A problem with the skill rating
I have been watching how it varies the skill rating, and I notice that at the end is a constant that increases your skill if you win and decreases if you lose (considering also when there is a tie, and it is decided by GP), so for example, it is not considering for how much points you win or lose, which I think is something to be considered if you want to measure "skill", because it is not the same if you struggle to win, or if you win for a lot.
0
Replies
Never watch football (soccer) league huh?
Win = 3 points
4:3 = 3 points
1:0 = 3 points
6:0 still 3 points
A win is a win.
.
It would have that effect, yes.
I like the current binary approach a lot more as there’s less scope for micromanaging SR.
Which major football league you are watching then? GD only taking unto accounts while teams has the same points at the end of the league or group stage.
I am talking about the league rules, not FIFA world ranking.
Ok. Either way it shows point spread is a valid factor.
SR is not a measure of your skill. Don't let the name confuse you.
usausausa
Maybe,. but since they call it 'SKILL' points....seems exceedingly wrong then that if you're massively outclassed but loose 1400-1390, you're so called 'SKILL RATING' reflects exactly the same as if you were waxed by someone 1400-10. One would show much more skill than the other.
People get way too hung up on the term "skill rating". It's just a reflection of where you started out on the ladder and how much you've been winning and losing since, not how much skill you've shown in your matchups. They should've just called it "championship rating" or something
Your example shows exactly why there is no purpose to a change like this.
One player scores 1400 through their actions. The difference is driven by the other players lack of desire or ability to play. Neither of those show any skill at all to the winning player. The skill is measured by how little you lose, not by any internal value that could be manipulated or driven up by the other person taking(or not taking) specific actions.
Or maybe one just showed a higher level of activity than the other. The one losing 1400-10 could be the more skilled player.
You shouldn't let the term "Skill Rating" confuse you. The rating is all about wins and losses - not skill.
The FIFA world ranking is complete horse doo-doo. Just as an fyi. It's an underhanded design that the different federations use to artificially enhance their ranking so even a horrible team can claim top spot if they just pick on smaller nations with teams that lack professional footballers.
I decided to look into it a few years ago and....yeah UEFA especially manipulates the heck out of it so European nations can secure those top spots.
Hmm. That sounds great until you get to Belgium being the world no 1. Any global conspiracy by the Belgians is frankly a little harder to believe. Especially if it’s achieved by picking on ‘smaller nations’. I.e. smaller than Belgium?
However, at points Belgium probably have been the best nation in the world. The thing is after Germany and France won the World Cup, they both had severe dips in form. Where as Belgium haven't suffered any dips. If you take 10 games of varying difficulty over the last 8 years. You'd put Belgium at the top of the list of most likely to win them all. Where they come unstuck is against the best nations making it tough. France, Argentina, Italy all have beaten them at major championships this way.
So the question is (football) should the world number 1 be a major championship winner or a team that consistently wins and gets to the latter stages of tournaments? If it's the former, then it's definitely not Belgium. If it's the latter then it probably is............for now anyway as sadly Belgium's wonderful team is just about done.