Debate - World footy rankings 2008 - other countries to consider

Welcome to World Footy News Sunday, June 01 2025 @ 10:48 am ACST

Debate - World footy rankings 2008 - other countries to consider | 22 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Comments are closed and no new posts are allowed.

Debate - World footy rankings 2008 - other countries to consider

Authored by: Cam Homes
on Tuesday, March 09 2010 @ 05:37 pm ACDT

Hi Guys Cam Again jeeesssss not again!!!
a couple more examples
IC08 Clasification rounds
USA 14.12(96) d Japan 2.4(16)
USA is 6th with 43.14 ranking points
Japan is 15th with 35.01 ranking points
No home Advantage so Rating Gap is
USA -7.33 and Japan is 7.33 maths for exchange points is
USA -7.33/10+1= 0.267x1.5(40plus bonus) =0.400 x 2(IC bonus) =0.800
Japan 7.33/10-1= - 0.267x1.5( " ") = - 0.400x 2 = -.800
so end of IC08
USA 42.34 + 0.80 = 53.14 ranking points and climbs to 5th place
Japan 35.01 - 0.80 = 34.21 and stays 15th.

Back in Oct 2001 the final of the Atlantic Alliance Cup was between Ireland 6.12(48) and Denmark 3-1(19)
Previous matches in this comp had Ireland 2nd with 44.34 ranking pts behind PNG with 45.51 pts and Denmark 4th with 41.56 pts behind USA with 41.69pts
No Home Advantage here so Rating Gap is -2.78 for Ireland and 2.78 for Denmark, the maths is
Ireland -2.78/10+1=0.722 exchange points
Denmark 2.77/10-1= - 0.722 exchange pts
Ireland 44.34 + 0.722 = 45.06 new ranking pts not enough to rise above PNG
Denmark 41.56 - 0.722 = 40.84 still enough to stay above Nauru on 39.90
Leaving top 5 as
1 PNG 45.51pts
2 Ireland 45.06
3 USA 41.69
4 Denmark 40.84
5 Nauru 39.90
The system allows us to have a Ranking with ranking points for each country at the end of every month since July 1994. Of course I again reiterate that I can't vouch for every match that I've used and I believe some rules would have to be stated eg. Matches before IC 02 at least 12-a-side and and more than 8 locals. Matches after IC 02 at least 14 or 16-a-side and more than 12 locals or something similar. IC 's as they are with stricter rules but the bonuses included in the scheme stamps the importance of the IC's.
Regards
Cam

Debate - World footy rankings 2008 - other countries to consider

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 01:20 pm ACDT

Just letting people know that we've been chatting to Cam offline over the last few days to explore using this system.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Debate - World footy rankings 2008 - other countries to consider

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 12:51 am ACDT

Hey Cam, as discussed by email, I've had a read of the IRB model and think I follow it okay and that has allayed some of my concerns. Of course the numbers have to be crunched correctly.

With your 2nd last example I think it was:

IC08 Clasification rounds USA 14.12(96) d Japan 2.4(16) USA is 6th with 43.14 ranking points Japan is 15th with 35.01 ranking points No home Advantage so Rating Gap is USA -7.33 and Japan is 7.33 maths for exchange points is USA -7.33/10+1= 0.267x1.5(40plus bonus) =0.400 x 2(IC bonus) =0.800 Japan 7.33/10-1= - 0.267x1.5( " ") = - 0.400x 2 = -.800 so end of IC08 USA 42.34 + 0.80 = 53.14 ranking points and climbs to 5th place Japan 35.01 - 0.80 = 34.21 and stays 15th.

I think that 2nd to last line should be:

USA 43.14 + 0.80 = 43.94 ranking points

So a small step up for the US, no surprise since they were already ranked ahead of Japan.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Debate - World footy rankings 2008 - other countries to consider

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 12:58 am ACDT

Some of my other concerns have also been allayed. Such as:

1. Including too much history - no, that is okay, as it sets the rankings but they then adjust as new data arrives, steadily washing out old results.

2. Points exchanged the same for a top team defeating a lower team as vice versa - no, a top team gains less points than the lower team would for a win. The top team on the other can lose whatever the lower team can gain.

3. Initial teams ranked too high - no, although they get 40 points, they are provisional only, used in the number crunching, but not displayed/ranked until a certain number of games to qualify.

4. Teams rewarded for playing often - no, they risk losing just as much as they can gain, unless they systematically keep playing lower sides over and over to very slowly increase their total.

So overall, looks like a pretty reasonable system. Let's keep discussing offline how we might test it and trial it.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

RSS news	RSS events
Twitter	Facebook

World Footy News

Search

Translate

User Functions

Events

Featured Sites

Older Stories

Friday 21-Mar

Thursday 06-Mar

Wednesday 05-Feb

Tuesday 04-Feb

Saturday 14-Dec

Friday 13-Dec

Socials

Who's Online

Random Image

What's New

Articles last 2 weeks

Comments last 2 weeks

Links last 2 weeks

Advertisements