[photar74]

Everyone posts about it, everyone writes about it. In fact, the notion that confederation X has “earned” Y number of allocations through play on the field is one of the bigger clichés of this entire board. However, usually whenever someone makes a claim about “deserved” or “earned” allocations, they do one of three things: fail to produce their rationale; fail to follow their rationale all the way through; fail to offer a convincing rationale.

What I hope can happen with this thread is that we can collectively develop a statistical system that would at least come close to determining how many allocations each confederation actually does “deserve.” It is my hope that this system would be transparent to the casual observer, that it would be thorough, and that in so doing it would still contain a minimum number of assumptions.

In order to develop such a system, we would need to answer the following preliminary questions:

1. What data should be included, in terms of time span?
2. What data should be included, in terms of competition?
3. How much, if any, should various portions of the data be weighted?

Since this system seeks only to determine how many spaces each confederation has come to “deserve” strictly through play upon the field, considerations such as population, money, and FIFA politics will not be taken into account.

[photar74]

My preliminary answers to the three starter questions:

The only competitions that should be included in the data are the qualifying and group stages for the ’98 and ’02 WCs. There should be no weighting to the data whatsoever. My rationale is as follows:

-Only WC matches should be included, since the WC is the only competition where every nation in FIFA brings its best team and gives its best effort.
-The qualifying stages of the WC should be used in order to determine confederation depth.
-The WC Finals group stage should be included in measure the relative strength of the confederations when in competition with each other. However, only inter-confederation results from the group stage should be considered (i.e., England vs. Sweden doesn’t factor in).
-Results from only the past two WCs should be used, since they were the only WCs with 32 teams and the same system all around (they were even the same number of teams from every confederation both times). In the future, only results from the previous two WCs should be used so as not to value the results from one WC more than another.

[photar74]

Since it is inevitably brought up by various camps (its AFC’s entire “rationale” in their campaign for 5.0), I wish to make the case for why the knockout stages of the WC should not be included in the data for measuring confederations:

-The WC finals knockout stages should not be used since there is no possibility for a draw, and therefore is a statistically incompatible with other results.
-Results from the WC finals knockout stage should also not be used because, if results are measured based upon the result after regulation thereby allowing for draws, advancement can actually reduce a team’s relative value to its confederation. For example, in ’02 South Korea reached the semifinals, though went into extra time in both the round of sixteen and the quarterfinals before losing to Germany in regulation. Thus, South Korea managed 0.67 points per match in the knockout stages if results are measured after regulation. Both England and the USA, however, won their round of sixteen matches in regulation and lost their quarterfinal matches in regulation, for an average of 1.50 points per match, despite not advancing as far in the competition as South Korea.
-Results from the WC finals knockout stage should further not be used because of the preponderance of intra-confederation matches in the round of 16. What this means is, for example, that for Spain, England, and the USA their quarterfinal match was the first match that counted for their confederation. This is obviously unfair for the confederations involved, as it actually punishes a confederation for having two of its teams play each other in the knockout stages.
-Yet still further, the clear advantage that host nations have always drawn in the WC inevitably skews results from the knockout stage in favor of the hosting confederation.
-Lastly, results from the knockout stages should not be used because of the “Brazil factor.” Just because Brazil runs, or nearly runs the table in the WC does not make Bolivia any better of a team. The confederation with the champion will inevitably have results wildly skewed in its favor, especially if that confederation is small like CONMEBOL (10 teams).

Otherwise, at this point, I’ll wait for other responses.

[Sachin]

Actually, if a match goes to a penalty kick shootout to determine a winner, it is recorded as a draw. For example, Brasil and Italy drew in the 1994 World Cup final. Brasil won the Cup on the basis of the PK shootout.

Intra-confederational friendlies do have a place in this ranking system. Granted not every country brings their A side to every match, but over time it evens out so the average is maybe a B or B+ side.

But any statisical system fails to take into account the political horse-trading that goes on within FIFA. And if you think that any system will get rid of that, then you are being naive.

Sachin

[photar74]

I don't in any way think that there would be a system to somehow supplant or circumvent FIFA politcs. On the CONCACAF board and elsewhere, I have repeatedly urged people to stop discussing performance on the field as reasons why one confederation or another will recieve more or less allocations for '06. I am perfectly aware that politics and money has almost everything to with it, and that on the field performance has relatively little.

This thread is meant to develop a hypothetical system that would allow us to discuss what confederations do actually "deserve" what. There is nothing naive about my position on allocations. The thread is meant to be hypothetical (and wishful), nothing more.

[RichardL]

The big problem is that meetings between different confederations happen so rarely (i.e. every 4 years) that any statistic can get skewed by just one or two odd results. Would it be right to increase the South American allocation just because there was a Brazil v Argentina final, even if the other South American teams were mediocre? What if Australia came in and did well. The stats could show that Oceania, based on some statistical weighting, now deserve three spots.

It'll never happen, but the only fair way is to have a global qualification tournament, perhaps 16 groups of 6 or something like that. Of course you'd then have to argue how many from each confederation get to be among these 96 teams in the final qualifying phase..........

[Fender playa]

Originally posted by RichardL
The big problem is that meetings between different confederations happen so rarely (i.e. every 4 years) that any statistic can get skewed by just one or two odd results. Would it be right to increase the South American allocation just because there was a Brazil v Argentina final, even if the other South American teams were mediocre? What if Australia came in and did well. The stats could show that Oceania, based on some statistical weighting, now deserve three spots.

It'll never happen, but the only fair way is to have a global qualification tournament, perhaps 16 groups of 6 or something like that. Of course you'd then have to argue how many from each confederation get to be among these 96 teams in the final qualifying phase..........

Thats easy..........pick the best 96 teams in the world..........

