This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
All results of the Ireland team prior to partition of Ireland(The split of Northern and Southern Ireland)are included in the modern day Republic of Ireland team, whereas they should be included in the Northern Ireland team as they are natural succesor to the All-Ireland team.-- Ifcp1 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes i had contacted ELO to inform them of their inaccuracies, however they have not replyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifcp1 ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
In the current system the value of all goals exceeding the difference with more then three are the same. This doesn't seem fair to me. To my opinion a more fair formula for the goal difference index G would be (N is the goal difference; N > 0):
G = 2 - 21-N
Table of examples:
Goal Difference | Coefficient of K (G) | Proposal |
---|---|---|
+1 | 1 | 1 |
+2 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
+3 | 1.75 | 1.75 |
+4 | 1.875 | 1.875 |
+5 | 2 | 1.9375 |
+6 | 2.125 | 1.96875 |
+7 | 2.25 | 1.984375 |
In this formula the value of every extra goal decreases and the maximum multiplication value by extra goals is 2 instead of infinite as with the current formula. Otto 10:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If the goal difference is two, then you are multiplying by zero overall.
I think we should move the page to "World Football Elo Ratings" in accoradance with their website anyone opposed or have any points to make? Philc T E C I 12:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me if I'm a little slow, but how do you utilise the graph to extrapolate the expected result?
here are some examples.
Sample Winning Expectancies
Diff Higher Lower 0 0.500 0.500 10 0.514 0.486 20 0.529 0.471 30 0.543 0.457 40 0.557 0.443 50 0.571 0.429 60 0.585 0.415 70 0.599 0.401 80 0.613 0.387 90 0.627 0.373 100 0.640 0.360 110 0.653 0.347 120 0.666 0.334 130 0.679 0.321 140 0.691 0.309 150 0.703 0.297 160 0.715 0.285 170 0.727 0.273 180 0.738 0.262 190 0.749 0.251 200 0.760 0.240 210 0.770 0.230 220 0.780 0.220 230 0.790 0.210 240 0.799 0.201 250 0.808 0.192 260 0.817 0.183 270 0.826 0.174 280 0.834 0.166 290 0.841 0.159 300 0.849 0.151 325 0.867 0.133 350 0.882 0.118 375 0.896 0.104 400 0.909 0.091 425 0.920 0.080 450 0.930 0.070 475 0.939 0.061 500 0.947 0.053 525 0.954 0.046 550 0.960 0.040 575 0.965 0.035 600 0.969 0.031 625 0.973 0.027 650 0.977 0.023 675 0.980 0.020 700 0.983 0.017 725 0.985 0.015 750 0.987 0.013 775 0.989 0.011 800 0.990 0.010
-- Philc T E C I 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I might have missed something, but to me there seems to an error in the examples. The points lost by the losing team should always be the same as those gained by the winning team. At least, this is the case for all the matches I've seen at http://www.eloratings.net/. But, the tables in the examples seem to indicate different amounts for the winner and loser.
The error seems to arise because because a G value of 1 is assigned to the loser, when it should be the same as the G value of the winner, i.e. 1.5 for these examples. Rowandavies
If the loser has to lose what the winner wins, shouldn't dr be (difference in ratings + 100) for the home team and (difference in ratings -100) for the away team? 82.155.55.83 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) ( User:Zé da Silva Not Logged In)
http://www.eloratings.net/world.html http://www.eloratings.net/world_cup.html
Should we use the world rankings to update currently or the world cup rankings? W123 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC).
Hey,
Can I someone create an Elo Ratings Calculator that can be used to calculate domestic ratings? For example, it would accept a text document input of something like
ManU 3 Chel 1 Arse 1 Bolt 2
..and would output the overall table and the elo ratings? I know that a 3rd party magazine did this for american baseball, but I was wondering if someone was capable of programming something like this (preferably in C/C++) for other people to use...leave a message on my talk page, -- Palffy 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
ManU 3-1 Chel Arse 1-2 Bolt
-- Palffy 06:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
At least for single play Elo coefficient calculations, the Freeware program "WorldCupRatings" should be useful: www.worldcupratings.sourceforge.net --xblop 02/08/2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.227.247.167 ( talk) 18:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to put a side by side comparison of the top teams in Elo rating next to the top teams in the current FIFA system. Somthing like this
Top 20 FIFA Rankings compared to Elo | ||
FIFA Rank | Team | Elo Rank |
---|---|---|
1 | Brazil | 3 |
2 | Italy | 1 |
3 | Argentina | 4 |
4 | France | 2 |
5 | England | 5 |
6 | Netherlands | 6 |
7 | Spain | 7 |
8 | Portugal | 9 |
9 | Germany | 8 |
10 | Czech Republic | 11 |
11 | Nigeria | 22 |
12 | Cameroon | 21 |
13 | Switzerland | 12 |
14 | Uruguay | 14 |
15 | Ukraine | 24 |
16 | Mexico | 16 |
17 | Denmark | 10 |
18 | Ivory Coast | 25 |
19 | Paraguay | 28 |
20 | Sweden | 13 |
24.237.198.91 05:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a mention of ELO rankings including non-FIFA teams? Highest ranked non-FIFA team is Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is a member of NF-Board.
Why are bot the Strongest football nations by Elo Ratings and the Top 10 in this article caltulated since 1970?? There seams to be no reason to ignore previous years. I'm not sure how far back the available relevant information goes, but I would think it goes way back since there's a Top 20 per decade since 1950. There are coutries that are very much relegated because of this ommisions, most notably Uruguay.
Here are the 1872-2008 statistics.
