Wealth & Population Adjusted Elo Ratings (Australian Rules Football)

[Abram Jones]

before i get started, there's no need to criticize my flag choices. data entry and research for this project is brutal... so i need to have some fun with flags at least

the point of these rankings is to estimate the true skill of a nation, because wealth and population amount make it easier for bigger and richer countries to perform well. relative performance per wealth and population amount is what is measured here.

these rankings are quite accurate, there are a few discrepancies here and there. these are due to lack of games played 9 times out of 10 and should normally resolve themselves after a nation plays at least 30 matches. the worst case is South Africa and Britain being underrated in 2014, not enough matches against sufficiently sized/ranked countries were played by South Africa. South Africa is currently the second best country outside of Oceania.

2014: http://internationalsports.nfshost.com/index.php/home/load_sports/18/2014
ALL TIME: http://internationalsports.nfshost.com/index.php/home/load_all_time/18

 

[RedV3x]

the point of these rankings is to estimate the true skill of a nation, because wealth and population amount make it easier for bigger and richer countries to perform well. relative performance per wealth and population amount is what is measured here.

So when did Australia play all of it's ranking matches ?

the point of these rankings is to estimate the true skill of a nation, because wealth and population amount make it easier for bigger and richer countries to perform well. relative performance per wealth and population amount is what is measured here.

these rankings are quite accurate,

There is something seriously askew with your algorithm when Nauru is not the top nation .

Does your algorithm take into account height because PNG would win every time with height ?
Does your algorithm take into account access to players of a similar code like Ireland ?
Does your algorithm take into account competition from other codes ?
Does your algorithm take into account the benefit from other codes ?

When you talk about wealth, is it the wealth of the nation, the people, the code, the league or the access to sport in general ?
When you take into account the wealth of a league do you take into account foreign aid, government aid, AFL aid and sponsorship ?

P.S. I like your flags but your Australian flag is like Solomon Islands.
Strange as it seems the Southern Cross is not owned by Australia.

 

[Abram Jones]

So when did Australia play all of it's ranking matches ?

Australian matches are determined by some matches played by the u-17 team, Australian Spirit, Australian Convicts, and Australian Defense Force. this will be the case until Australia sends a national team. you can view match results and adjusted scores by clicking on the matches button, which is provided each year.

There is something seriously askew with your algorithm when Nauru is not the top nation .

are you saying Nauru should be ranked above Australia, or do you mean Nauru should be ranked above Papua New Guinea, Ireland, and New Zealand?

Does your algorithm take into account height because PNG would win every time with height ?
Does your algorithm take into account access to players of a similar code like Ireland ?
Does your algorithm take into account competition from other codes ?
Does your algorithm take into account the benefit from other codes ?

When you talk about wealth, is it the wealth of the nation, the people, the code, the league or the access to sport in general ?
When you take into account the wealth of a league do you take into account foreign aid, government aid, AFL aid and sponsorship ?

no, only international results of national teams in Australian Rules Football, national wealth, and national population are taken into consideration.

P.S. I like your flags but your Australian flag is like Solomon Islands.
Strange as it seems the Southern Cross is not owned by Australia.

source for Australia's recent flag: http://www.ausflag.com.au/MediaAlert_Jan2013.asp

 

[RedV3x]

are you saying Nauru should be ranked above Australia, or do you mean Nauru should be ranked above Papua New Guinea, Ireland, and New Zealand ?

I don't see what you're trying to achieve here.
I know that Nauru, resource for resource, is easily the highest ranked Australian Football playing country in the world.
A poor country of 10,000 people defeat the 2m giants of the USA.

 

[RedV3x]

only international results of national teams in Australian Rules Football, national wealth, and national population are taken into consideration.

Australia has 2,400 X the population of Nauru.
The USA has 14 X population of Australia.
China has over 1.371 billion in population.
Talking population is almost meaningless.

A resources/benefit index could be useful but it's way too complicated.

 

[Abram Jones]

Australia has 2,400 X the population of Nauru.
The USA has 14 X population of Australia.
China has over 1.371 billion in population.
Talking population is almost meaningless.

A resources/benefit index could be useful but it's way too complicated.

of course population alone is almost meaningless, wealth alone also has big issues. wealth and population together is very important.

