Rugby Union Rankings Complete (1871-2017)

Post anything about rugby union here

Rugby Union Rankings Complete (1871-2017)

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

25 Nov 2017, 16:49 #1

These are wealth and population adjusted rankings, and yes alternative flags are still used in some cases. Features specialty teams such as Britain United Ireland, Pacific Islands, New Zealand Maori, and British Columbia. Unfortunately Central American countries have not played enough with the international community to be ranked. It is the same situation for the Southern United States team. Still working on water polo and handball, will try to start field hockey soon. In the future I will have new features such as comparing nations' scores in various sports as well as viewing totals by different eras.

All Time: http://internationalsports.nfshost.com/ ... ll_time/45
2017: http://internationalsports.nfshost.com/ ... ts/45/2017

note: England, France, etc. are quite low in All Time because of their relative poor performance at certain points in history (keep in mind this is an issue of the relative perspective of the rankings, not the actual ratings themselves). However, if a "contemporary decades" era were to be viewed countries like England and France would rank quite high. The only really bad result I had with these rankings is Romania being overrated during the Cold War era due to facing very easy competition almost continuously. Their true abilities were rarely tested by major rugby powers, which is quite unfortunate. Italy is having a similar and much less severe problem in the rankings, but in the opposite direction (they are underrated at times). In the future I can also add more complexity to the ranking system to prevent errors in rankings from extreme circumstances like these 2, but I don't have the resources at the time.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

25 Nov 2017, 21:48 #2

Given your liking for historical pseudo-countries and quirky choices of flags, I'm surprised you haven't included the various South African provincial teams (Transvaal, Free State etc) in your all-time ranking.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

26 Nov 2017, 05:17 #3

nfm24 wrote: Given your liking for historical pseudo-countries and quirky choices of flags, I'm surprised you haven't included the various South African provincial teams (Transvaal, Free State etc) in your all-time ranking.
I wasn't aware of these. Do you know the requirements for players to be on the teams? In rugby and Aussie rules I'm aware of Australian state teams, but from what I can tell their roster requirements are not strong enough to consider them equative to national sides. However, in Gaelic football they are generally more strict on this and could qualify as something equative to national sides.
Reply

TheRoonBa
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

26 Nov 2017, 12:41 #4

How many matches are required for teams to get into the main rankings?

For example, teams that you have listed at the bottom as "not rated" have in some cases played more matches than teams that have provisional ratings (e.g. Estonia with only 12 matches) or final ratings (e.g. Indonesia with only 23 matches).

Only counting since 1992 (and your rankings consider matches going back 121 years further than this, to 1871), the following teams have played over 10 matches (number of matches in parentheses):

Trinidad & Tobago (48)
Bermuda (45)
Barbados (44)
Togo (37)
Ghana (35)
Niger (30)
Mexico (29)
Guatemala (26)
Rwanda (25)
Swaziland (23)
El Salvador (20)
Lebanon (18)
Panama (18)
Réunion (18)
Algeria (11)
Jordan (10)
Qatar (10)

It shouldn't matter how many matches a particular team have played internationally (outside their own continent) - if they have played other teams within their own continent who have played internationally, this should be sufficient to rank them meaningfully... (e.g. if Mexico has played USA or Canada, then this should be enough to rank them meaningfully, as USA and Canada are both well-connected.)
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

26 Nov 2017, 13:21 #5

TheRoonBa wrote: How many matches are required for teams to get into the main rankings?

For example, teams that you have listed at the bottom as "not rated" have in some cases played more matches than teams that have provisional ratings (e.g. Estonia with only 12 matches) or final ratings (e.g. Indonesia with only 23 matches).

It shouldn't matter how many matches a particular team have played internationally (outside their own continent) - if they have played other teams within their own continent who have played internationally, this should eb sufficient to rank them meaningfully... (e.g. if Mexico has played USA or Canada, then this should be enough to rank them meaningfully, as USA and Canada are both well-connected.)
Scheduling in rugby union is very poor. Central American teams for instance have only played a few games outside of central America. How I do it is first I have original nations (which can be found by clicking on INFORMATION). These are countries that are automatically in the rankings from the beginning... this can vary from sport to sport depending on how the sport gets started internationally. Once a country plays either an original nation or an initiated nation at least 6 times, they become an initiated nation (this is a very lenient method and risks the accuracy of rankings in my opinion, anything less would be even worse). 