-- Mariano( t/ c) 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone copied the "strongest teams by decade" tables from the Strongest Football Nations by Elo Ratings page to this page. Though I (of course) agree that that is very interesting information, this page is becoming very cluttered and you have to scroll a long way to the bottom to get the Elo rating actually explained. I believe this page really should focus on the method and the current results, with links to pages showing stats. Anyone object if I remove the decade tables again? Perhaps we can prune elsewhere as well. Afasmit ( talk) 04:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't connect to the ELO website. Has anyone else managed to do this recently? Exile ( talk) 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
There is any reference of Portugal team in 1966, according to numbers, on the nª3 of the ranking in that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.43.229 ( talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on the Elo ratings, it is also possible to calculate probabilities for a complete tournament if all future scenarios are considered. I've written the program "World Cup Ratings 2010" based on OpenOffice.org that performs the mentioned calculations for the World Cup 2010 and published it as freeware. It can be downloaded here, for example: http://www.file-upload.net/download-2455021/WorldCupRatings2010v1.0.zip.html All scenarios possible in the future (they're a lot) are taken into account. After each play, updates are possible. I've compared the results with predictions of several banks and with odd quotas and found big similarities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.82.181 ( talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
There are some problems waiting for the elo website to release new ratings after WC matches. While the formula does allow us to calculate results, it does not mean we should. Our object should ONLY be to update the ratings as the website does, otherwise it is original research per WP:OR. Note that this is only a problem because the speculative updates are usually wrong. Barronitaly ( talk) 13:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
New Zealand's tie with Italy in June 2010 put an OFC nation on the chart. Since there wasn't an OFC nation already I picked a pastel-ish color that wasn't being used already as a temporary color. I don't know if there is a color for OFC already...is there a chart somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barronitaly ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, it's been down for several days, making it difficult to verify the ratings. Enigma msg 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This site is down one more time. Dark Seer ( talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
An IP address user has replaced the main top 60 table with a top 100 table and has deleted the FIFA ranking information, perhaps because it was too much work to retrieve the remaining 40 FIFA values.
I've just used the ELO formula to calculate how many points Portugal will gain by beating Iceland on 7th October by 1 goal of difference and came to the conclusion that 36,1950059453032104637336504162 would be earned (using the Windows Calculator). My question is: does anyone know how ELO Ratings deals with decimal numbers, since they don't seem to be mentioned on the article? Are they rounded to the nearest number (which would be 36) or it's a result of me messing up during the calculations? And even if I did mess up, is it possible that decimal points can be obtained and they're rounded to the nearest value? Tarts2 ( talk) 22:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The highest average score ELO of Spain from 1 January 1970 to 1 June 2009 of Spain is 1912.1. Since then, Spain always has been up from 2040 ELO score so... it's impossible that from 1 January 1970 to 1 July 2012 its highest average score ELO is 1901.1. Please, recalculate it. And another question, why since 1 January 1970 and not before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.127.175 ( talk) 19:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this entire article is a joke and a travesty and ridiculous nonsense. Let me explain why:
1) Some people seem to be confusing "Elo" with this actual football site. The site just implements Elo in its ratings formula. There is no such thing as a country's "Elo rating", because it can have very different ratings depending on what Elo system you're using.
2) Following on from above, there is no such thing as the "Elo rating" of a team. I could create a rating system tomorrow using Elo and it would be just as legitimate to call it the team's "Elo rating". You need to say the exact place you're getting the rating from or it's meaningless. Once again: Elo is just a mathematical tool that's used in calculating this, there is no such thing as "the Elo rating" of a country.
3) The only legitimacy, the only reason the "Football Elo Ratings" website or whatever it's called is in ANY WAY notable is because of it being mentioned in some BBC article and some other sites online randomly. Sure, this offers it some semblance of legitimacy as opposed to any other random person who makes a rating system based on Elo tomorrow, but it's not very much.
4) The way Elo system is implemented on this site is frankly a load of crap for anyone who understands international football. Friendlies are counted. Little more than that needs to be said.
5) The author/owner of the website seems to be an attention-seeking jerk. He's done a lot to try to publicize the website, in other words to unfairly push it on Wikipedia somehow being "the" place for ratings. The author will not respond to any polite criticism of the website or address any concerns about eg. counting friendlies. And in fact when the rating system was created first, friendlies used to mean a lot more.
I encourage other people to take it into their own hands to create a proper Elo ranking system for international football teams instead of relying on this (joke) site. - as demonstrated above there are all kinds of inaccuracies and mistakes. I know there has to be some great computer science buffs out there who can create a proper system, beautiful graphs, etc., like they have with Elo ratings for the Premiership. Professional-like. Not this ill-conceived crap.
Anonywiki ( talk) 06:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Why since 1 January 1970 and not before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.127.175 ( talk) 19:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
For many years we had a top 60. Before that there were even shorter lists. Maintaining the current standing to 100 is considerably more work, as the lower ranked countries require more editing: they tend to have scores closer together, so that there is more movement (both in Elo and FIFA) and there are more awkward-to-edit ties. Also, the full list is only a click away, while the FIFA ranking page is limited to 20 for perhaps wikipedia-policy reasons. Does anyone feel strongly about keeping the top 100? Otherwise I'll cut it back to 60. Afasmit ( talk) 19:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Syria is in AFC and El Salvador is in CONCACAF. Additionally, El Salvador's colors should be changed from AFC to CONCACAF colors. Armenia is in UEFA but is highlighted with the CONCACAF colors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.156 ( talk) 17:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Younis7435 extended the list to contain all countries with a minimum number of matches played (I think), partly foregoing the formatting and with made-up FIFA rankings for the bottom 110 countries. User:Pelotas reverted it and so did I. Arguments against having a full list are the maintenance costs (just try to keep up with both Elo and FIFA ranks) and, possibly, copyrights. I seem to remember a wikipedia policy that discourages or warns against copying complete lists from third party sites. Pity I can't locate it; it was not just about copyrights. At the FIFA ranking there was an argument concerning keeping that particular list down to 20 countries; a copyright issue came up, but the decision to keep the short list seems to not be based on that. Personally I like to keep our list at 60, like it was for years (see above), since the full list, often just a hair more up to date then we can keep it, is just a single click away. Afasmit ( talk) 00:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand your feeling, maybe it is too much to have so much teams appeared on the table. However, I just want to compare with FIFA's football rankings, to see what is the difference between them. I am sorry to hear that the copyright's issue, I will apologized for the inconvenience of that situation.
