Flawed global ranking

Discussion in 'General Hockey Chit-Chat' started by Ernst, Nov 6, 2017.

  1. Ernst

    Ernst FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Antwerpen, Belgium
    The FIH came out with their updated global ranking again today...
    Still they use points earned at the continental championships. Meaning ARG got 750 points for winning the PanAm, an event without any other top 10 country participating and according to this equal to winning the Olympics or the World Cup. Same for IND in Asia and more or less for AUS who only have to beat NZL (ranked among top 10) to get the same amount of points. Whereas European countries have to fight with 6 countries from this top 10 for the same amount of points....

    Other examples?
    NZL gets the 630 amount of points for 2nd place in the Oceanic Championship, so basically just for showing up... almost the same reward for winning a silver (!) medal at the Olympics!
    Or CAN getting 550 points, same reward for winning bronze at the Olympics...

    Unfair !

    Click this for a better solution and a fair world ranking : http://cl1ck.me/3NU1GT :)
     
    #1 Ernst, Nov 6, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2017
  2. Krebsy

    Krebsy FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,236
    Likes Received:
    851
    where does that link go? It doesn't look very safe to click on.
     
  3. Theory

    Theory FHF Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    251
    Stick/s:
    Magnum Lolly
    It takes you to a place of patchy beards, professorial spectacles, and fine pine paneling.
     
    Simon_GK_Mason and Krebsy like this.
  4. Ernst

    Ernst FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Antwerpen, Belgium
    Funny theory Theory... ;)

    The link is safe Krebsy , just a link shortener I use and to add some promo for another hockey project I'm launching :)
    But if it will make you feel more safe, the original article is at : https://be-hockey.com/fih-global-ranking-flawed/
     
  5. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,821
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    The points quite clearly are different for different continental champs. NZ get 630 for 2nd in OCE. England got more than that for 3rd in Europe. Ireland get almost as much (550) for coming 5th. South Africa only get 525 for beating everybody that turned up to theirs. 3rd in OCE = 14th in Asia = 22nd in Europe.
     
  6. Ernst

    Ernst FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Antwerpen, Belgium
    The point being... points from the continental championships should not be taken into account at all since there can't ever be a level playing field for all concerned.
    NZL get 630 points in the global ranking for beating Papua New Guinea in OCE and BEL got 650 for a silver medal at the Rio Games.
    CAN got 550 points for beating countries like Trinidad & Tobago or the USA at the PanAm (impressive when you're in track & field, less when it's about field hockey) , the same amount Germany got for a bronze medal at the Rio Games. The current system is wrong...
     
  7. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,821
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    Any system will be wrong. Every sport that has some sort of ranking system like that is wrong. Soccer, tennis, they're both wrong. So is cricket. The trick is to try and minimise how wrong they are.

    There can't ever be a level playing field for all concerned at the world cup, olympics or champion's trophy either, because all teams do not have the same chance to qualify for them. Brazil was ~25th overall instead of ~40th, all because they got 160 points at the olympics, a tournament they're not good enough to qualify for, but got to play because they were the hosts. Those points clearly shouldn't be taken into account.

    Maybe ignoring continental championships entirely produces a top 10 you see as fairer. Maybe not. But ignoring them altogether also means you don't get to differentiate between all those teams who don't get to go to the bigger tournaments. The ones who did really well to come 12th in Europe instead of 20th, or whatever. You say they shouldn't get rewarded in the rankings for those efforts?

    I don't see a point getting hung up on the rankings, especially at the top end. Personally, I'm more interested in who won a particular tournament than who had the #1 ranking at any given time.
     
  8. redumpire

    redumpire FHF All Time Great
    FHF Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,694
    Likes Received:
    2,792
    Except the rankings decide who goes into which pool at every tournament*, thereby potentially affecting the outcome...

    * see paragraph 1.2 of any of Appendices 4-9 in the current general outdoor regulations.
     
  9. Ernst

    Ernst FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Antwerpen, Belgium
    I do agree the trick is to minimise how wrong they are... For me, I can accept the occasional points allocated to a maybe less deserving country for hosting the Olympics. I have a hard time accepting countries like NZL or AUS who only have to show up (read beating Papua New Guinea by 19-0 or 30-0 respectively) in order to get points similar to making an Olympic final. Where European countries have to battle with 5 other nations from the top 10 to get points from their continental.

