Page 13 of 16
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2002 11:01 pm
I still wait an explanation to mrDig's ranking.
So the world finalist had knocked out gianluca, nazim, but it was not enough to be close to this champions and a lot of players that was in dartford now have more points than the dutch champion.
I think we all agree that the KOA is split in 2 sides, the england, with a big amount of players and a lot of strong tournaments, and the rest of europe with some of the biggest players but few tournament with 5/6 players.
So, it's very difficult to make a fare sistem of ranking and this kind of ranking gives only a very big advatage to some player instead of others.
Players like alkis, MrDig, Gianluca can only make tournaments with multiplier 6/32 but english players will always have their points multiplied with 24/32, or at least 10/32.
Not too fair for a world ranking, am I wrong?
The continental champions will always lost positions after the world cups just because the national english tournament will gain more point than they will ever take in their national tournaments.
Still thinking it's hard to make a fair world ranking with this actual KOA members and with this rules. But we can easily make the national rankings, and there will be not too much problems.
Finally the FIFA gives more points to the world cup competitor....
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2002 11:23 pm
Same as before, Filippo. All players started equal. So he gets no extra points for beating Nazim, Gianluca or anyone. This is only a problem for the first tournament. It's going to be a problem whenever we start it unless we handicap/favour the initial rankings.
Some other points: Mark P hasn't played a tournament game since Dartford. Six other tournaments happened since. So there were changes. Other players gained points.
I have already discussed with Riemer that we organise a trip to Holland later this year. Mark P will get some games.
But I presume you think he should be #2?
Rikki is #2. He has just won three tournaments. How do we explain to him that Mark is #2?
The principle applies that like Boxing, if you win something, you can't just sit back on it. You have to maintain it. If Mark never plays again, his ranking will drift to average (1000). In 10 years time it will be 1000. Like he never played at all. Why is he not ranking number 2 now? Those other guys worked hard, beating high-ranked players to get up there. Meantime, Mark is out of practice. Who's to say he wouldn't lose to Rikki or Bill, who are on top form right now?
As for the issue of tourney size, I cannot solve this one if other people cannot organise big tournaments. Do you know that Norway has a 24 player tournament every year? Italy has a population 10x the size of Norway. In the UK, we just found 12 new players for Gloucester; now we are speaking to their friends, and friends of friends. I write to people in these forums and invite them to meetings. It is growing all the time. Other countries can try this approach too.
All the extra games produces is extra data. No points are created, just more 'evidence' that people are good or bad. There are more chances to win, but also more chances to lose points. With risk there is return.
The ranking really cannot solve the problem of people not prepared to organise or play in tournaments. To attempt to design it around compensating for inactivity, is not a great idea (in my opinion).
However, I look forward to your specific proposal on a fair way to balance out this inequality.
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 12:54 am
aargh robert don't put me words that I never said.
I don't want to put Mark n.2 but almost I want to see him close to the ranking of nazim/gianluca and alkis.
And if you talk about a future with more tournaments around europe this only means that the actual situation is not as good...
Anyway, NOW the players don't travel so often to partecipate to the national tournaments, they travel only with a world cup gathering, and it's true that the ranking sistem now is only an average ranking of the english tournaments plus some secondary gatherings and is not a ranking of "world value".
Then NOW it's like the FIFA ranking, nobody cares about that and the most important thing is to win the world cup.
This is not you fault because the statistics work is very accurate and i appreciate a lot.
Then NOW I can call the 1st ranked only the best average champion not the best in the world just because the top 2 players will only play tournaments in england and maybe will make only 1 international tournament (athens). In athens they'll even don't win but continue to stay n.1 with no problems.
Remember, a victory in a england championship now worth 24/32 about the same as a world cup, and a national tournament in italy or greece worth 6/24 I can't realize how alkis/gianluca/mark will gain point like the top english players.
This is why it's difficult to make a fair world ranking NOW, maybe in the future we'll have more tournament in italy/holland/greece with a lot of more players but maybe england will have also a lot of more tournament/players...
I still consider that the world cup worth much better than a simple tournament (Like FIFA rules!!) and the multiplier of all the tournament have to be rivisited.
maybe if the world cup worth 2,
the championship with more of 20 players worth 1.5
from 10 to 20 players 1.3
from 5-10 1.1
from 2-5 1.0
this is more fair and it's just like fifa made with the multiplier of europe/south america/africa championships.
NOW a english player take 4 (FOUR!) times the points of an greece/italian player, and it's too much! Results of ranking will be ridicule in november with almost all the continental players at the bottom of the ranking!
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 12:58 am
Filippo stay online.