Sweden and Greece at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.237.97 ( talk) 19:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
On the first paragraph (Top 60 rankings), it says the table was updated thanks to some website on the 18th of June, however the website referenced does not seem to have any match record after the 1st of June, so I was wondering how the data was retrieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwikiO ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The reference (currently [2]) to the World Elo Rating website has two problems. It says the site is "elo.net" whereas that site doesn't exist. It might be "eloratings.net" or "www.eloratings.net". And it says "Retrieved: 2014-06-05." whereas the article says it is showing data from 25 June 2014.
(Actually, whenever I go to this website, eloratings, I get an old version!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Barnett ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The referenced source for the top-60 table was last looked at 05 June 2014, the info in the table is current as of today? What is the source for this info? Who did the calculation? Where can I double-check it? I appreciate the work especially of User:Afasmit, but I'd still consider that original research, as it cannot be found anywhere else (or at least it is not referenced). Aside: The same could be said for most of the later sections of the article: Where did the authors take this info from? Pbro ( talk) 22:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Since ELO ratings are available immediately at the end of a match, did not Germany take the number one spot from the Netherlands on 4th of July 2014 and therefore was heading the list until the end of the match between Brazil and Colombia about 4 hours later?
Based on this webpage, and the following quarter final game against France, Germany should have a rating of 2098 points after beating France, overtaking the Netherlands, who were on 2094 points, while Brazil was still "stuck" on 2082 rating points until 4 hours later.
It matters all the more since it would be the first time that Germany headed the ratings in the period since 1 Jan 2000 which is the time covered by the lists presented. 84.133.50.117 ( talk) 21:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Where are people getting these new rankings from? According to the official website the most recent rankings are dated to 2 June 2014, so where did these new rankings come from? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I admit, this issue is not about the wiki page at all. But does anyone ever consider to question the very basics of this Elo formula? :))))
I mean these 2 rules:
This "K" adjustment for the goal difference does not exist in classic Elo-rating, but we definitely want to take it in account, somehow. Also, main measure of Elo rating's quality is prediction rate (the difference between the actual results and the result expectations are at a minimum).
So, what if instead of those 2 rules, there will be only one, like this:
I'm sure this formula will give much better prediction rate. Actually, new formula predicts not only the result, but also goal difference! For example, if team A is 400 points stronger than team B, the expected result will be "A wins by 2 goals". And A's victory by only 1 goal will reduce A's points - the result most of us expect when a very strong team finishes "only" 1:0 against outsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyan ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about how to calculate We, specifically how the higher winning expectancy for the home team is calculated. This is an example of how I understand this so far: A (300 pts) vs. B (500 pts.), the result will be a 1 - 0. dr for A sohuld be -200+100=-100 then, for B 200. We of A is 1/(10^(-(-100)/400)+1)=0.3599, We of B is 1/(10^(-200/400)+1)=0.7597. If we assume K=40 then A will be rewarded 26 pts and 30 pts. will be taken from B. What I don’t understand is why I can’t find a single example, neither here nor any of the actual matches on eloratings.net where there is a difference between the points taken from one team and given to the other. Or maybe I have a misunderstanding in the very beginning, that you have to both add 100 pts to the dr of the home team and substract 100 pts from the guest team. However, if my understanding is correct, maybe an appropriate example can be given on the page, if the second case is correct maybe it would be helpful to make this clearer when dr is explained. Thanks, Jonas :-D-- 95.90.208.183 ( talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It would be great to expand the #1 teams section to earlier decades to include the other great teams of the past century (Hungary, Soviet Union, Poland, Austria, etc) that are no longer at the top of the rankings. Adding to the existing section will eventually become too cumbersome with the frequency the top team changes during major tournaments. A timeline may be a better representation (similar to the one found on the FIFA rankings). A timeline covering multiple decades poses its own problems (e.g labeling of teams in #1 spot for less than a month), but breaking it down to single decades seems to be a good balance. I included an example spanning the 1990's
In addition, each decade could have its own section where the change at the top may be linked to the game where either a team won to overtake the top spot or they lost to fall out of it. Explanations as to why the #1 team changes so frequently in June and July may be appropriate here to fill out the section. The result would also be an article less table-heavy. Spiaggia12 ( talk) 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
This may seem self-evident to most readers. A text like "Since Elo scores reflect past accomplishments, the table represents the relative strength of national teams since the mid to late 1960s." for the 1970 to now average section may therefore be deemed unnecessary emphasis. (The concept used to be reflected in the section heading even, but that was removed for stylistic reasons) However, User:Koppapa has repeatedly deleted this nota bene in both the half-century and decade averages sections because it "needs a much better source" and "elo tries to give a good current rating. there are no accomplishments or achievents in it." He may really believe that the average score for the period 1 August 2014 to 1 November 2015 for, say, the Netherlands (2004.2) and Iceland (1632.7) is a good reflection of the relative strengths of those two teams over that period and has nothing to do with the accomplishments of the teams in the years before. In that case, there may be more like him, and the note appears to have a good function. I've grown tired of re-inserting versions of it. Perhaps someone else can formulate it better. Afasmit ( talk) 08:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Is someone who has got a time to updated fifa rank in the tabele with elo ratings? Dawid2009 ( talk) 09:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't set an aribitrary limit of 30 prior games. This is not shown in the source website. Also, a limit makes sense when teams start at a fixed numer of points. This is however not done with that website, italy started at 1708, germany 1684, spain 1835. Other nations at the end of the trating start as low as 500 points. so a restriction to 30 games should not applied here. - Koppapa ( talk) 11:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
These corrections are strange and probably mess up a lot of other stats on this article. How excactly are the averages by decade sourced? Is there anything on the website? If not they should probably go. - Koppapa ( talk) 10:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Why Wikipedia has an article on a ranking done by a website, recognizing it as something "official" over other multiple websites that also use alternative rankings to FIFA ones??
http://www.weglobalfootball.com/rankings/ http://www.rankfootball.com/ etc, etc, etc...