    So my suggestion is to only award points for those events every country has the right and possibility to qualify for. That would be the Olympics, the world cup and the hockey world league. This is the only way to get a "more fair" ranking: merit based only and same opportunities for all. The way I distribute points among those open events in my proposal is up for discussion of course. However any system where you continue to allocate points to "invitational events" (such as Champions Trophy or the Hockey Pro League launching in 2019) or to events where not all countries are allowed a shot for qualification (such as the continental championships) will never show a fair and honest ranking.

    I agree the world ranking is less eventful compared to winning a major event. However the very same world ranking has and will have a very important impact for qualification for these major events. And once qualified the same ranking has an impact on who you will play in the early stage of the major events. So I would not disregard it as unimportant... ;)
     
  10. Stuart Burnside

    Stuart Burnside FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    898
    I see merit in a system that boosts non-European countries, particularly as being represented on every continent is one of the pegs that keeps hockey in the Olympics.

    Any impediment to global reach, for what is essentially a minority sport with limited spectator catchment, is a death knell.

    Sorry to be a downer on your thread, all I mean is I can see many other things to get energetic about fixing in the hockey world before this.
     
    Craig Boyne likes this.
  11. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,234
    Likes Received:
    96
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    Ernst, the biggest problem with this system is that it only considers 3 events for world ranking, over the past 4 years. This means that teams have literally 1 chance per year to gain world ranking points. That puts a really heavy influence on those tournaments when there can often be a difference of one goal, ten seconds, between a top 4 and a 5-8 place.

    The points allocated for difference continental championships is fair in the fact that contries like Australia, although get "easy" points for being in oceania, also are heavily disadvantaged in the fact that it is difficult to get regular top level opponents to play against.
     
  12. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,821
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    NZ beat nobody to get their 630 points. But who did Ireland & Spain beat to get their 550 & 500 points from their continental champs? Austria & Poland in the men, Scotland & Czech Republic in the women. Were they ever likely to finish outside the top 6? So can just as easily argue Ireland merely had to show up in order to get the same number of points as winning olympic bronze.

    A system that looks at just 4 tournaments in 4 years isn't going to give a fair & honest ranking, either. And while any ranking system is going to be flawed, has the current one produced any clearly unfair results when it comes to tournaments, seedings, etc? I'm sure it can be argued that for a big tournament, one pool had 1st, 3rd, 4th best teams while the other had 2nd, 5th, 6th, going in, and so those in the easier pool had a better chance of making the medal rounds. But I don't think it's ever that clear cut as to who is 3rd and who is 5th best anyway. I think the current setup looks about as good as can be expected, and it certainly passes the eye test for me, there are no rankings that look particularly out of whack.
     
  13. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,234
    Likes Received:
    96
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    Also I just noticed, you have left Brazil off of your rankings list, they came 12th.
    as will Japan after Tokyo 2020, as will France after Paris 2024 and as will USA after Los Angeles 2028.

    And looking at your system they would most likely stay there, or similarly placed for the following two years until the completion of the world cup.

    These are the countries currently ranked 16 (japan), 18 (france), 26 (USA) and 27 (Brazil). None of whom have placed in the top 12 at any other world level event in the past four year cycle.

    I agree that the current rankings system is flawed. But the better system would be to find a way to include more tournaments in the calculations, not less.
     
  14. Nij

    Nij FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,745
    Likes Received:
    659
    What would improve the system is combining result points with an ELO of some kind.

    You beat a good opponent or lose by not much to them, that's better, gain points.
    You lose to a bad opponent or don't beat them by much, that's worse, lose points.
    Good/bad are relatively speaking and based on current ranking points.
    That would make every match worth playing. Ranks could change every couple of weeks as teams play on tour, in quadrangulars, at invitationals, and have all their extra matches included in the judgement of how good they are.

    Success at key events (continental, World Cup, Olympics, World League, Pro League) is recognised by receiving bonus points.
    Maybe they award some percentage increase at the end like 15/12/10/8/6/4/3/2/1% to the winner/finals loser/semifinals loser/etc. and reward consistent performance under pressure. Maybe each team gains some percentage of all teams finishing lower and loses some percentage of all teams finishing higher, so that placing above a few good teams is worth the same as finishing above a lot of mediocre teams. The overall quality of the continent and regions will determine the points awarded at that tournament directly instead of trying to balance the continents with the Cups and the championships with the Olympics and getting it all wrong.
     
