Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: badgerboy
Date: 06-10-2007, 13:20

What I've done here is to add up all the finishing positions of each individual country in the coefficient ranking lists for each single season since 1999-2000.

To me this should be a good measure of the consistency of countries over time.

Obviously the lower the score the more consistent the country.

To give some examples of how it works:

Spain are top of the list. Their lowest finishing position was 3rd -in 2004-05. Otherwise they have been 2nd twice and 1st the other five seasons. Their points total - in reverse season order -

1+2+3+1+2+1+1+1=12

Romania have finished very high in the last couple of ranking lists (4th last year & 1st in 2005-06) but not so high in previous years -

4+1+13+17+28+25+33+14=135

Full List
Spain 12
England 22
Italy 24
France 42
Germany 47
Portugal 61
Netherlands 70
Scotland 90
Turkey 95
Belgium 100
Greece 100
Czech Rep. 103
Ukraine 111
Russia 116
Romania 135
Switzerland 138
Norway 142
Bulgaria 150
Austria 152
Serbia-M. 153
Israel 157
Denmark 172
Poland 176
Sweden 190
Hungary 204
Slovakia 206
Croatia 219
Slovenia 219
Cyprus 233
Latvia 235
Moldova 249
Finland 253
Lithuania 266
Ireland 273
Bosnia 275
Georgia 276
Macedonia 278
Belarus 292
Iceland 293
Liechtenstein 302
Estonia 321
Armenia 322
Albania 324
Malta 331
Azerbaijan 335
Wales 338
N.Ireland 347
Luxembourg 357
Faroe Is. 359
Kazakhstan 374
Andorra 391
San Marino 395

Author: badgerboy
Date: 06-10-2007, 13:22
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 06-10-2007, 13:38

Next - the same ranking but using just the five most reason seasons. I've added their position in the actual coefficient ranking list for 2007 (so the same five years) to see how it compares.

1. Spain 9 (1)
2=. England 14 (2)
2=. Italy 14 (3)
4. France 23 (4)
5. Portugal 35 (6)
6. Germany 38 (5)
7. Netherlands 45 (8)
8=. Russia 54 (9)
8=. Scotland 54 (10)
10. Belgium 60 (12)
11. Ukraine 61 (11)
12. Romania 63 (7)
13. Turkey 69 (14)
14. Czech Rep. 71 (13)
15. Greece 76 (15)
16. Serbia-M. 91 (20)
17=. Bulgaria 92 (16)
17=. Norway 92 (18)
19. Switzerland 93 (17)
20. Israel 99 (19)
21. Denmark 104 (21)
22. Austria 106 (22)
23. Poland 115 (23)
24. Hungary 129 (24)
25. Slovakia 137 (25)
26. Latvia 139 (31)
27. Bosnia 140 (30)
28=. Slovenia 142 (29)
28=. Sweden 142 (28)
30. Cyprus 143 (27)
31. Lithuania 156 (32)
32=. Croatia 157 (26)
32=. Moldova 157 (34)
34. Finland 161 (33)
35. Macedonia 168 (38)
36. Ireland 169 (35)
37. Georgia 173 (36)
38. Liechtenstein 174 (37)
39. Belarus 179 (40)
40. Iceland 191 (39)
41=. Albania 197 (41)
41=. Armenia 197 (43)
41=. Estonia 197 (42)
44. Azerbaijan 211 (44)
45. N.Ireland 217 (46)
46=. Malta 219 (50)
46=. Wales 219 (47)
48. Kazakhstan 220 (45)
49. Luxembourg 227 (49)
50. Faroe Is. 228 (48)
51=. Andorra 248 (51)
51=. San Marino 248 (52)

Author: badgerboy
Date: 06-10-2007, 13:25

And finally the last four seasons - so the same seasons that will be relevant to the 2008 ranking list (with this year obviously still to be added).

Spain 7
England 10
Italy 13
France 17
Portugal 32
Germany 33
Netherlands 33
Russia 34
Romania 35
Ukraine 44
Scotland 47
Belgium 51
Turkey 53
Czech Rep. 60
Norway 66
Greece 68
Bulgaria 74
Serbia-M. 76
Switzerland 80
Denmark 83
Israel 85
Austria 87
Slovakia 99
Slovenia 104
Poland 105
Hungary 107
Latvia 109
Sweden 115
Bosnia 116
Finland 118
Lithuania 120
Cyprus 121
Ireland 123
Moldova 123
Croatia 132
Macedonia 138
Liechtenstein 140
Georgia 144
Iceland 145
Belarus 149
Estonia 151
Albania 159
Azerbaijan 159
Armenia 167
N.Ireland 174
Wales 176
Kazakhstan 179
Faroe Is. 182
Malta 183
Luxembourg 186
Andorra 198
San Marino 198

Re: Coefficient "consistency" ranking.
Author: Tirion Date: 06-10-2007, 13:37	Obviously the lower the score the more consistent the country. I?d rather say "The lower the score the more successfull the country". I think San Marino and Andorra, have been quite consistent. If you want to say something about consistency you should examine the standard deviation.

