Are the FIFA World Rankings any good?

[Revelian]

FIFA are a bunch of evil racists and it wouldn't surprise me if Sepp Blatter one day blew his lying, cheating brains out in front of the world's media through a sense of guilt from all the corruption he has taken part in over the years - WANKER!

Revelian

[worldsoccer-Jeff]

Originally posted by Revelian
FIFA are a bunch of evil racists and it wouldn't surprise me if Sepp Blatter one day blew his lying, cheating brains out in front of the world's media through a sense of guilt from all the corruption he has taken part in over the years - WANKER!

Revelian


From your lips to God's ears.

[RevdUp]

Originally posted by beineke
I'm not going to let you have that wise-ass last word, though. Your "hard facts" include a claim that Oceania matches were downweighted by a factor of 0.84. This appears to be nonsense.
No; I was actually referring to the current 0.93 factor. Inadvertently, I pasted the wrong regional weightings from another site displaying an older FIFA webpage; I had this site right next to the current FIFA webpage on my taskbar and in my haste did a copy/paste from the wrong one(both webpages were identical EXCEPT for the weightings list). The list that I DID post was for a previous year(I believe for 1999). If you check FIFA's ranking procedure, you'll see that these regional weightings change anually.


When I corrected you, you didn't back down. Instead, you ranted about how this contradicted my original claim. I wasn't aware you were trying to correct ME; I thought you posted those weightings because you finally realized there was, indeed, a regional weightings list involved(which contradicted your previous statement of, "worth essentially the same".
Apparently, it now seems that you didn't find the 7% difference significant enough. Whereas, I did.

But come on ... 93% is essentially no difference, especially when we're talking about competitions as disparate as the Oceania Nations Cup and the European Cup. Australia didn't make the effort to send any of its ~200 European-based players to the latest ONC. Then tell me; what do you think the "correct" weightings should be??
And more important, on what do you base your answer? Have you done any testing to support your answer. If not, then HOW DO YOU KNOW that FIFA's 93% factor for OFC is, as you have alleged, "a Huge problem"' ??



Go back and re-read our posts, and realize what started this discussion.
I have posted replied arguments to your alleged "Huge problems #1,2,3".

For "Huge problem #1", you were very wrong in understanding that part of FIFA's rule; and I corrected you.

For "Huge problem #2", see above.

For "Huge problem #3", again you misunderstood FIFA's rule. You said "failure to account for home field advantage". So I posted FIFA's rule concerning the awarding of three points to the home team. You then passed it off as "piddling, laughable". I then explained to you how the bonus really is not insignificant.
BTW, if you still have doubts about the significance of the three points, then consider this; home-field advantage is usually a factor when the two teams playing are of comparable strength. In other words, If Brasil(1) goes to... say, Mongolia(184), home-field advantage be damned, there's a 99% certainty Brazil will win with a good margin. So, home-field advantage is really irrelevant here.
BUT, it is very relevant when the two teams are of comparable strength. In which case, the result will be close(more likely than not), and not a blow-out.
Hence, with such close games, the points awarded to the team(s) will more likely be between zero and about 10.
So, compared to these points now awarded to the teams, you can see the significance of the 3-point home-field bonus( and again, later possibly doubled).

Bottom line is this: in order for someone to proclaim some parts of FIFA's methodology as faulty, or being a "Huge problem", then that someone must have an idea of what the "correct" criteria should be. Do you?
If you think that somehow the 0.93 regional factor for Oceania is not small enough, then what do YOU think the actual number should be?
If you proclaim the 3-point bonus for home advantage is "piddling", then this implies that you have a better understanding of what should constitute a more accurate bonus award. Do you?


To sum it up, I have no problem with anyone proclaiming "this is crap", "rubbish", "Huge problem" , etc...etc... , and not just for FIFA's ranking system, but for any other system, idea or concept that is being debated in these boards. (of course, one can argue that this is what's called an "opinion"). :)
BUT, it smacks straight of absurdity when someone makes such remarks WITHOUT an iota of proof or evidence or testing to back up his/her assertion!

THAT is what I mean by "baseless opinions".


All you people can characterize the FIFA top brass by any 4-letter word you want(and perhaps deservingly so, no doubt), but that should be no excuse for deriding FIFA's ranking system. (senseless isn't it; FIFA are a bunch of evil racists, wankers, etc...etc..., THEREFORE, their ranking system sucks!) ???


Look, for what it's worth, it seems that FIFA spent considerable time and resources to create a meaningful ranking system.
As stated at the bottom of their webpage, the system was developed by hired specialists, with years of expertise in their own fields, and in close co-operation with soccer experts.
They did a lot of testing, lots of trial & error, and compiled huge amounts of data to help them fine-tune their system.
THAT is what I mean by "hard facts".

