratings on this site? I can't seem to find it.

If you're looking for rankings as of a given date (say, 1/1/1921), then the Elo site does not provide that information. You'd have to go through every single team's page and see how many points they had by that date.

Yeah, that is what i'm looking for. I know someone on this forum once posted a website like that, not sure if it still exists though.

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Mar 26 17 2:32 AM

Surely the Cubic Watermelon has the capacity to generate this info. The 10.18g WPL does not as it is a purely instantaneous ranking applicable only to future predictions, and historical rankings cannot be produced due to hindsight issues.

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Mar 26 17 1:24 PM

I would have thought CTR's page had that functionality, but my German is schlecht and I can't seem to find it. Or it may have been in some of the other systems.

The Cubic Watermelon can certainly have a go at that (have fun changing the date on the yellow cell), though I haven't really made much of an effort in backdating all of the countries' names properly, so you might still see Zambia when it was still called North Rhodesia or Georgia at a time when it was inactive due to being absorbed by the USSR...

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Mar 27 17 7:23 PM

Kaizeler wrote:
I would have thought CTR's page had that functionality, but my German is schlecht and I can't seem to find it. Or it may have been in some of the other systems.

The Cubic Watermelon can certainly have a go at that (have fun changing the date on the yellow cell), though I haven't really made much of an effort in backdating all of the countries' names properly, so you might still see Zambia when it was still called North Rhodesia or Georgia at a time when it was inactive due to being absorbed by the USSR...

checked the German site, that's not it unless it changed format. when using the site it allowed you to select a custom date range, so it was actually scanning the database instead of just having pre-made web page with rankings. if you guys can't think of it the website must be down.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#11 [url]

Mar 30 17 7:06 PM

Here the user CTR posted some interesting graphics about the historic trend of some of the most important national teams, showing the head-to-head through the years and other data, but I don't know if this is exactly what you refer to.


Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Apr 7 17 8:12 AM

Regardless of what rankings say, I'd award the first place honoris causa to Uruguay: a country of 3,400,000 inhabitants that has been able to win 2 World Cups, 2 Olympic Games, 15 Copas América, and whose clubs have won 18 international competitions employing squads almost entirely composed by Uruguayan players. This proves that, in football, Uruguay is second to none.

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Apr 8 17 3:49 AM

Luca wrote:
Regardless of what rankings say, I'd award the first place honoris causa to Uruguay: a country of 3,400,000 inhabitants that has been able to win 2 World Cups, 2 Olympic Games, 15 Copas América, and whose clubs have won 18 international competitions employing squads almost entirely composed by Uruguayan players. This proves that, in football, Uruguay is second to none.

My ranking website that accounts for wealth and population amount should be completed in the next few months (for football and basketball at least), then we will truly see how countries like Uruguay rank.

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Apr 8 17 1:45 PM

abramjones wrote:
... then we will truly see how countries like Uruguay rank.

Yes – you are ‚The Real Deal’. And your ranking will be great! The course of the motion of the molecules (→‘Brownian motion’) will have to be reconsidered. Very helpful will be the fantastic quality of the underlying database … Ranking 2014 (federtopfoot): Brazil 1, Germany 7. Great! That’s exactly what happened in 2014 …

And the consequences of your proposals would be that Portugal would never again play against France, but against any French region. Why should they do this? – if they could (after 10 defeats in a row) beat France and could become European Champion!

     nfm 24 wrote:
    
Now we are just playing Salieri to your Mozart...

Topic here is ‘Historic Rankings’. Although we should make a difference between the ‘historic’ Salieri, who was very different to the ‘movie version’…: for the purpose of fun let’s occur for a moment Milos Forman’s evil Salieri:


He thrashes all who stands for Mozart. ‘Abram’, you are the first one …! smiley: roll

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Apr 8 17 3:24 PM

ctr wrote:
abramjones wrote:
... then we will truly see how countries like Uruguay rank.