Re: Coefficient "consistency" ranking.
Author: badgerboy Date: 06-10-2007, 14:21	"I?d rather say "The lower the score the more successfull the country". I think San Marino and Andorra, have been quite consistent". Good point! As for the "standard deviation". Also I suspect a very good point but there are folks here much better at that sort of thing than me - so I'll happily leave it to them!

Author: cska
Date: 06-10-2007, 15:21
Edited by: cska
at: 06-10-2007, 15:25

Also, for the correct calculation - Andorra and San Marino are good examples - they had 0 pts until this year - that is why they BOTH occupied the bottom place. So, we can't attribute 51 to one and 52 to the other one - maybe a mean of 51,5 would be more accurate. The same is valid also for countries, which ended at equal points and had equal points also in the previous years.
However, "consistency" is more typical at the top and at the bottom, because you can't go above rank 1 and you can't go down below rank 53. However, in the middle you must observe "trends". For example, you may use "least squares method" to calculate linear trends.
Also, the number of countries changed over the years. And also, the number of theoretically available points and the distribution of teams and IT regulations also changed.
For me, a good indicator would be to measure the achieved coefficient in year X out of the theoretically possible coefficient, i.e. if country X could theoretically make 20,000 and earned 8,000 then the index will be 0,4 or 40%. Theoretically possible points would include QR's and the respective allocation of teams.
For example. This year Bulgaria could have had theoretically 37 (Levski in CL from QR2) + 37 (Litex in UC from QR1) + 33 (CSKA in UC from QR2 if they lose the final) + 28 (loko Sofia in UC from QR2 if they lose BOTH semi-final legs to Litex or to CSKA plus a loss of 1 bonus point for reaching the final) = 135 / 4 = 33,750. The actual coeff was 2,750. The efficiency index will be: 2,75 / 33,75 = 0,0815 or 8,15 %. Last year we had 5,250. The theoretically possible coeff was the same, as CL team started in QR2, 2 UC teams started in QR2 and Loko Sofia started in QR1. So, the efficiency index was: 5,25 / 33,75 = 0,1556 or 15,56%.
I think that measuring performance based on achieved points versus the possible points is more accurate, because Bulgaria was inconsistent in points, but consistent in ranking - between 17th and 16th over the last 4 years, while the earned points fluctuate a lot - from 4,166 to 2,375 to 8,250 to 5,250 and to 2,750. However, the "optical" illusion of consistency because of ranking is because in our weak years our opponents also had weak years and in good years our opponents also had good years. "Consistency" based on rankings means that country X will always depend on the performance of Y and Z, while index based on points themselves is a more absolute criteria independent on other countries' performance.
If I must think of example outside Bulgaria: The record coeff of 16,833 of Romania 2 years ago would bring a much better efficiency index, but the miserable 2,166 before that tamper the index. After that the 11,833 add to the observation that instead of "consistency", in the case of Romania we have a "trend". A positive trend. We must wait to see what Steaua can do to say whether the trend reached its downswing point.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 06-10-2007, 17:09

"Also, for the correct calculation - Andorra and San Marino are good examples - they had 0 pts until this year - that is why they BOTH occupied the bottom place. So, we can't attribute 51 to one and 52 to the other one - maybe a mean of 51,5 would be more accurate".

Where teams finished level I took the highest place (so San Marino and Andorra were 51st equal). I also placed Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan & Bosnia last in the years they had no entries at all (just so their numbers made some sense).

The other thing I was interested in with the numbers was the performance needed each year to reach the various "key positions". I must admit these fluctuated a lot more than I expected rather than there being any obvious trends that I might have expected due to say the introduction of the UEFA Cup groups.

3rd place
2006-07 11.928
2005-06 15.357
2004-05 12.437
2003-04 11.250
2002-03 10.750
2001-02 12.571
2000-01 11.062
1999-00 12.000

8th place
2006-07 8.083
2005-06 9.375
2004-05 8.166
2003-04 6.500
2002-03 7.166
2001-02 8.333
2000-01 7.000
1999-00 6.250

15th place
2006-07 6.000
2005-06 4.625
2004-05 4.750
2003-04 4.714
2002-03 4.833
2001-02 4.833
2000-01 4.625
1999-00 4.333

21st place
2006-07 2.833
2005-06 3.250
2004-05 3.166
2003-04 4.125
2002-03 3.250
2001-02 3.500
2000-01 3.750
1999-00 3.250