    #14 Nij, Nov 7, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
  15. Ernst

    Ernst FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Antwerpen, Belgium
    But it's the same for every country. Every country will have the same opportunity to get points from the HWL, from the world cup and from the Olympics. So points are up for grabs every year.... for every country.

    So you think it's fair AUS gets the same points (every two years) for "only" beating NZL like ARG got for winning the Olympics? Just because the European countries have to travel somewhat less for quality opponents in practice games???

    More tournaments would make it better or more fair probably. But only if all have the same opportunity of participating, based upon merit. Not if these extra tournaments are only open to limited countries but still get valued at the level of the major events...

    So do these results merit the same awards as finishing on top positions in major and truly global events like Olympics or World Cup? No, my point is mostly to not include any of these continental events, because there can never be a level playing field. So yes the points earned at the Euros are also unfair. But besides that if you were to put a value on results in the continentals would you rate the Oceanic or PanAm championship for example to be of the same level as the Europeans?

    This is an idea I like... Complicated, very complicated though to guard the advantage countries without a strong domestic league would have because of more time to be playing these international games where countries with a strong domestic leagues would have difficulties getting players from their clubs to play more international games with their country. But this is a concept with potential ;)
     
  16. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,234
    Likes Received:
    96
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    But the problem is that those points arent up for grabs, the world cup and olympics are only 12 teams. Which means that if your team finishes 13th at the previous years HWL (actually 11th due to continental/hosts) you are automatically forfeiting 100 points over that year and the following year, ensuring that you CANNOT rise above the ranking of the team finishing one place higher than you, or qualifying as hosts.

    What im saying is that for those very top ranked teams it matters very little, because ranking 2-4 in europe still gets you enough points that your results in other championships should be able to make up for it

    Unfortunately it is not possible to have tournaments with the scope of the HWL consistanly, let alone when there is WC or OG every 2 years that teams need to prepare for, so in some way these competitions would need to be limited in scope


    I need to clarify that there is a difference between unfair and you not liking it. It is fair, the points are designed to reflect the relative places of teams who "should" get them.


    The biggest problem with the elo system is people "picking" opponents in order to optimise their ranking, for example with germany's current rank of 5th they would not be "worth" as much as say belgium or argentina, who are higher ranked but probably not that much more talented. Or teams wanting to play brazil now that their rank has been boost by the OG. That being said it definitely has potential.

    i think using a modified elo that ranks 4 nation tournaments would be fairly effective. Think of this:

    Each team can only play in a maximum of say 3 tournaments (only talking about 4NT here) per year.
    The highest ranked team must be no more than 20 positions above the lowest (provision for geographic displacement/ cost)
    All the ranking points of the four teams are averaged. The winner gets 20% of those points added on, 2nd gets 15%, 10% and 5%.
    Obviously with a reducing points value over as the games get further in the distance.
    Potentially with somes rules limiting the number of times countries can play each other in ranked 4NT to avoid countries buddying up to exclude other countries.

    For the rankings thesepoints would be totalled with continental and major tournaments, hence giving all nations a possibility of overcoming bad continental rankings.
     
  17. sanabas

    sanabas FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,821
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    No they don't. Qualification for olympics and world cup aren't a level playing field either.


    You're hung up on comparing continental champs points to olympic points. You shouldn't be. You should be comparing the chance to get OCE continental points with the chance to get EUR continental points, and the aussies' chance to get olympic/world cup/HWL points with the belgians' chance to do same. Both are going into continental champs knowing that they'll get 600+ points just for turning up, and 750 if they win it. Both are going to olympics with the same chance to get points. If you decide to make the olympics worth 3 times as much, then you skew the results based on who qualifies for those. 12th best team gets nothing. 11th best team gets 500+ points. So 11th vs 12th at olympic qualifying becomes the same difference as 5th vs 25th at the euros.

