Oh one more typo I spotted in the AC Milan 89-90 write-up too - Savicevic is listed there while obviously it should be Van Basten as you know (just a mix up with 93/94 I'm sure - maybe the 'ultra defensive' thing is too in that case if you just slightly mixed up the posts for those Sacchi and Capello teams). Like I said though, great work and always interesting to see your analysis and calculations. EDIT - Yes, the whole line-up for 89-90 is actually the 93-94 line-up too I notice now.
Oh, That is OK, that was my copying from previous profile and forget to revise. Thanks for notification, mate.
I think the 89 - 90 line-up is not 93-94 lone-up since Van Basten did not play any game at that season (as he is appeared in the photo), is seemongly the 1992 -1993 season anyway.
No problem. I guess 4-2-3-1 is better for 12-13 Bayern actually? Possibly 3-4-3 for Ajax 94/95 incorporating Rijkaard (that's what we went with on our Fantasy Club World Cup threads anyway - I don't properly recall how often that season they played a genuine back 4 and of course I wouldn't have been watching Dutch league games either).
I agree 4-2-3-1 is better in representing the 2013 Bayern's actual formation when Thomas Muller was a trequartista. Ajax 94/95 performed with 3-4-3 in the UCL and switched to 4-3-3 in intercontinental cup. Not sure about the formation in league but as long as Bogarde's appearances is only 13 games, it should be implied that most of games were competed by 3-4-3 formation.
I cannot agree with the hypothesis that the EC/UCL and Copa Libertadores are a stage to the Intercontinental/World Club competition. The continental tournaments are both more prestigious, although the IC was a great way to measure the respective quality of the best European and South American clubs for a given year. By the way, Boca Juniors has a higher score than Arsenal and should be ranked a spot higher.
The continental cup (UCL/Libertadores) is not included to eliminate advantage for lower standard of competitions. Copa Libertadores Cup winners in the modern era is much more inferior to UCL runner-Up. To add the bonus for them but not for UCL runner-up, that likes those Copa Libertadores teams is very lucky because they just not have an opportunity to play in higher competitive standard. So, the bonus trophy is always given for only the best in any area. Boca beat Arsenal just 0.1 point or 0.016 % of difference is insignificant. The significant value is stipulated at 0.2 % and when it is equal, the peak season rating is a decisive factor. Arsenal won by this criteria.
I just don't think that the IC or Club WC is of any higher standard than either continental competition to weigh much, in fact I am certain it is viewed culturally as a lesser trophy. Even now after the Bosman I would rate the Copa Libertadores as more significant to the Club WC by a healthy margin.
IC/WC played just a few matches and the competition is not always higher standard than UCL or Copa Libertadores Cup final since the state of performance could be fluctuated from time to time but this point is not related to the issue that how World trophy bonus would be applied to the system since the issue as the bonus is the status of the best with official trophy.
My previous post was done with the limitation of time so I would explain more. Actually European Cup/Copa Libertadores Cup performance is existed in seasonal rating while Intercontinental Cup/World Club cup is not rated in seasonal rating since the participation members are only one representative from each continent. In contrary, only Trophy in the World stage is applied with a lower designated points in comparison to international club seasonal rating. This can ensure the intercontinental cup/World stage bonus is not overrated.
The International Country Ranking has been completely improved and report as a research paper and now it is ended of performance evaluation project that spent 18 months totally. Previously, the direct performance is roughly set in a range of scale (5, 4.5, 4,..). The updated work has been implemented in the similar procedure to club evaluation that count every marginal result, standardizing the opportune factor and applied the significant weight from peak descended to lower performance to each performance set. Alll-Time Countries Ranking http://xtrahistory.blogspot.com/2013/01/Football-Nation.html Countries Evauation by Continent http://xtravictory.blogspot.com/2015/10/nt-evaluation-result.html The results saw many changes in ranking from the top middle-zone to bottom zone. The details have been written in discussion part of these papers.
What is the criteria for the ratings? I find it very difficult to rank Czechoslovakia ahead of either Uruguay or the Netherlands. This is not an accurate statement: Germany is the only nation in history to win the World Cup trophy outside its continent between Europe-South Americas, achieved in 2014. Brazil accomplished this in WC58 and WC02, Spain in WC10. Also, Carlos Bilardo is not widely considered the greatest manager for Argentina, either Guillermo Stabile or Cesar Menotti have that recognition. I have a few questions on the implementation for Germany and Brazil, based on your response on the blog. Why is Germany given a value of "112.5" for WC90 while Brazil only gets "50" for WC02? It is true that Brazil's path was easier but they accounted for it with easy wins, only Turkey proved difficult for them. Germany had it tougher but they also could not beat Colombia nor England. Conversely, the Germany 02 team was just as bad as Brazil 90, but Brazil was unlucky to face a team of pedigree in Argentina whereas Germany played Paraguay, USA and South Korea before the final. The standard of competition metric must better account for lucky draws.