So I find it laughable to think that some average Joe here in BS, without regards as to what transpired in developing FIFA's system, actually chalenges FIFA.
So if Joe wants to dispute FIFA's methodology, then he should take it up with them; otherwise, he is just blowing smoke out of his ass.


In one respect, however, I stand corrected. I once thought it was a plank up your ass; now, it appears to be your head.
:rolleyes: Touche... these types of insults are a dime a dozen here at BigSoccer. Not surprisingly, (and considering how you haven't commented about my replies to your exaggerated (and now debunked) "Huge problems #1 & #3), such insults usually take the place of the poster's inability to admit his erring ways.


Now, you did enough kneeling; why don't you try to stand up and let the horse back-up & pull out.




p.s. I'm done with this discussion.
I will allow you to have the last word, as somehow it seems to be important for your ego.

[beineke]

Originally posted by RevdUp

I will allow you to have the last word, as somehow it seems to be important for your ego.


To recap:
1. You complain about insults, and then you throw this out.

2. You complain about lack of facts, yet I'm the one who actually provided the facts. You also failed to respond to the extensive Kessler study that I linked, which is loaded with hard facts.

3. You claim that I misunderstood things, yet your arguments show that you haven't even bothered to understand what I said.

4. You claim I don't provide a solution, yet I have. FIFA sets its model parameters in an arbitrary (and obviously silly) way. What should change? One option is to set up a good method to learn these parameters from the data. Better yet, it should switch to a different (and dramatically superior) system, such as the ones implemented by Albyn Jones and Ron Kessler.

When FIFA's ratings disagree with Kessler's, Kessler's predictions win ~60% of the time. FIFA can't even compete with an amateur hobbyist. It's perfectly reasonable to call their ratings "crap."

[Guinho]

Hey, RevdUp, Beineke (and worldsoccer-jeff)!

I'm really sad to see you all at each other's throats because you folks are all pretty unusual in being literate on ratings and understanding them well enough to have a really informative discussion, which is, as well know, a real rarity and a gem in these parts.

Let me appeal for a little peace and we can get back to having an intelligent discussion (since I think you all raise good points).

So, everybody, after me:

"Kumbaya....."

;)

G.

[Revelian]

Originally posted by worldsoccer-Jeff
#1-The answer, play more games. How about this, just count the first seven games of the year, or maybe the last seven. How about a teams worst seven games, that seems fair.

Tell that to Marc Vivien Foe's family.

Revelian

[Ronaldinho11]

Fifa World Rankings any good?

Mexico in 4th place.....Nope they're not any good.

[jonasjones]

The rankings are craaaaap !!!! They are based on different things like prestige, wins-losses, etc. But the thing is, many countries have friendy games, different competitions and HARDLY EVER include ALL of the regulars in most of them, which means there is a bigger chance of, say, a dutch squad of first time cap'pers vs an experienced Jamaica, losing.....see the point. The rep' of a country doesn't win a game alone and those stupid FIFA rankings count everything & anything a country is involved in !!!!

[Eric B]

Originally posted by jonasjones
The rankings are craaaaap !!!! They are based on different things like prestige, wins-losses, etc. But the thing is, many countries have friendy games, different competitions and HARDLY EVER include ALL of the regulars in most of them, which means there is a bigger chance of, say, a dutch squad of first time cap'pers vs an experienced Jamaica, losing.....see the point. The rep' of a country doesn't win a game alone and those stupid FIFA rankings count everything & anything a country is involved in !!!!

Would you care to show us where in the FIFA rankings are its "prestige" factor?

[RevdUp]

Originally posted by jonasjones
The rankings are craaaaap !!!! They are based on different things like prestige, wins-losses, etc. Wins-losses? Wins-losses??
Yup... I see your point! I mean, who would be stupid enough to use wins-losses for computing the rankings. FIFA should be shot!!

Really, rankings should be based upon the number of dives taken, player's hairdo style, post-goal celebration style(extra points for originality), fouls commited, number of objects thrown onto the field, sound intensity generated by fans, etc... etc...

[bkn0528]

Originally posted by Revelian
Tell that to Marc Vivien Foe's family.

Revelian

no disrespect whatsoever to Marc Vivien Foe, but he died suddenly because of a congenital abnormality of his heart (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy) - this could have happened any time and is unrelated to the number of games he played.

[Revelian]

Nowadays with the number of games played by a team within a season, room for Internationals becomes less important in the eyes of managers, hence Paul Scholes' "crucial" hernia operation that means he'll miss the Turkey vs England game. Alex Ferguson just doesn't care. More games is not a solution, but rather another problem and ammunition for club managers to use.

Revelian