There are a few instances where some of these African countries have played other African countries in friendlies that have not yet been entered. So a few of these might be in rankings soon once I get to them. But other than that according to the matches I have found, none of the listed countries have played an original or initiated nation at least 6 times. It is a damn shame, and I haven't seen anything like it on such a mass scale in any other sport yet.
Reply

TheRoonBa
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

26 Nov 2017, 13:55 #6

abramjones wrote:
TheRoonBa wrote: How many matches are required for teams to get into the main rankings?

For example, teams that you have listed at the bottom as "not rated" have in some cases played more matches than teams that have provisional ratings (e.g. Estonia with only 12 matches) or final ratings (e.g. Indonesia with only 23 matches).

It shouldn't matter how many matches a particular team have played internationally (outside their own continent) - if they have played other teams within their own continent who have played internationally, this should eb sufficient to rank them meaningfully... (e.g. if Mexico has played USA or Canada, then this should be enough to rank them meaningfully, as USA and Canada are both well-connected.)
Scheduling in rugby union is very poor. Central American teams for instance have only played a few games outside of central America. How I do it is first I have original nations (which can be found by clicking on INFORMATION). These are countries that are automatically in the rankings from the beginning... this can vary from sport to sport depending on how the sport gets started internationally. Once a country plays either an original nation or an initiated nation at least 6 times, they become an initiated nation (this is a very lenient method and risks the accuracy of rankings in my opinion, anything less would be even worse). 

There are a few instances where some of these African countries have played other African countries in friendlies that have not yet been entered. So a few of these might be in rankings soon once I get to them. But other than that according to the matches I have found, none of the listed countries have played an original or initiated nation at least 6 times. It is a damn shame, and I haven't seen anything like it on such a mass scale in any other sport yet.
OK - that makes sense.

Since 2010, Guatemala has played Costa Rica (an initiated nation in 2009) 6 times exactly - so I think they should be in the list.  El Salvador and Panama have both played Costa Rica 5 times in the same period.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

26 Nov 2017, 14:16 #7

TheRoonBa wrote:
abramjones wrote:
TheRoonBa wrote: How many matches are required for teams to get into the main rankings?

For example, teams that you have listed at the bottom as "not rated" have in some cases played more matches than teams that have provisional ratings (e.g. Estonia with only 12 matches) or final ratings (e.g. Indonesia with only 23 matches).

It shouldn't matter how many matches a particular team have played internationally (outside their own continent) - if they have played other teams within their own continent who have played internationally, this should eb sufficient to rank them meaningfully... (e.g. if Mexico has played USA or Canada, then this should be enough to rank them meaningfully, as USA and Canada are both well-connected.)
Scheduling in rugby union is very poor. Central American teams for instance have only played a few games outside of central America. How I do it is first I have original nations (which can be found by clicking on INFORMATION). These are countries that are automatically in the rankings from the beginning... this can vary from sport to sport depending on how the sport gets started internationally. Once a country plays either an original nation or an initiated nation at least 6 times, they become an initiated nation (this is a very lenient method and risks the accuracy of rankings in my opinion, anything less would be even worse). 

There are a few instances where some of these African countries have played other African countries in friendlies that have not yet been entered. So a few of these might be in rankings soon once I get to them. But other than that according to the matches I have found, none of the listed countries have played an original or initiated nation at least 6 times. It is a damn shame, and I haven't seen anything like it on such a mass scale in any other sport yet.
OK - that makes sense.

Since 2010, Guatemala has played Costa Rica (an initiated nation in 2009) 6 times exactly - so I think they should be in the list.  El Salvador and Panama have both played Costa Rica 5 times in the same period.
You're right, they absolutely should be (a long with many other nations). But there is a problem, South American Championship C was cut off from B for several years in the early stages... I forget how many years went by before there was finally a promotion relegation game between B and C... and there was only 1 damn game! I originally had all those C games in there (not the friendlies though), but it inflated Costa Rica's score way too much, so I had to cut out C. I have included C since the play off game, but if you notice Costa Rica might be a little overrated in the rankings right now. I think there may be one friendly game featuring Costa Rica I could add, I'll check when I do the African matches. I realize that official rankings have many of these central American countries in their rankings, I am not sure how they do it. If they have some complex algorithm to appropriately rank countries I'm interested in learning and upgrading my system. Mine is just a vanilla Elo Rating system. I don't want to make any drastic moves until some experts help me out on the matter. My expertise lies within social and economic dynamics, not mathematics.