My query not's to start a battle, but really I don't understand why articles often be quickly delete, and others are elevated to a status that is not theirs. This article I repeat, is about one ranking made by a website, if we make articles about each ranking prepared in multiple sports by multiple sites would end up no more. But, because this site is given so much importance?
The role of rankings as the FIFA Rank. is in some extent show the current power of the teams, with all the defects it may contain, it is the official rank. in charge of the Federation governing that sport. The WF Elo Ranking has the shortcoming that the current ranking of a team is determined by performances of 100 years ago. Similarly, in many cases, like in the 90's, this flaw creates a team that is First in the ranking in the middle of an unbeaten row of 33 matches, winning 2 continental cups and 2 intercontinental in that row, but lose the first place despite not losing and win every tournament during that time, going to occupy the first place a team that during that year only played 11 friendlies, of which he lost even, after surpass it in the ranking, with the team that held the first place just months before -the team in the middle of a 33 matches without know the defeat and with 4 official titles at that time, which is illogical, and especially considering the role of rankings is show the current strength of a national team. 152.170.24.22 ( talk) 20:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Why do the ratings for the top teams increase over time? Look at the median of the top 10 teams' ratings for each decade:
(Note: I chose a median rather than the highest rating because the latter is, statistically speaking, an extreme in the distribution, and thus more likely to contain noise than a median. And I used top-10 because I wanted to look at the best teams in the world, and 10 seemed like a nice round number.)
I understand why there is "ratings inflation" in chess among the top players: New players come into the rating system, bringing in points. The points, getting exchanged every time there's a game that contributes to the ratings, eventually trickle up to the highest levels and gradually raise the ratings.
But in international football (soccer), there aren't any new teams coming in. Or hardly any -- certainly not enough to alter the ratings much. So why is the median of the top-10 increasing over time? Is there some other mechanism by which ratings inflation happens? Or have the top teams actually gotten relatively better than the average and poor teams, so they've garnered more points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKMell ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I find ELO rankings before each World Cup to be very interesting. I was wondering if I could find anywhere past national teams ELO rankings. On eloratings just the current one is available, if I wanted to know f.ex. 2011 June ranking, I would have to check it country by country. On clubelo there's a time changing tool that allows you to check the ranking for a particular date, but not for national teams.
I assume you are doing your excels but maybe I can check that info easily anywhere, I just can't find it.
Since I'm a newbie, sorry if this doesn't belong here, but I would propose adding to the list all non-qualyfiers reaching ELO Top-32, so we can see who deserved to be but wasn't and compare.
One last thing, in 1998 world cup ELO pre-ranking, Nigeria appears twice (I suppose the second one is the mistake, as Costa Rica shares the same points). Sorry again if this is not the place, I didn't want to ruin all your work! Oh, and I would also like to know where did you get EUSKAL HERRIA, CATALUNYA and GALICIA elo points, since I'm from the Basque country. Thank you Alexmostovoi ( talk) 22:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I found it right after writing this. Amazing website, so glad I finally found it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmostovoi ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Though I endorsed the inclusion of absent top 10 teams, I don't think highlighting the absent continental cup winners is helpful, while the chosen color draws too much attention to absent teams in general; the absence of Tahiti was not the most memorable aspect of the 2014 World Cup. For the 2018 World Cup, the top 26 teams are listed, except #11 Netherlands, which in June could very well be Italy. Either team's absence is more notable than, say, that of New Zealand. The withdrawal of India in 1950 is also somewhat spurious to report°, as their withdrawal was only possible because a number of other countries had withdrawn before them. Afasmit ( talk) 22:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm interested in, how are set points for the first ever match of a national team? Why did e.g. England have at the beginning (1872) 1800 points, Poland (1921) 1600 points and South Sudan (2011) 1300 points? -- Kamilhrub ( talk) 13:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
In the section describing the expected result, it says "where dr equals the difference in ratings (add 100 points for the home team). So dr of 0 gives 0.5, of 120 gives 0.666 to the higher-ranked team and 0.334 to the lower, and of 800 gives 0.99 to the higher-ranked team and 0.01 to the lower." - however, this sample if including 100pts for home teams (as per the brackets), is not correct. The expected results are only correct if you exclude the home teams points. Perhaps, a new line just giving the expected results of neutral venue and then home venue? John arneVN ( talk) 07:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me sections: #History, #Overview, #Basic calculation principles, should be related in primary part of article (1,2,3 sections) no as addition (9, 10, 11 sections). Overview certainly is more important than various informations in 1-8 sections. Dawid2009 ( talk) 10:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
A few weeks ago all tables but the current rankings were removed after a brief exchange at the WikiProject Football discussion page (look for "World Football Elo Ratings" in the archives if it is gone by now). After a reply, I reverted the deletions, but it may be good to do some clean-up, as there was some valid argument of cruft building up (as if our text is code...). May I suggest the following:
And for some good new, we now know that the new FIFA ratings starting late in 2018 are going to be closely modeled after the Elo rating system. It took a while, but for that institute's notorious reluctance in catching up with modernity, we cannot complain. Afasmit ( talk) 01:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I can not find any section that talks about the overrepresentation of the British teams on the Ranking Elo also about the no-way same thing to take a match between Germany vs San Marino in the same way to a Brazil vs Perú as example 181.29.116.218 ( talk) 18:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
All results of the Ireland team prior to partition of Ireland(The split of Northern and Southern Ireland)are included in the modern day Republic of Ireland team, whereas they should be included in the Northern Ireland team as they are natural succesor to the All-Ireland team.-- Ifcp1 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes i had contacted ELO to inform them of their inaccuracies, however they have not replyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifcp1 ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
In the current system the value of all goals exceeding the difference with more then three are the same. This doesn't seem fair to me. To my opinion a more fair formula for the goal difference index G would be (N is the goal difference; N > 0):
G = 2 - 21-N
Table of examples:
Goal Difference | Coefficient of K (G) | Proposal |
---|---|---|
+1 | 1 | 1 |
+2 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
+3 | 1.75 | 1.75 |
+4 | 1.875 | 1.875 |
+5 | 2 | 1.9375 |
+6 | 2.125 | 1.96875 |
+7 | 2.25 | 1.984375 |
In this formula the value of every extra goal decreases and the maximum multiplication value by extra goals is 2 instead of infinite as with the current formula. Otto 10:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If the goal difference is two, then you are multiplying by zero overall.
