First method I used the avg. ELO of all opponents. Games which had no influence on advancement are excluded (e.g. BRA v. CRC 02, FRA vs DEN 98) Italy 82 1925 Argentina 78 1921 Brazil 70 1909 Brazil 62 1880 England 66 1880 Spain 10 1873 Italy 34 1871 Germany 74 1871 Brazil 58 1863 Germany 54 1843 Italy 06 1841 France 98 1837 Brazil 94 1829 Uruguay 50 1828 Brazil 02 1828 Germany 90 1821 Argentina 86 1801 Italy 38 1757 Uruguay 30 1700
The second list shows the avg. ELO of opponents when facing elimination. In group stage this means that a loss/draw in this game makes you rely for certain results in the other games to advance further. (e.g. if you draw this game you might win all other and still get eliminated) Argentina 78 1962 Germany 74 1960 Italy 82 1960 France 98 1940 Germany 90 1907 England 66 1906 Brazil 02 1898 Spain 10 1896 Italy 06 1894 Brazil 62 1890 Italy 34 1871 Brazil 94 1871 Brazil 70 1869 Argentina 86 1851 Brazil 58 1849 Germany 54 1843 Uruguay 50 1828 Italy 38 1757 Uruguay 30 1700
1) All KO stage game 2) Group stage game where a draw/lose might get you eliminated e.g All 2nd Round Group Stage games (74-82), Spain v Honduras '10, Brazil - Spain '62, Brazil - Soviet Union '58, Italy - Cameroon '82
thanks However I wonder if you accumulated points for team after each game, or simply use a fixed number of point ELO from beginning? In #1, you should add minimum points to the last unimportant game, no?
Funny how the two NTs on top are often seen as very imperfect winners. Perhaps it's the strenght of their opponents that make them look retrospectively as less than stellar.
Well especially Italy82 were struggling to find goals in their group stage (3 ties and 2 goals scored are the record for a WC winner: NOT ABLE to win a single game in group stage = and who were the opponents? Tough? Poland, Peru and Camroon ...