Yah........yah..........i know its not that easy

[photar74]

Originally posted by RichardL
The big problem is that meetings between different confederations happen so rarely (i.e. every 4 years) that any statistic can get skewed by just one or two odd results. Would it be right to increase the South American allocation just because there was a Brazil v Argentina final, even if the other South American teams were mediocre? What if Australia came in and did well. The stats could show that Oceania, based on some statistical weighting, now deserve three spots.

It'll never happen, but the only fair way is to have a global qualification tournament, perhaps 16 groups of 6 or something like that. Of course you'd then have to argue how many from each confederation get to be among these 96 teams in the final qualifying phase..........

Yeah--but can't we TRY to develop a statistical system, at least for our own use?

Anyone? Anyone?

[Nobby]

photar74 for FIFA president!

How does this sound? I've seen versions of this system posted from time to time here at BigSoccer.

After each WC: find the six lowest six ranked teams. Count the numbers from each confederation. For each number subtract one. Subtract result from current allotment to get the new allotment.

Here are two examples using five instead of six since an OFC team didn't reach the finals.

Lowest five in FRANCE 1998 were:

Saudi Arabia
Bulgaria
South Korea
Japan
USA

by confederation that's:
afc 3
uefa 1
concacaf 1
conmebol 0
caf 0

which means:
AFC loses two. 4 - 2 = 2 next time.
UEFA, stays the same. 14 - 0 = 14.
CONCACAF, stays the same. 3 - 0 = 3.
CONMEBOL, 5 + 1 = 6.
CAF 5 + 1 = 6.

These numbers mean we would've seen Columbia and another African team like Liberia or Morocco instead of say, China and Slovenia at the 2002 world cup. This assumes Europe surrenders one to Asia so it can have a qualifying round.

Lowest five in KOREA/JAPAN 2002 were:

France
Tunisia
Slovenia
China
Saudi Arabia

UEFA 14 - 1 = 13 in 2006.
CAF 5 - 0 = 5
CONMEBOL 5 + 1 = 6
CONCACAF 3 + 1 = 4
AFC 4 - 1 = 3

With this system its feasible that if Australia avoids finishing in the lowest six then two Oceania teams will reach the finals next time. Go Fiji! It also seems like it could erode Europe's large number. It will also be harsh on Asia which has a history of sending poor teams to the World Cup. Theoretically, all ten South American teams could make the finals!

I like this system because its simple, self-correcting and severe. It only uses whole numbers. It is promotion and relegation and it'll make some of those late group games more meaningful and fun to watch. Teams eliminated after two games will have something to play for.

[photar74]

Originally posted by Nobby
photar74 for FIFA president!

How does this sound? I've seen versions of this system posted from time to time here at BigSoccer.

After each WC: find the six lowest six ranked teams. Count the numbers from each confederation. For each number subtract one. Subtract result from current allotment to get the new allotment.

Here are two examples using five instead of six since an OFC team didn't reach the finals.

Lowest five in FRANCE 1998 were:

Saudi Arabia
Bulgaria
South Korea
Japan
USA

by confederation that's:
afc 3
uefa 1
concacaf 1
conmebol 0
caf 0

which means:
AFC loses two. 4 - 2 = 2 next time.
UEFA, stays the same. 14 - 0 = 14.
CONCACAF, stays the same. 3 - 0 = 3.
CONMEBOL, 5 + 1 = 6.
CAF 5 + 1 = 6.

These numbers mean we would've seen Columbia and another African team like Liberia or Morocco instead of say, China and Slovenia at the 2002 world cup. This assumes Europe surrenders one to Asia so it can have a qualifying round.

Lowest five in KOREA/JAPAN 2002 were:

France
Tunisia
Slovenia
China
Saudi Arabia

UEFA 14 - 1 = 13 in 2006.
CAF 5 - 0 = 5
CONMEBOL 5 + 1 = 6
CONCACAF 3 + 1 = 4
AFC 4 - 1 = 3

With this system its feasible that if Australia avoids finishing in the lowest six then two Oceania teams will reach the finals next time. Go Fiji! It also seems like it could erode Europe's large number. It will also be harsh on Asia which has a history of sending poor teams to the World Cup. Theoretically, all ten South American teams could make the finals!

I like this system because its simple, self-correcting and severe. It only uses whole numbers. It is promotion and relegation and it'll make some of those late group games more meaningful and fun to watch. Teams eliminated after two games will have something to play for.

Thank you for the wonderful comments nobby!

I enjoyed your system, although I feel that measuring confederation strength only by its weaker teams in WC group play focuses too much on one aspect of a confederation. As perhaps the most glaring example, why should UEFA lose a spot for France finishing 28th, and not gain any when they won the title?

Sachin, I'm not sure if you are still reading this thread, but I do not feel that you need to include inter-confederation (intra would mean two teams from the same confederation). There is still a reasonable amount of data, even if you only use group stages from the previous two WCs:

-CONCACAF would have 18 matches to determine its strength
-AFC would have 24 matches to determine its strength
-CAF and CONMEBOL each would have 30 matches to measure their strength
-UEFA would have 62 matches to measure its strength

If you were using any of these totals to measure the strength of one team, certainly it would be enough.

Perhaps, however, if there was a generally agreed upon need to include more data, only certain friendlies could be considered. For example:

--WC warmups, where both teams have qualified. These would be acceptable, since players would be performing at their highest level, and otherwise competing for starting time.
--The Confed Cup. Hey, at least the teams are competing for something.
-Round robin friendly tournaments, such as the US Cup. Again, at least they are competing for something.

I'd like to hear other thoughts on whether more data than just WC finals and qualifying should be considered (oh yeah--inter-confederation playoffs should definately be included, I think). For me, however, friendlies just don't seem right. Its too random.