I think we should move the page to "World Football Elo Ratings" in accoradance with their website anyone opposed or have any points to make? Philc T E C I 12:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me if I'm a little slow, but how do you utilise the graph to extrapolate the expected result?
here are some examples.
Sample Winning Expectancies
Diff Higher Lower 0 0.500 0.500 10 0.514 0.486 20 0.529 0.471 30 0.543 0.457 40 0.557 0.443 50 0.571 0.429 60 0.585 0.415 70 0.599 0.401 80 0.613 0.387 90 0.627 0.373 100 0.640 0.360 110 0.653 0.347 120 0.666 0.334 130 0.679 0.321 140 0.691 0.309 150 0.703 0.297 160 0.715 0.285 170 0.727 0.273 180 0.738 0.262 190 0.749 0.251 200 0.760 0.240 210 0.770 0.230 220 0.780 0.220 230 0.790 0.210 240 0.799 0.201 250 0.808 0.192 260 0.817 0.183 270 0.826 0.174 280 0.834 0.166 290 0.841 0.159 300 0.849 0.151 325 0.867 0.133 350 0.882 0.118 375 0.896 0.104 400 0.909 0.091 425 0.920 0.080 450 0.930 0.070 475 0.939 0.061 500 0.947 0.053 525 0.954 0.046 550 0.960 0.040 575 0.965 0.035 600 0.969 0.031 625 0.973 0.027 650 0.977 0.023 675 0.980 0.020 700 0.983 0.017 725 0.985 0.015 750 0.987 0.013 775 0.989 0.011 800 0.990 0.010
-- Philc T E C I 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I might have missed something, but to me there seems to an error in the examples. The points lost by the losing team should always be the same as those gained by the winning team. At least, this is the case for all the matches I've seen at http://www.eloratings.net/. But, the tables in the examples seem to indicate different amounts for the winner and loser.
The error seems to arise because because a G value of 1 is assigned to the loser, when it should be the same as the G value of the winner, i.e. 1.5 for these examples. Rowandavies
If the loser has to lose what the winner wins, shouldn't dr be (difference in ratings + 100) for the home team and (difference in ratings -100) for the away team? 82.155.55.83 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) ( User:Zé da Silva Not Logged In)
http://www.eloratings.net/world.html http://www.eloratings.net/world_cup.html
Should we use the world rankings to update currently or the world cup rankings? W123 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC).
Hey,
Can I someone create an Elo Ratings Calculator that can be used to calculate domestic ratings? For example, it would accept a text document input of something like
ManU 3 Chel 1 Arse 1 Bolt 2
..and would output the overall table and the elo ratings? I know that a 3rd party magazine did this for american baseball, but I was wondering if someone was capable of programming something like this (preferably in C/C++) for other people to use...leave a message on my talk page, -- Palffy 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
ManU 3-1 Chel Arse 1-2 Bolt
-- Palffy 06:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
At least for single play Elo coefficient calculations, the Freeware program "WorldCupRatings" should be useful: www.worldcupratings.sourceforge.net --xblop 02/08/2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.227.247.167 ( talk) 18:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to put a side by side comparison of the top teams in Elo rating next to the top teams in the current FIFA system. Somthing like this
Top 20 FIFA Rankings compared to Elo | ||
FIFA Rank | Team | Elo Rank |
---|---|---|
1 | Brazil | 3 |
2 | Italy | 1 |
3 | Argentina | 4 |
4 | France | 2 |
5 | England | 5 |
6 | Netherlands | 6 |
7 | Spain | 7 |
8 | Portugal | 9 |
9 | Germany | 8 |
10 | Czech Republic | 11 |
11 | Nigeria | 22 |
12 | Cameroon | 21 |
13 | Switzerland | 12 |
14 | Uruguay | 14 |
15 | Ukraine | 24 |
16 | Mexico | 16 |
17 | Denmark | 10 |
18 | Ivory Coast | 25 |
19 | Paraguay | 28 |
20 | Sweden | 13 |
24.237.198.91 05:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a mention of ELO rankings including non-FIFA teams? Highest ranked non-FIFA team is Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is a member of NF-Board.
Why are bot the Strongest football nations by Elo Ratings and the Top 10 in this article caltulated since 1970?? There seams to be no reason to ignore previous years. I'm not sure how far back the available relevant information goes, but I would think it goes way back since there's a Top 20 per decade since 1950. There are coutries that are very much relegated because of this ommisions, most notably Uruguay.
Here are the 1872-2008 statistics.