About disqualified games and tournaments: As I stated above some matches are barred from the rankings. This can be for various reasons such as inaccurate quality of teams, banning of professionals when there are professional tournaments in existence, regional friendlies (in most situations), or in this case ostracism from international community. In these cases matches cannot be used as they will disrupt accuracy in the rankings. 
Reply

mattsanger92
Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

26 Nov 2017, 16:39 #8

Marginally different sport but do you take into account when a team plays out of its skin for 10 minutes? 😐
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

26 Nov 2017, 17:23 #9

abramjones wrote:
nfm24 wrote: Given your liking for historical pseudo-countries and quirky choices of flags, I'm surprised you haven't included the various South African provincial teams (Transvaal, Free State etc) in your all-time ranking.
I wasn't aware of these. Do you know the requirements for players to be on the teams? In rugby and Aussie rules I'm aware of Australian state teams, but from what I can tell their roster requirements are not strong enough to consider them equative to national sides. However, in Gaelic football they are generally more strict on this and could qualify as something equative to national sides.
It has changed over the years, but generally it involves registration with the relevant union.   Possibly also a residential requirement, but not necessarily a "state of origin" scenario.   But this is no different from matches by colonies and territories in various sports, and even with sovereign states players can "transfer" between countries.

There were plenty of pseudo-international games in the Currie Cup, say, involving South African provinces (including SWA) and also Rhodesia.    A match like Transvaal vs Natal, pre-1910, is hardly different from Trinidad vs British Guiana, or Hong Kong vs Singapore.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

27 Nov 2017, 09:20 #10

mattsanger92 wrote: Marginally different sport but do you take into account when a team plays out of its skin for 10 minutes? 😐
I will do Rugby League in the near future. But Tonga would get the win for that game in my system, because countries with such an economic size advantage such as England are required to win by more than 2 against a small impoverished country like Tonga.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

27 Nov 2017, 09:21 #11

nfm24 wrote:
abramjones wrote:
nfm24 wrote: Given your liking for historical pseudo-countries and quirky choices of flags, I'm surprised you haven't included the various South African provincial teams (Transvaal, Free State etc) in your all-time ranking.
I wasn't aware of these. Do you know the requirements for players to be on the teams? In rugby and Aussie rules I'm aware of Australian state teams, but from what I can tell their roster requirements are not strong enough to consider them equative to national sides. However, in Gaelic football they are generally more strict on this and could qualify as something equative to national sides.
It has changed over the years, but generally it involves registration with the relevant union.   Possibly also a residential requirement, but not necessarily a "state of origin" scenario.   But this is no different from matches by colonies and territories in various sports, and even with sovereign states players can "transfer" between countries.

There were plenty of pseudo-international games in the Currie Cup, say, involving South African provinces (including SWA) and also Rhodesia.    A match like Transvaal vs Natal, pre-1910, is hardly different from Trinidad vs British Guiana, or Hong Kong vs Singapore.
Alright, well I'm going to have to research this a bit. I also need to find internationals between these regions and other nations if they exist in order to get them into the rankings.
Reply

mattsanger92
Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

27 Nov 2017, 10:15 #12

abramjones wrote:
mattsanger92 wrote: Marginally different sport but do you take into account when a team plays out of its skin for 10 minutes? 😐
I will do Rugby League in the near future. But Tonga would get the win for that game in my system, because countries with such an economic size advantage such as England are required to win by more than 2 against a small impoverished country like Tonga.
I've not really weighed in much on your methods before, but in this case it might be important to consider that rugby league in England is mainly just popular in the north (see the current spread of Super League teams, in fact in the league's history there's only ever been one team from South England). A look at the host cities for the next World Cup says the same, apart from the cup final at Wembley each year rugby league really isn't that popular outside its heartlands (which aren't as strong economically), union is a lot more nation-wide.

For what it's worth, apparently France has the opposite trend where rugby league's only popular in the south with brushes of Paris, while union is pretty much nation-wide.

Also alot of the talk before this England v Tonga game was about how a new rule change for this World Cup let Tonga call back a lot of players who had been representing 🇦🇺/🇳🇿 and developed in their rugby systems. Not saying England shouldn't have been favourites, but in this case it's a lot less simple than "[redacted] = money, 🇹🇴 = no money".
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

27 Nov 2017, 10:49 #13

abramjones wrote: Alright, well I'm going to have to research this a bit. I also need to find internationals between these regions and other nations if they exist in order to get them into the rankings.
Well the rugby Currie Cup has been running since 1891, and interprovincial / colonial / territorial matches were played even before that.   I'm not sure if all the historical scores of this are published anywhere online - I would assume not.

