Off the top of my head, Austria (rating 1790?) would've been favored at home (barely) over Italy (rating 1874?) thanks to the homefield advantage. The difference is only about 15 or 16 rating points, a virtual tossup. So the expected tabulation result, let's say, was (.5) for each team, a tie. A 3-2 game result translates to a (.83) tabulation result so Italy's tabulated result is roughly (.33) higher than expected. The multiplier in a friendly is 15 so 15 x (.33) = roughly a 5 point gain in the ratings for Italy and a 5 point loss for Austria
Hmm I highly question the fact that Brazil's 1971 is completely unchanged... Of the five place swaps I mentioned a few posts ago, that's the only one not realized here.
Very strange indeed. Matches were played on neutral ground but 3-0 vs. Russia and 0-0 with Canada is surely worth some points...
Well, the win for sure... But now that I think about it, a 0-0 draw against a lower-rated team can certainly drop points. I'm just not sure if it'd be enough to negate the points from the win... Alright, going to do simplified calcs below:
BRA 3-0 RUS (neutral) 267pt difference -> slightly less than 300pt -> expected result maybe .84/.16 actual result .96/.04 k=15 pts change +2pts/-2pts [[BRA now 1973]] CAN 0-0 CZE (neutral) 273pt difference -> slightly less than 300pt -> expected result maybe .84/.16 actual result .47/.47 k=15 pts change -6pts/+5pts [[CAN now 1962]] BRA 0-0 CAN (neutral) 11pt difference -> expected result maybe .52/.48 actual result .47/.47 k=30 pts change -1pt/-0pts [[BRA now 1972, CAN = 1962]] Okay, so maybe within rounding or being more accurate with expected results, BRA's results really do just cancel out. Damn.
That's not a change that happened this ranking. DPK was 10th and Spain was 13th last time around. DPK hasn't even changed its rating this time, it's just that the teams near them (i.e Japan and Spain) improved their ratings.
I guess @Klingo3034 was probably pondering about the fact that Spain sits behind a team that didn't play a single match by more than 2 years. I know that we already discussed that, but it anyway keeps looking odd that North Korea is currently considered team #11 in the world.
And because it is points based it means that it is historical. At the moment, I would suspect that Spain is not the #12 team in the world. At least, that is also my interpretation of the comment.
Maybe, but the point still stands that the comparison existed in a more extreme state last time around. Commenting on it now, and stating it as if DPK just passed Spain, is weird. There's always some inertia in the ranking system, but it's been said of Spain that they're top-ten level for many years now, (Algarve win, Cyrpus win, SBC runner-up,) suggesting that they've had plenty of time to overcome that inertia and actually crack into the top 10. The fact that they haven't yet suggest, to me, that they aren't quite there yet in the consistency department, so somewhere in the 11-13 range feels more appropriate.
Spain should be thought of as a Top-10 team in quality. The difference in ratings between Spain (1936 off the top of my head) and, say, #9 Australia (1952?) is negligible; a 16 point rating difference amounts to a projected win percentage of merely 52% for the higher-rated team. By the way, does anyone know how the ratings will be affected by Great Britain's matches in the Olympics? Will they simply not count in the ratings?
I think the likely answer is they simply will not count. The likely simple reason is that the computer has no team named Great Britain in its team name list, so if Great Britain is entered as one of the teams in a game the computer simply will not recognize it. (Alternatively, it might treat it as the closest match, which might be Greece.)
This would mean that if a team would, let's say, beat Great Britain in the final match of the Olympics, they would get no point for that?
It's why, if I recall, chessplayers dislike playing players with provisional ratings, "newbies" without an official rating. All that work and nothing for it!
All true, and I don't disagree that Spain are a good team - I still maintain that the USA-ESP match at the last WC was the toughest match that the USA had all tournament. Still, talking about general quality is not quite the same as actually being in the Top Ten. There are (relatively) massive ratings gaps between 5th/6th (37pts) and 13th/14th (45pts), while 6th to 13th spans only 43 points. By that argument, there are 13 top-ten-quality teams, but you can't have 13 teams in the top ten itself. Spain, despite either 12th or 13th ever since 2017, haven't been able to find the (admittedly minuscule) difference needed to actually crack the top ten itself, despite the rough equivalence of many teams in that bunch. I mean, their consistency over four years between just two ranking spots is honestly pretty impressive. I read as meaning that Spain is top-ten quality except when compared directly to its peers in the 6th-to-13th group, since on average they're just a goal or two short each year of actually passing anyone, i.e. there's some odd glass ceiling that Spain hasn't found a way to break yet. And this is, of course, not to say that Spain aren't going to find that final gear soon. I don't expect UEFA WCQ would change things much because none of 7th-to-11th are in UEFA, but it would surprise no one, I think, if Spain were to tear through the EURO next year and climb a few spots to finally prove they are, in fact, a top ten team. (Having a significant number of Spain's players finally reach the pinnacle of the club game with Barca may give the NT the knockout experience it needs to finally crack that glass ceiling, for example.)
Just by the by, after Sweden's stunning 3-0 triumph over the US, my back-of-the-envelope estimates show that the US lost about 42 points in that game with Sweden gaining about 42. That would bring the US rating down to about 2155 (from 2197) and make Sweden the #3 in the world with about 2053, lifting them just ahead of France (2039 off the top of my head) and Netherlands (2035)
From the Olympics, I'm entering figures from the FIFA table I've never entered before!!! 10-3 (converts to .975) 8-2 (.98) 4-4 (.525) All thanks to Group F
Fair question! The last column of the table is goal differential of 6 (or more). Then the tabulated result is determined by # of goals scored by the losing team. The more goals scored by the losing team, the more tabulated points they get and the winning team gets fewer. So once you get to a GD of 6, it doesn't matter if it's 6, 7, 8 or more; the next determining factor is the number of goals scored by the losing team Someone put it on a Wikipedia page, which is easier to navigate than the FIFA page
Sweden has three more wins in a row now, all by multiple goals and two against teams near them in the ratings. I have to think their rating after the QFs has them in second rank above Germany now, which they can probably keep so long as they win at least one of their remaining two games.
Going into the QFs, my back of the envelope had Sweden up to 2074 and Japan down to 1909 (but we have to add 100 for the homefield). So a 65 point rating edge for Sweden corresponds to an expected result of (.592) against a tabulated game result of (.911) for a 3-1 victory. So Sweden roughly outperforms the expected result by (.32). Multiply by 60 for an Olympic game = +19 So. yes the back-of-the-envelope says Sweden is now #2 with a rating of about 2093