-- Mariano( t/ c) 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone copied the "strongest teams by decade" tables from the Strongest Football Nations by Elo Ratings page to this page. Though I (of course) agree that that is very interesting information, this page is becoming very cluttered and you have to scroll a long way to the bottom to get the Elo rating actually explained. I believe this page really should focus on the method and the current results, with links to pages showing stats. Anyone object if I remove the decade tables again? Perhaps we can prune elsewhere as well. Afasmit ( talk) 04:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't connect to the ELO website. Has anyone else managed to do this recently? Exile ( talk) 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
There is any reference of Portugal team in 1966, according to numbers, on the nª3 of the ranking in that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.43.229 ( talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on the Elo ratings, it is also possible to calculate probabilities for a complete tournament if all future scenarios are considered. I've written the program "World Cup Ratings 2010" based on OpenOffice.org that performs the mentioned calculations for the World Cup 2010 and published it as freeware. It can be downloaded here, for example: http://www.file-upload.net/download-2455021/WorldCupRatings2010v1.0.zip.html All scenarios possible in the future (they're a lot) are taken into account. After each play, updates are possible. I've compared the results with predictions of several banks and with odd quotas and found big similarities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.82.181 ( talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
There are some problems waiting for the elo website to release new ratings after WC matches. While the formula does allow us to calculate results, it does not mean we should. Our object should ONLY be to update the ratings as the website does, otherwise it is original research per WP:OR. Note that this is only a problem because the speculative updates are usually wrong. Barronitaly ( talk) 13:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
New Zealand's tie with Italy in June 2010 put an OFC nation on the chart. Since there wasn't an OFC nation already I picked a pastel-ish color that wasn't being used already as a temporary color. I don't know if there is a color for OFC already...is there a chart somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barronitaly ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, it's been down for several days, making it difficult to verify the ratings. Enigma msg 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This site is down one more time. Dark Seer ( talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
An IP address user has replaced the main top 60 table with a top 100 table and has deleted the FIFA ranking information, perhaps because it was too much work to retrieve the remaining 40 FIFA values.
I've just used the ELO formula to calculate how many points Portugal will gain by beating Iceland on 7th October by 1 goal of difference and came to the conclusion that 36,1950059453032104637336504162 would be earned (using the Windows Calculator). My question is: does anyone know how ELO Ratings deals with decimal numbers, since they don't seem to be mentioned on the article? Are they rounded to the nearest number (which would be 36) or it's a result of me messing up during the calculations? And even if I did mess up, is it possible that decimal points can be obtained and they're rounded to the nearest value? Tarts2 ( talk) 22:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The highest average score ELO of Spain from 1 January 1970 to 1 June 2009 of Spain is 1912.1. Since then, Spain always has been up from 2040 ELO score so... it's impossible that from 1 January 1970 to 1 July 2012 its highest average score ELO is 1901.1. Please, recalculate it. And another question, why since 1 January 1970 and not before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.127.175 ( talk) 19:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this entire article is a joke and a travesty and ridiculous nonsense. Let me explain why:
1) Some people seem to be confusing "Elo" with this actual football site. The site just implements Elo in its ratings formula. There is no such thing as a country's "Elo rating", because it can have very different ratings depending on what Elo system you're using.
2) Following on from above, there is no such thing as the "Elo rating" of a team. I could create a rating system tomorrow using Elo and it would be just as legitimate to call it the team's "Elo rating". You need to say the exact place you're getting the rating from or it's meaningless. Once again: Elo is just a mathematical tool that's used in calculating this, there is no such thing as "the Elo rating" of a country.
3) The only legitimacy, the only reason the "Football Elo Ratings" website or whatever it's called is in ANY WAY notable is because of it being mentioned in some BBC article and some other sites online randomly. Sure, this offers it some semblance of legitimacy as opposed to any other random person who makes a rating system based on Elo tomorrow, but it's not very much.
4) The way Elo system is implemented on this site is frankly a load of crap for anyone who understands international football. Friendlies are counted. Little more than that needs to be said.
5) The author/owner of the website seems to be an attention-seeking jerk. He's done a lot to try to publicize the website, in other words to unfairly push it on Wikipedia somehow being "the" place for ratings. The author will not respond to any polite criticism of the website or address any concerns about eg. counting friendlies. And in fact when the rating system was created first, friendlies used to mean a lot more.
I encourage other people to take it into their own hands to create a proper Elo ranking system for international football teams instead of relying on this (joke) site. - as demonstrated above there are all kinds of inaccuracies and mistakes. I know there has to be some great computer science buffs out there who can create a proper system, beautiful graphs, etc., like they have with Elo ratings for the Premiership. Professional-like. Not this ill-conceived crap.
Anonywiki ( talk) 06:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Why since 1 January 1970 and not before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.127.175 ( talk) 19:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
For many years we had a top 60. Before that there were even shorter lists. Maintaining the current standing to 100 is considerably more work, as the lower ranked countries require more editing: they tend to have scores closer together, so that there is more movement (both in Elo and FIFA) and there are more awkward-to-edit ties. Also, the full list is only a click away, while the FIFA ranking page is limited to 20 for perhaps wikipedia-policy reasons. Does anyone feel strongly about keeping the top 100? Otherwise I'll cut it back to 60. Afasmit ( talk) 19:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Syria is in AFC and El Salvador is in CONCACAF. Additionally, El Salvador's colors should be changed from AFC to CONCACAF colors. Armenia is in UEFA but is highlighted with the CONCACAF colors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.156 ( talk) 17:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Younis7435 extended the list to contain all countries with a minimum number of matches played (I think), partly foregoing the formatting and with made-up FIFA rankings for the bottom 110 countries. User:Pelotas reverted it and so did I. Arguments against having a full list are the maintenance costs (just try to keep up with both Elo and FIFA ranks) and, possibly, copyrights. I seem to remember a wikipedia policy that discourages or warns against copying complete lists from third party sites. Pity I can't locate it; it was not just about copyrights. At the FIFA ranking there was an argument concerning keeping that particular list down to 20 countries; a copyright issue came up, but the decision to keep the short list seems to not be based on that. Personally I like to keep our list at 60, like it was for years (see above), since the full list, often just a hair more up to date then we can keep it, is just a single click away. Afasmit ( talk) 00:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand your feeling, maybe it is too much to have so much teams appeared on the table. However, I just want to compare with FIFA's football rankings, to see what is the difference between them. I am sorry to hear that the copyright's issue, I will apologized for the inconvenience of that situation.