I have just done a major reworking to address two problems:
1) Starting rankings before Dartford
2) Some players played more games than others
I KNOW these are the two problems. I am trying to solve them. I am about to make another post.
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:53 am
As far as I can see, Robert has already changed the ranking system and I'm sure he'll change it again and again until both ends meet.
Don't give him flank. He's willing to discuss any idea. Actually we need to do so; a ranking system indicates how official our effort is so it is needed somehow. We're official and you better get used to it!
Alkis mentioned that FIFA had a ton of games to build a ranking system on. So do we I say. Here's an idea: We can make 4 groups from strong to weak ranking based on the Dartford and Glou results solely. This will divide the players to 4 groups and each group should be awarded with points; 1st group(A) gets 2000p. 2nd(B) group gets 1600p. 3rd(C) group gets 1300p. and 4th group(D) gets 1000p. Then we proceed with the score evaluation, bearing in mind the groups. e.g.
The following table shows the points allocations based on three possible outcomes of the match between the strongest team A, and the somewhat weaker team B:
Team A Team B Team A Team B Team A Team B
3 : 1 1 : 3 2 : 2
Win/defeat +17.4 +2.6 -2.6 +22.6 +7.4 +12.6
Goals for Team A +5.4 -3.6 +2.3 -1.6 +4.1 -2.7
Goals for Team B -1.8 +2.7 -4.1 +6.2 -3.1 +4.7
Total +21.0 +1.7 (0.00) +27.2 +8.4 +14.6
From the table it can be seen that in the case of a 3:1 win, team A is allocated a total of 21.0 points. But as the more highly ranked team, the win itself only earns 17.4 of these. The lower-rated team B still earns 1.7 points. Had the "weaker" team B won the match 3:1, they would have received 27.4 points, while the then negative total for team A would have been rounded up to 0.00. For a 2:2 draw, team B would have earned a few points more than A, for being the lower-rated team.
When the difference in strength between the two teams is less, so also will be the difference in points allocation. The following table illustrates how the points would be divided following the same results as above, but with two roughly equally ranked teams, B and C, being involved:
Team B Team C Team B Team C Team B Team C
3 : 1 1 : 3 2 : 2
Win/defeat +19.6 +0.4 -0.4 +20.4 +9.6 +10.4
Goals for Team B +5.7 -3.8 +2.5 -1.7 +4.3 -2.9
Goals for Team C -1.7 +2.5 -3.9 +5.8 -3.0 +4.4
Total +23.6 (0.00) (0.00) +24.5 +10.9 +11.9
In this case, it can be seen that for either team, approximately the same number of points would be awarded for a win or a draw, with team C getting slightly more since they are ranked a little lower.
There would normally be a bonus for the away team, which would be added to the above. Then the total would be multiplied by weighting factors that take into account the importance of the match and the regional strengths. Thus, for example, if the games above had been played during a World Cup final round, then the points total would first be doubled, and then multiplied by the continental weighting factor for the two teams involved.
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 7:34 am
Rovert, I don't really give a sh*t about who's ranked highest in Kick Off 2 since I don't play it anymore, but I really do believe in your system. It's EASY to understand and I believe this system is very very good. However, you need to take a look at the two problems you've listed above.
You're doing great Robert!
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 7:56 am
Another interesting fact - when France won the World Cup, they still ranked second to Brazil. It wasn't until they won the European Championships that they became ranked first.
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 7:58 am
Wow, I go away for a long weekend and all hell turns loose.
Anyway, I got a _very important_ thing to say about this topic...
...I vote for Kylie Minogue <IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif">
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 8:14 am
Nah... she's too short and too Australian...
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 8:47 am
Too short? No way - she is definetly about the right height for me! <IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">
Have you guys ever thought of applying for jobs at FIFA to work in the ranking department? All the valuable insight here would surely be valued by them. Or what about a job at a bookies somewhere? I want to know the chance of Dog A beating Dog C, where Dog A is currently the no.1 ranked dog in the world unbeaten in 12 races who has been in the scene (in the UK) for 3 years - opposed to Dog C who is ranked 123rd in the World, lives in Iceland, smokes pipes, steals his owner's slippers that are red and cost $4.95 from Houston, Texas. He has only entered 1 tournament this year who's highest ranked dog participating was No.3 in the World. He won the tournament by 10 points........
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 8:51 am
...when Dog A steals the slippers, does it chew them or just hide them away?
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 9:48 am
He hides them real carefully knowing full well that his opponent cares for them as much as he - and they are the only slippers that mean anything in the whole wide world.
Vasilis would you like me to send you the web address where you could purchase some of the slippers from?
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 9:56 am
Sure! <IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">