I don't see what you're trying to achieve here.
I know that Nauru, resource for resource, is easily the highest ranked Australian Football playing country in the world.
A poor country of 10,000 people defeat the 2m giants of the USA.

well, Nauru is ranked above the United States in both regular rankings and my wealth and population rankings, so there is no issue there (in normal 2014 rankings they are currently ranked #5, in 2014 in my rankings they are ranked #3). however, how are you so sure that Nauru is more efficient than Australia and Papua New Guinea in the sport? is this a known fact by experts in the sport or an assumption? i am certainly open to the idea that Nauru should be ranked higher... it's difficult to accurately rank micro sized countries in any sport because of the exponential advantages countries have when they are moderately bigger. my rankings certainly need upgrading in that area, however, with regularly small countries my rankings are very accurate, much better than normal rankings 9 times out of 10. i'm going to have to see what i can do about extremely small countries like Nauru. we should also wait after the 2017 competition to see how things unfold, because keep in mind Nauru still has not played 30 matches (this is the minimum amount of matches a country should play before casting too much judgement on the rating they have).

As you can see in my rankings Oceanic countries like Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa are ranked above other countries, which is not always the case in normal rankings. this is one of the advantages to this method in achieving more realistic rankings.

 

[RedV3x]

how are you so sure that Nauru is more efficient than Australia and Papua New Guinea in the sport? is this a known fact by experts in the sport or an assumption?

Efficient ? I have no idea. Passionate Yes. Almost every Nauruan follows Australian Football.
Efficient, that would be Ireland. Very few players w.r.t. population but dominate proceedings.

I still don't know what you are trying to achieve.
Obviously any adjustments are arbitary (even though the actual statistics might be accurate).

Skillful, The Nauruans are easily the most skillful team per head of population.
The Irish dominate because they are tough.
The British, Canadians, Americans and new Zealanders are competitive because they have talls.
One of the best teams to watch and crowd favourite is Japan very skilful but again they lack talls.

I don't know what indices you have to reflect that.

 

[RedV3x]

source for Australia's recent flag:

This one seems more appropriate don't you think.

 

[Abram Jones]

Efficient ? I have no idea. Passionate Yes. Almost every Nauruan follows Australian Football.
Efficient, that would be Ireland. Very few players w.r.t. population but dominate proceedings.

I still don't know what you are trying to achieve.
Obviously any adjustments are arbitary (even though the actual statistics might be accurate).

Skillful, The Nauruans are easily the most skillful team per head of population.
The Irish dominate because they are tough.
The British, Canadians, Americans and new Zealanders are competitive because they have talls.
One of the best teams to watch and crowd favourite is Japan very skilful but again they lack talls.

I don't know what indices you have to reflect that.

i think maybe you are misunderstanding the purpose of these rankings. though i think a ranking system that took those things you mention into consideration would be simply amazing, that is not what my rankings are for. the purpose of my rankings is to estimate the relative performance of countries while reducing/eliminating the impact of wealth and population amount of the countries. this better reflects the skill (within context i'm using skill... which is in regards to relative performance).

 

[RedV3x]

i think maybe you are misunderstanding the purpose of these rankings.

No, you've explained the purpose adequately and I understand the parameters .
I'm just not sure it can replace simple descriptions.

 

[Abram Jones]

No, you've explained the purpose adequately and I understand the parameters .
I'm just not sure it can replace simple descriptions.

what do you mean simple descriptions? what i offer is not really that complex, it's pretty elementary.

 

[*Crash*]

before i get started, there's no need to criticize my flag choices. data entry and research for this project is brutal... so i need to have some fun with flags at least

the point of these rankings is to estimate the true skill of a nation, because wealth and population amount make it easier for bigger and richer countries to perform well. relative performance per wealth and population amount is what is measured here.

these rankings are quite accurate, there are a few discrepancies here and there. these are due to lack of games played 9 times out of 10 and should normally resolve themselves after a nation plays at least 30 matches. the worst case is South Africa and Britain being underrated in 2014, not enough matches against sufficiently sized/ranked countries were played by South Africa. South Africa is currently the second best country outside of Oceania.

2014: http://internationalsports.nfshost.com/index.php/home/load_sports/18/2014
ALL TIME: http://internationalsports.nfshost.com/index.php/home/load_all_time/18

Like what you have done Abram. Pretty good all up. As you said the main problem generally is the number of matches played as it will be for just about any system you can come up with. And then by the time there are enough matches to truly represent the situation a number of them are actually of little relevance to the current situation (South Africa again here). So whatever system you use will have it's flaws but I think generally you achieved what you set out to achieve. Also the Israel/Palestine combo fair a bit too well for my liking. I applaud your work here.