Sweden and Greece at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.237.97 ( talk) 19:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
On the first paragraph (Top 60 rankings), it says the table was updated thanks to some website on the 18th of June, however the website referenced does not seem to have any match record after the 1st of June, so I was wondering how the data was retrieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwikiO ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The reference (currently [2]) to the World Elo Rating website has two problems. It says the site is "elo.net" whereas that site doesn't exist. It might be "eloratings.net" or "www.eloratings.net". And it says "Retrieved: 2014-06-05." whereas the article says it is showing data from 25 June 2014.
(Actually, whenever I go to this website, eloratings, I get an old version!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Barnett ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The referenced source for the top-60 table was last looked at 05 June 2014, the info in the table is current as of today? What is the source for this info? Who did the calculation? Where can I double-check it? I appreciate the work especially of User:Afasmit, but I'd still consider that original research, as it cannot be found anywhere else (or at least it is not referenced). Aside: The same could be said for most of the later sections of the article: Where did the authors take this info from? Pbro ( talk) 22:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Since ELO ratings are available immediately at the end of a match, did not Germany take the number one spot from the Netherlands on 4th of July 2014 and therefore was heading the list until the end of the match between Brazil and Colombia about 4 hours later?
Based on this webpage, and the following quarter final game against France, Germany should have a rating of 2098 points after beating France, overtaking the Netherlands, who were on 2094 points, while Brazil was still "stuck" on 2082 rating points until 4 hours later.
It matters all the more since it would be the first time that Germany headed the ratings in the period since 1 Jan 2000 which is the time covered by the lists presented. 84.133.50.117 ( talk) 21:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Where are people getting these new rankings from? According to the official website the most recent rankings are dated to 2 June 2014, so where did these new rankings come from? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I admit, this issue is not about the wiki page at all. But does anyone ever consider to question the very basics of this Elo formula? :))))
I mean these 2 rules:
This "K" adjustment for the goal difference does not exist in classic Elo-rating, but we definitely want to take it in account, somehow. Also, main measure of Elo rating's quality is prediction rate (the difference between the actual results and the result expectations are at a minimum).
So, what if instead of those 2 rules, there will be only one, like this:
I'm sure this formula will give much better prediction rate. Actually, new formula predicts not only the result, but also goal difference! For example, if team A is 400 points stronger than team B, the expected result will be "A wins by 2 goals". And A's victory by only 1 goal will reduce A's points - the result most of us expect when a very strong team finishes "only" 1:0 against outsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyan ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about how to calculate We, specifically how the higher winning expectancy for the home team is calculated. This is an example of how I understand this so far: A (300 pts) vs. B (500 pts.), the result will be a 1 - 0. dr for A sohuld be -200+100=-100 then, for B 200. We of A is 1/(10^(-(-100)/400)+1)=0.3599, We of B is 1/(10^(-200/400)+1)=0.7597. If we assume K=40 then A will be rewarded 26 pts and 30 pts. will be taken from B. What I don’t understand is why I can’t find a single example, neither here nor any of the actual matches on eloratings.net where there is a difference between the points taken from one team and given to the other. Or maybe I have a misunderstanding in the very beginning, that you have to both add 100 pts to the dr of the home team and substract 100 pts from the guest team. However, if my understanding is correct, maybe an appropriate example can be given on the page, if the second case is correct maybe it would be helpful to make this clearer when dr is explained. Thanks, Jonas :-D-- 95.90.208.183 ( talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It would be great to expand the #1 teams section to earlier decades to include the other great teams of the past century (Hungary, Soviet Union, Poland, Austria, etc) that are no longer at the top of the rankings. Adding to the existing section will eventually become too cumbersome with the frequency the top team changes during major tournaments. A timeline may be a better representation (similar to the one found on the FIFA rankings). A timeline covering multiple decades poses its own problems (e.g labeling of teams in #1 spot for less than a month), but breaking it down to single decades seems to be a good balance. I included an example spanning the 1990's
In addition, each decade could have its own section where the change at the top may be linked to the game where either a team won to overtake the top spot or they lost to fall out of it. Explanations as to why the #1 team changes so frequently in June and July may be appropriate here to fill out the section. The result would also be an article less table-heavy. Spiaggia12 ( talk) 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
This may seem self-evident to most readers. A text like "Since Elo scores reflect past accomplishments, the table represents the relative strength of national teams since the mid to late 1960s." for the 1970 to now average section may therefore be deemed unnecessary emphasis. (The concept used to be reflected in the section heading even, but that was removed for stylistic reasons) However, User:Koppapa has repeatedly deleted this nota bene in both the half-century and decade averages sections because it "needs a much better source" and "elo tries to give a good current rating. there are no accomplishments or achievents in it." He may really believe that the average score for the period 1 August 2014 to 1 November 2015 for, say, the Netherlands (2004.2) and Iceland (1632.7) is a good reflection of the relative strengths of those two teams over that period and has nothing to do with the accomplishments of the teams in the years before. In that case, there may be more like him, and the note appears to have a good function. I've grown tired of re-inserting versions of it. Perhaps someone else can formulate it better. Afasmit ( talk) 08:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Is someone who has got a time to updated fifa rank in the tabele with elo ratings? Dawid2009 ( talk) 09:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't set an aribitrary limit of 30 prior games. This is not shown in the source website. Also, a limit makes sense when teams start at a fixed numer of points. This is however not done with that website, italy started at 1708, germany 1684, spain 1835. Other nations at the end of the trating start as low as 500 points. so a restriction to 30 games should not applied here. - Koppapa ( talk) 11:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
These corrections are strange and probably mess up a lot of other stats on this article. How excactly are the averages by decade sourced? Is there anything on the website? If not they should probably go. - Koppapa ( talk) 10:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Why Wikipedia has an article on a ranking done by a website, recognizing it as something "official" over other multiple websites that also use alternative rankings to FIFA ones??
http://www.weglobalfootball.com/rankings/ http://www.rankfootball.com/ etc, etc, etc...