Yes – you are ‚The Real Deal’. And your ranking will be great! The course of the motion of the molecules (→‘Brownian motion’) will have to be reconsidered. Very helpful will be the fantastic quality of the underlying database … Ranking 2014 (federtopfoot): Brazil 1, Germany 7. Great! That’s exactly what happened in 2014 …

And the consequences of your proposals would be that Portugal would never again play against France, but against any French region. Why should they do this? – if they could (after 10 defeats in a row) beat France and could become European Champion!

     nfm 24 wrote:
    
Now we are just playing Salieri to your Mozart...

Topic here is ‘Historic Rankings’. Although we should make a difference between the ‘historic’ Salieri, who was very different to the ‘movie version’…: for the purpose of fun let’s occur for a moment Milos Forman’s evil Salieri:


He thrashes all who stands for Mozart. ‘Abram’, you are the first one …! smiley: roll

sarcasm and second language go terribly together. but if i am translating your france portugal argument properly, the answer is simple (which you practically answered yourself). portugal's 10 losses against france are not an appropriate result in regards to the ratio of performance and resources.

your brazil germany argument is also poor (again, if i am understanding you properly). cherry picking 1 example to attempt to prove a statistical analysis wrong is a rudimentary mathematical mistake. see the law of large numbers.

so i assume since you are so against my ideas that a united europe vs cape verde game in football would be an excellent match such as a match between croatia and serbia, and a basketball game featuring the united states vs united states virgin islands will certainly tell us a lot about who is better (this is sarcasm by the way).



Last Edited By: abramjones Apr 8 17 3:28 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Apr 8 17 3:29 PM

Luca wrote:
Regardless of what rankings say, I'd award the first place honoris causa to Uruguay: a country of 3,400,000 inhabitants that has been able to win 2 World Cups, 2 Olympic Games, 15 Copas América, and whose clubs have won 18 international competitions employing squads almost entirely composed by Uruguayan players. This proves that, in football, Uruguay is second to none.

Actually Uruguay's population at the time of their greatest exploits was about half of that. Though I don't know what effect the economic variables would have. At least comparing with Brazil (not so much with Argentina), Uruguay seems to have a historical advantage in that regard.

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Apr 8 17 3:44 PM

Kaizeler wrote:
Luca wrote:
Regardless of what rankings say, I'd award the first place honoris causa to Uruguay: a country of 3,400,000 inhabitants that has been able to win 2 World Cups, 2 Olympic Games, 15 Copas América, and whose clubs have won 18 international competitions employing squads almost entirely composed by Uruguayan players. This proves that, in football, Uruguay is second to none.

Actually Uruguay's population at the time of their greatest exploits was about half of that. Though I don't know what effect the economic variables would have. At least comparing with Brazil (not so much with Argentina), Uruguay seems to have a historical advantage in that regard.

yes, argentina and uruguay were much wealthier than brazil (per capita) and this certainly played a role in uruguay's potential. however, uruguay were still outperforming brazil at the time, even with these factors considered. another thing to consider back then is that there was not as much competition as there is now (less countries playing). so far my results have shown that uruguay's performance is almost on par with their performance in the old days, just dealing with a lot more competition. where as countries like austria and hungary have not managed the same consistency as uruguay. scotland still looks to be doing pretty good, but they may be overshadowed by more numerous countries in europe, in other words, if scotland was located in south america they would be appearing in more world cups.

Last Edited By: abramjones Apr 9 17 12:14 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Apr 10 17 9:28 PM

Authors who have examined the social history of football (or the football history of society) have often considered Uruguay's early strength to be due first to the heavy British presence in the River Plate which gave Uruguay a head-start relative to the rest of the continent (except metropolitan Argentina), and secondly the early introduction of a welfare state and "better" integration of ethnic minorities allowed the working class to become involved in top-level football as well as the establishment "elite" (who dominated the game in Argentina and Brazil initially).

Personally I haven't done the research to check the validity of this argument.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help