We are hopeful that one day the world governing body will establish an official rankings system but until that time we can make our own best efforts for our own amusement if nothing else.

 

[RedV3x]

what do you mean simple descriptions? what i offer is not really that complex, it's pretty elementary.

IMO these descriptions offer simple precise insight.
"Skillful, The Nauruans are easily the most skillful team per head of population.
The Irish dominate because they are tough.
The British, Canadians, Americans and new Zealanders are competitive because they have talls.
One of the best teams to watch and crowd favourite is Japan very skilful but again they lack talls."

At the end of day it's the team that wins that improves it's ratings.
What is the intended purpose of these ratings ?
At the moment they appear to be just an interesting exercise.

I would like to see some discussion about if we invest x dollars then the return will be y dollars.
i can assure you that is not a linear equation.

 

[Abram Jones]

IMO these descriptions offer simple precise insight.
"Skillful, The Nauruans are easily the most skillful team per head of population.
The Irish dominate because they are tough.
The British, Canadians, Americans and new Zealanders are competitive because they have talls.
One of the best teams to watch and crowd favourite is Japan very skilful but again they lack talls."

certainly human input is always welcome i just think mathematical analysis is also important.

At the end of day it's the team that wins that improves it's ratings.\

not necessarily in my rankings. in this case bigger and richer countries must win by higher margins to improve it's rankings. for instance, if the United States ever beat Nauru by 4 or 5 points, Nauru would still get credit for the win in my rankings, because they would be still outplaying the United States per capita and wealth.

What is the intended purpose of these ratings ?
At the moment they appear to be just an interesting exercise.

as stated before, it's a measure of relative performance considering the wealth and population amount. to some it could be an interesting exercise as you say, to others it could be a testament to a country's true ability.

 

[RedV3x]

as stated before, it's a measure of relative performance considering the wealth and population amount. to some it could be an interesting exercise as you say, to others it could be a testament to a country's true ability.

You probably think I'm being obstreperous and i don't want to dampen your enthusiasm
but I guess I look at ways to improve development not measure it.
The ultimate measurement is who wins. You have looked at some factors.
One factor the is acknowledged at a high level is the quality of the local competition in forming a representative team.
The USA has the numbers spread across nearly 40 clubs as against Canada which has the benefit of a robust 10 club competition.
Currently Croatia is trying to make it to the 2017 I.C. I hope they make it. I'd be very interested to see how they perform.
The Croatians are the most feared team in Europe despite having a small league
and the competition in that league are a good precursor to the I.C.
It's strange that the USA and Canada suspend the 49th Cup during the year of the I.C. yet travel to Europe for competition.

 

[Abram Jones]

You probably think I'm being obstreperous and i don't want to dampen your enthusiasm
but I guess I look at ways to improve development not measure it.
The ultimate measurement is who wins. You have looked at some factors.
One factor the is acknowledged at a high level is the quality of the local competition in forming a representative team.
The USA has the numbers spread across nearly 40 clubs as against Canada which has the benefit of a robust 10 club competition.
Currently Croatia is trying to make it to the 2017 I.C. I hope they make it. I'd be very interested to see how they perform.
The Croatians are the most feared team in Europe despite having a small league
and the competition in that league are a good precursor to the I.C.
It's strange that the USA and Canada suspend the 49th Cup during the year of the I.C. yet travel to Europe for competition.

the Croatians are beasts, that is why. most countries their size can't pull off the things they can. i hope that they make it too. they perform exceptionally well in many sports. this is the same for most other countries that used to be part of Yugoslavia.

 

[RedV3x]

most countries their size can't pull off the things they can.

The Croatian league is different to most countries in that it is essentially (up until recently) the city of Zagreb league.
Zagreb is lucky to be close to Slovenia because the Dalmation coast is where all the Croatian money is.
It's not difficult to see how results get manufactured when you see tennis being played everywhere in those former communist republics.

 

[RedV3x]

The Croatian league is different to most countries in that it is essentially (up until recently) the city of Zagreb league.
Zagreb is lucky to be close to Slovenia because the Dalmation coast is where all the Croatian money is.
It's not difficult to see how results get manufactured when you see tennis being played everywhere in those former communist republics.

Mathew Pavlich and Glen Jakovich are doing their bit to promote Croatia's attempt to attend I.C. 2017.