My query not's to start a battle, but really I don't understand why articles often be quickly delete, and others are elevated to a status that is not theirs. This article I repeat, is about one ranking made by a website, if we make articles about each ranking prepared in multiple sports by multiple sites would end up no more. But, because this site is given so much importance?
The role of rankings as the FIFA Rank. is in some extent show the current power of the teams, with all the defects it may contain, it is the official rank. in charge of the Federation governing that sport. The WF Elo Ranking has the shortcoming that the current ranking of a team is determined by performances of 100 years ago. Similarly, in many cases, like in the 90's, this flaw creates a team that is First in the ranking in the middle of an unbeaten row of 33 matches, winning 2 continental cups and 2 intercontinental in that row, but lose the first place despite not losing and win every tournament during that time, going to occupy the first place a team that during that year only played 11 friendlies, of which he lost even, after surpass it in the ranking, with the team that held the first place just months before -the team in the middle of a 33 matches without know the defeat and with 4 official titles at that time, which is illogical, and especially considering the role of rankings is show the current strength of a national team. 152.170.24.22 ( talk) 20:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Why do the ratings for the top teams increase over time? Look at the median of the top 10 teams' ratings for each decade:
(Note: I chose a median rather than the highest rating because the latter is, statistically speaking, an extreme in the distribution, and thus more likely to contain noise than a median. And I used top-10 because I wanted to look at the best teams in the world, and 10 seemed like a nice round number.)
I understand why there is "ratings inflation" in chess among the top players: New players come into the rating system, bringing in points. The points, getting exchanged every time there's a game that contributes to the ratings, eventually trickle up to the highest levels and gradually raise the ratings.
But in international football (soccer), there aren't any new teams coming in. Or hardly any -- certainly not enough to alter the ratings much. So why is the median of the top-10 increasing over time? Is there some other mechanism by which ratings inflation happens? Or have the top teams actually gotten relatively better than the average and poor teams, so they've garnered more points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKMell ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I find ELO rankings before each World Cup to be very interesting. I was wondering if I could find anywhere past national teams ELO rankings. On eloratings just the current one is available, if I wanted to know f.ex. 2011 June ranking, I would have to check it country by country. On clubelo there's a time changing tool that allows you to check the ranking for a particular date, but not for national teams.
I assume you are doing your excels but maybe I can check that info easily anywhere, I just can't find it.
Since I'm a newbie, sorry if this doesn't belong here, but I would propose adding to the list all non-qualyfiers reaching ELO Top-32, so we can see who deserved to be but wasn't and compare.
One last thing, in 1998 world cup ELO pre-ranking, Nigeria appears twice (I suppose the second one is the mistake, as Costa Rica shares the same points). Sorry again if this is not the place, I didn't want to ruin all your work! Oh, and I would also like to know where did you get EUSKAL HERRIA, CATALUNYA and GALICIA elo points, since I'm from the Basque country. Thank you Alexmostovoi ( talk) 22:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I found it right after writing this. Amazing website, so glad I finally found it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmostovoi ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Though I endorsed the inclusion of absent top 10 teams, I don't think highlighting the absent continental cup winners is helpful, while the chosen color draws too much attention to absent teams in general; the absence of Tahiti was not the most memorable aspect of the 2014 World Cup. For the 2018 World Cup, the top 26 teams are listed, except #11 Netherlands, which in June could very well be Italy. Either team's absence is more notable than, say, that of New Zealand. The withdrawal of India in 1950 is also somewhat spurious to report°, as their withdrawal was only possible because a number of other countries had withdrawn before them. Afasmit ( talk) 22:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm interested in, how are set points for the first ever match of a national team? Why did e.g. England have at the beginning (1872) 1800 points, Poland (1921) 1600 points and South Sudan (2011) 1300 points? -- Kamilhrub ( talk) 13:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
In the section describing the expected result, it says "where dr equals the difference in ratings (add 100 points for the home team). So dr of 0 gives 0.5, of 120 gives 0.666 to the higher-ranked team and 0.334 to the lower, and of 800 gives 0.99 to the higher-ranked team and 0.01 to the lower." - however, this sample if including 100pts for home teams (as per the brackets), is not correct. The expected results are only correct if you exclude the home teams points. Perhaps, a new line just giving the expected results of neutral venue and then home venue? John arneVN ( talk) 07:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me sections: #History, #Overview, #Basic calculation principles, should be related in primary part of article (1,2,3 sections) no as addition (9, 10, 11 sections). Overview certainly is more important than various informations in 1-8 sections. Dawid2009 ( talk) 10:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
A few weeks ago all tables but the current rankings were removed after a brief exchange at the WikiProject Football discussion page (look for "World Football Elo Ratings" in the archives if it is gone by now). After a reply, I reverted the deletions, but it may be good to do some clean-up, as there was some valid argument of cruft building up (as if our text is code...). May I suggest the following:
And for some good new, we now know that the new FIFA ratings starting late in 2018 are going to be closely modeled after the Elo rating system. It took a while, but for that institute's notorious reluctance in catching up with modernity, we cannot complain. Afasmit ( talk) 01:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I can not find any section that talks about the overrepresentation of the British teams on the Ranking Elo also about the no-way same thing to take a match between Germany vs San Marino in the same way to a Brazil vs Perú as example 181.29.116.218 ( talk) 18:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)