"Germany is the only nation in history to win the World Cup trophy outside its continent between Europe-South Americas, achieved in 2014" So this is not an inaccurate sentence. Those ratings (Germany 112.5 and Brazil 50) has been obsoleted as I already mentioned this work has been improved based on new procedures. I'll show the updated tomorrow.
Ahh, Sorry for my erroneous sentence, let revise. The old version is implemented by SPR Formula (Standard x Performance x Finished Round) but the performance is counted in high scale it found that the double multiplication makes the very high scale of gap difference between performers. The new version used formula SQRT (Performance x SQRT(Finished Round x Standard) ) that is more balanced between factors and performance is counted by all marginal victory. Here is a world cup performance table between Brazil and Germany. The 1990 Germany obtained 9.54 while the 2002 Brazil obtained 8.76. Then, matching each total performance to multiply with applied weight in below table; AW = Applied Weight, PP = Performance Partition (equal to total in upper table) OB = Obtained Value. The result shows Brazil has a higher score in World Cup but Germany made the first place in all-time ranking since they're much superior in continental competition.
This new model gives accurate values. In regards to the continental competitions which gives Germany the edge, a big part is they are lucky the competition started when they had become powerful. Had the Euros began in the 1910s like the Copa America, or even in the 1930s, Germany would not show the same level of continental dominance. Their overall record would be more similar to Brazil's at the Copa America, with England, Italy, Hungary and Czechoslovakia winning most of those early European tournaments. Since the model is for all history, it must account for a German NT standing prior to the 1950s.
Well, the most south american championships in early eras were participated by a few number of teams and Brazil also made some absences, its standard is similar to regional competition such as British Home Championship. Actually the regional performance in the pre-continental cup has been included in the rating in the case that the tournaments were held in the related years of world cup qualification. In case they performed better in regional competition, the proportional criteria share 50-50 between them. However, now I still not include performance of the 1910s and 1920s Copa America and British Home Championship in final calculation (but included the 1920s Olympic Games). Let me explain Brazil's copa america performance is reversed to the 1946 tournament to compensate the long interval of competition between 1968 - 1974 and also Brazil's absence to participate in 1955 and 1967 tournaments. Moreover, Copa America has no qualifying round and automatically qualified. Although I have standardized to exclude the performance below standard point, this advantage is still not eliminated 100 %. So it is unclear that Germany has an advantage in the current status of work.
Here is something I do not understand, because Messi has 3.5 score in "Supreme World-Class"? He adds 4.5 points. (09H, 10, 11, 13H, 15H, 16H, 17H) Although I understand that 1 season is not synonymous with 1 point or half season is not synonymous with 0.5 points I do not know because there is so much difference
This is a joke. Beckenbauer gets points for his time in the NASL (1977 & 1978) and his contemporary Cruijff gets nothing. Even the most superficial research would reveal that this is an 100% untrue reflection. Cristiano Ronaldo is only for half a year 'phenomenal' and not his 2008 year. I wouldn't call it a 'joke' this time around but it is strange. Like I said: a double handicap is at work. The whole Dearman list (plus his 'ear whisperers') is to me quite results-orientated. From the get-go it is decided that Pelé and Maradona should be #1 and #2, and then the points are distributed accordingly that the idea matches.
You are correct, it should add one more point to Messi's total score and he would be ranked at #4 all time for league play. @Dearman
Because your ill pessimistic attitude on Germany against Netherlands always let you painful and weak. I'm sympathy on you to always live in dark zone you have created but the past is the past. You are just always good at refer to what newspaper or rating in other sources (it is useful for me anyway) and analyzed it in specific time only and I'm sure you're not in position to criticize my work reliably since you have let me known several times that you're lack of ability to understand mathematics. I suggest if you not like it, just ignore would be better. Psychologically you've adopt yourself to influence on my work but I afraid that it is worthless as your criticism has bee proven as a personal conjecture. In 2008, I saw C.Ronaldo was superb in physical approach to score a ton of goals but his creative contribution to his team is too limited. Absolutely not for the foreseen results since most rankings have been changed between before and after research.
http://xtrahistory.blogspot.com/2013/01/Annual-Best-Player.html Now the world annual best player has been reformed in quantitative analysis . The previous one determined the ranking by approximated comparison of performance class. The new updated one is applied the quantitative calculation method to finalize performance score and conclude in a research paper format. As a result of this improvement, the European and Americas is subsequently updated. http://xtrahistory.blogspot.com/2014/01/Europe.html http://xtrahistory.blogspot.com/2014/01/Americas.html
It is noteworthy that you consider Lionel Messi the eighth largest player of all time at country level In addition according to you the Argentine was 6 times the most important player of the season, which is a record