2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil Thread

[Loppan Torkel]

For shipping nine goals in two matches? You should actually lose points.

That's only 4,5 goals/game against Germany

 

[Takhisis]

So???

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Ok, Argentina, Brazil.. easy mistake. Still, I have to enjoy whatever I can since we missed the tournament. 2 entertaining games against what came to be the champions.

 

[Takhisis]

Ok, Argentina, Brazil.. easy mistake.

It's a good thing for you that luiz has stopped following this thread.

Still, I have to enjoy whatever I can since we missed the tournament. 2 entertaining games against what came to be the champions.

Portugal had an entertaining game against them as well.

 

[Mise]

EDIT: You know what, the more I think about this, the more I think that something is wrong. I'll just leave it here anyway, but I'm not sure how much of this is actually right...


Ok let's put this to bed. As I said earlier, the Elo ranking is basically an exponentially weighted moving average. Here's the wiki article on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average#Exponential_moving_average

The formula is as follows:


You can rearrange this formula into one that is directly comparable to Elo rankings:
St - St-1 = a (Yt - St-1)

The term on the left hand side is the change in Elo rankings. The term in brackets on the right hand side is the difference between Actual result and Expected result*. Alpha is the coefficient used in the Elo rankings (K or K*GD).

So the Elo ranking is a basically an exponentially weighted moving average. If you worked through all the maths, you could probably work out exactly how long it takes for past results to diminish to <10% (say) of the current ratings, that is if you knew what K was in the Elo rankings. Of course the past rankings never disappear -- that's the beauty of exponentially weighted averages, you don't throw any data out.

So yes, the Elo ranking does reduce the weight of each event based on how long ago it occurred. Is it the best system? It's pretty good, sure. But there are surely better ARIMA models you can use, if you want to model it like that. My main concern is that the people looking at these ranking systems seem committed to using some kind of points system (see how they've shoehorned points into Elo rankings, rather than leaving it in the form of a moving average?), which may well preclude them from using better models. If our goal is to make predictions, then we should approach this like we do any set of observations, and just pick the best model for the job - even if it doesn't assign points to winners in some obvious fashion.

Of course if our goal is to make a league table, then you definitely want a system that assigns points predictably...


*-Well, sort of. You probably have to multiply it by some sort of scaling factor, which I assume is baked into "K" somehow. At the very least, the LHS is proportional to the RHS.

 

[kochman]

Perhaps Brazil are overrated at this particular point in time (I'd say England are more or less where they deserve to be), but it may just be that they had two abnormally poor matches rather than being considerably worse than a top 4 team.

Nah, not at home in the WC. They just weren't that good. They really didn't look great versus anyone.

For example, first game against Croatia... Croatia had a goal disallowed that shouldn't have been, and then Brazil got a goal they shouldn't have.
That's 2 goals, they would have lost.

Tie Mexico (which is a pretty good team)...

Columbia took them deep, too.

The Germans dismantled them, so badly it was unbelievable. They happened to be in the right place at the right time, and that time was the utter collapse of Brazil's defense. Their goalie was vastly overrated, they weren't marking anyone, and they didn't challenge anything.

On the offensive side, Hulk??? Come on.

Silva and Neymar are good, of course.

 

[Gucumatz]

So the current rules say that a continent can't have hold one of the last two world cups.

With Russia getting the 2018 World Cup, Qatar the 2022, and South America pretty much agreeing to let Uruguay-Argentina have the 100th anniversary World Cup in 2030, who is left to host the 2026 World Cup?

No Asian federation nation can host it due to Qatar. Meaning the only federations eligible to host the 2026 World Cup are: Oceania, Africa, and Concacaf. And since South Africa recently hosted the World Cup, it seems unlikely Africa gets to host the World Cup in 2026.

So that means...

USA or Mexico to host the 2026 World Cup ! Victory from being the only ones competing!!!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I anticipate a pile of Euros inclining FIFA to repeal an 'obviously antiquated' rule.

 

[Winston Hughes]

USA or Mexico to host the 2026 World Cup ! Victory from being the only ones competing!!!

I'd vote Canada. The precedent has been set with Qatar that being crap at football doesn't disqualify, and it'd be a far less insane choice than the 2022 hosts for a whole load of other reasons. Can't see them stumping up the bribes, though.

 

[Dell19]

Presumably other countries will still bid for the 2030 world cup. If their joint bid does win then the South American qualification group would be a little weird as there would only be 2 and a half places up for grabs and Brazil will most likely take one of those.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Presumably other countries will still bid for the 2030 world cup. If their joint bid does win then the South American qualification group would be a little weird as there would only be 2 and a half places up for grabs and Brazil will most likely take one of those.

The current rule is that the host doesn't take any of its continent spots (it's an extra).

That's why we had 6 CONMEBOL teams in Brazil despite the confederation having only 4.5 spots.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The current rule is that the host doesn't take any of its continent spots (it's an extra).

That's why we had 6 CONMEBOL teams in Brazil despite the confederation having only 4.5 spots.

Seems very reasonable to think a 'co-host' situation would take one spot and still leave 3.5 then.

 

[Zelig]

I'd vote Canada. The precedent has been set with Qatar that being crap at football doesn't disqualify, and it'd be a far less insane choice than the 2022 hosts for a whole load of other reasons. Can't see them stumping up the bribes, though.

I doubt we'd put in a bid, I don't think there's much will or reason to add the necessary infrastructure for it.

And we get the women's world cup next year already.

 

[kochman]

USA or Mexico to host the 2026 World Cup ! Victory from being the only ones competing!!!

The USA has already withdrawn from the 2026 consideration (which would be our 250th anniversary), citing FIFA's corruption basically.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Soccer stadiums in Canada?

I don't see it.

 

[Takhisis]

The precedent has been set with Qatar that being crap at football doesn't disqualify

Indeed, look at the hosts in the past few editions (barring Germany 2006 of course).

 

[BirraImperial]

Central America 2026?? While Costa Rica doesn't have enough population to host a WC, since all current stadiums are under 35,000 capacity and we don't have the money, perhaps a joint venture with Panama might suffice...

 

[Inter4]

Glad with the result. Well deserved.

 

[Takhisis]

Mexico 2026 sounds better, Mr. Pura Vida.

 

[daft]

Mexico's hosted at least twice already. Canada is a much better choice. There's an incredible following here of the WC. The larger citites are very multicultural, drivers decorate their cars with flags of almost every nation in the tournament throughout the competition, all according to their heritage or simply because they cheer for the particular team, car horns honking at fellow team's flag bearing supporters vehicles when their team scores a goal/wins a match. There are Italian/Greek/Portuguese and all other sorts of bars and pubs in every corner of the city, the atmosphere is quite great.