    No, I wouldn't. Neither does the ranking system. As I said earlier, the ranking system says 3rd in OCE = 14th in Asia = 22nd in Europe. Passes the eye test for fairness for me. And as I said, there's not a level playing field for the tournaments you want to count anyway. Only way you'll do that is to run say a 15 round swiss tournament with 60+ teams involved, use that to rank 1-60. But that's not at all practical.

    For winning the continental tournaments, yeah, I'd say the quality of teams are about equal. And for practical purposes, the points for 1st should be equal. If it wasn't, if you decided the euros are 3 times as tough to win because they feature 6 top teams to OCE's 2, then you could easily have netherlands win euro, aussies win OCE, aussies take gold to NED's silver in WC & olympics, and the rankings say that NED ranks #1 and AUS ranks #2, because the difference between NED beating all who come to their continental and AUS doing same outweighs the difference between gold & silver at the worldwide tournaments. Which would be an obvious absurdity, and lead to us wanting to be part of europe for hockey as well as for crappy pop song contests. Or wanting to be seen as part of Asia like we are for soccer.



    The current system does look pretty fair to me. Certainly produces results that look right. Yes, it's flawed. Yes, it's not perfect. But there's no such thing as a ranking system that is perfect, has no flaws. Every ranking system will have quirks to it, or can be gamed.
     
  18. Ernst

    Ernst FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Antwerpen, Belgium
    Of course they are, because any country has exactly the same possibilities (that's different from capability obviously) for qualifying for these events... and the world cup will be 16 countries ;)

    Well that makes sense according to me. It is merit based, so if you do not qualify you will not be awarded the points that come with qualification... The hosts qualifying is a thing I agree, but that would be one "flaw" I could live with...

    It should no be about wether it matters or not, it should be about what is fair.

    True, that is why in my suggestion I only have the 3... because with adding invitational events or events which exclude certain countries would make it impossible to be fair to all.

    How can it be fair if you give the same amount of points for winning an event with no other country from the top 10 compared to an event with 6 countries from the top 10 or compared to the major events such as Olympics or WC? You honestly think you can find one international player who will tell you winning the PanAm or Oceania or any other continental championship is equal to winning the WC or the Games? I can tell you with 100% certainty you will not find one Dutch player who would not trade in his EC title immediately for a WC or Olympic gold medal.

    Agreed here. I liked the concept because it is thinking outside the box, but it has its disadvantages also. Besides which it would be completely impossible to schedule it in the international calendar unless you "kill" all domestic leagues...

    How do you reckon this? Any country has 2 options to qualify : become continental champion or do well in the HWL. If anything it is again the Euro nations that have it more difficult once again, because the competition of becoming European champion is a lot tougher. But no one is excluded and all have the same options to qualify.

    Don't think so... :) I am hung up on only giving points based on merit and only from events everybody has a chance to qualify for.

    We should not. These events should not be taken into account at all... any of them.

    But should you wish to compare... for those same 750 points AUS this year had to beat NZL and ARG had to beat CAN.
    NED however had to beat SPA and IRL, both comparable to NZL or CAN, as well as BEL, GER and ENG, all of them stronger then NZL & CAN...

    The only reason for points to be equal is if the merit would be as well. It isn't. But that is besides the point, being these continental championships should not be taken into account as well because it would be impossible to do this in a fair way.

    Anyway... I feel I'm on repeat so will end my participation here unless you can find a new argument or concept for me to think on ;)
     
  19. nerd_is_the_word

    nerd_is_the_word FHF All Time Great

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,234
    Likes Received:
    96
    Location:
    Queensland, AUS
    Ernst i think there are still two points you haven't considered here:

    One tournament per year is not enough to rank teams based on, for some teams their placing is based on 1 goal difference worth 3-4 places, or which pool they are in. No way that can fair. The placesings would literally become the results of the most recent OG or WC. Makes rankings useless

    The fact that euro has more top teams is mitigated by the fact that lower placing at euro is worth more. 5th at euros can still easilyrank #1 in the world
     
  20. Ernst

    Ernst FHF Starter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Antwerpen, Belgium
    I understand and agree.... but think it's still better compared to what we have today ;) And I do not think there is way to have more of these international events unless you kill the domestic leagues...

    I do not agree ... and think no one can "easily" rank 1 in the world :) But the current system is making it somewhat easier for some compared to others...
     

Share This Page