Currie Cups also exist(ed) in soccer and cricket, and generally in most other sports (hockey, squash, swimming etc) in South Africa there were regular interprovincial competitions which were often referred to lazily as "Currie Cup" even if the actual trophy was called something else.   Rhodesia and SWA played in most of these, and the hockey one included also Bechuanaland I think.   These competitions were (initially) for the "white" community, and in many sports there were parallel versions for "Indians", "coloured" and/or "blacks" as well.

For example in soccer, the Currie Cup ran from 1892 to 1989, with the first multiracial edition in 1977.   Although professional soccer (among whites) in South Africa formally began in 1959, the Currie Cup remained restricted to amateur players.  Southern Rhodesia competed on and off from 1908 until they eventually won it in 1959.   Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia played in it separately in the early 1950s, and also played vs each other in the Levy Cup from the late 1940s until the early 60s.   SWA first entered the Currie Cup in 1954.

There were also other competitions for particular provinces, e.g. Beckett Shield (pre-WW2), Liverpool Cup (1950s), Boetie Mark Trophy (inter-Transvaal), and of course, friendly matches of provinces vs overseas touring teams, and vs each other.

The interprovincial soccer competition for "Indians" was called the Sam China Cup, which began in 1903.   The version for "coloured" was the Stuttaford Cup, and the version for "blacks" was the Moroka-Baloyi Cup.   This last one is the most interesting in my view, because it sometimes included teams from Swaziland, Basutoland, and Bechuanaland.    There was also the Kajee Cup, run by the SASF, for "non-Europeans".

To actually find the results of all these would be an enormous exercise in newspaper archive trawling, unless someone else has already done it.

I suppose an excuse to dodge having to do that amount of work could be just to discredit the Southern African provincial matches, and possibly others, based on the teams not being representative of the true population of the country/province  - after all, your motivation with these rankings is to say something about the real population.   But then this would have to apply also to South Africa itself until the post-apartheid era, and maybe some other countries which weren't too keen on diversity.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

27 Nov 2017, 10:56 #14

mattsanger92 wrote:it might be important to consider that rugby league in England is mainly just popular in the north (see the current spread of Super League teams, in fact in the league's history there's only ever been one team from South England). A look at the host cities for the next World Cup says the same, apart from the cup final at Wembley each year rugby league really isn't that popular outside its heartlands (which aren't as strong economically), union is a lot more nation-wide.
This sort of thing could be incorporated via the number of registered players of the sport, rather than (or in addition to) the total population.   Then you wouldn't necessarily have to analyze where the players are from, geographically.  
Reply

pieter
Joined: 03 Nov 2006, 16:49

27 Nov 2017, 11:10 #15

nfm24 wrote:
mattsanger92 wrote:it might be important to consider that rugby league in England is mainly just popular in the north (see the current spread of Super League teams, in fact in the league's history there's only ever been one team from South England). A look at the host cities for the next World Cup says the same, apart from the cup final at Wembley each year rugby league really isn't that popular outside its heartlands (which aren't as strong economically), union is a lot more nation-wide.
This sort of thing could be incorporated via the number of registered players of the sport, rather than (or in addition to) the total population.   Then you wouldn't necessarily have to analyze where the players are from, geographically.  
you can find a lot of pre-war rugby results in "The story of Rhodesian sport" Volume 1 (1889-1935)
Reply

mattsanger92
Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

27 Nov 2017, 12:42 #16

nfm24 wrote:This sort of thing could be incorporated via the number of registered players of the sport, rather than (or in addition to) the total population.   Then you wouldn't necessarily have to analyze where the players are from, geographically. 
It's one way to do things, but the argument he was making suggested he's ranking purely on economics. Wider England could definitely throw more money into rugby league if it wanted to, but I'd suspect it's mainly a northern effort. A more extreme version would be saying USA should be beating India at kabaddi.

Of course "England > Tonga" in financial terms, but "Northern England > Tonga + Tongan expats" is a closer gap.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

27 Nov 2017, 13:03 #17

mattsanger92 wrote:
abramjones wrote:
mattsanger92 wrote: Marginally different sport but do you take into account when a team plays out of its skin for 10 minutes? 😐
I will do Rugby League in the near future. But Tonga would get the win for that game in my system, because countries with such an economic size advantage such as England are required to win by more than 2 against a small impoverished country like Tonga.
I've not really weighed in much on your methods before, but in this case it might be important to consider that rugby league in England is mainly just popular in the north (see the current spread of Super League teams, in fact in the league's history there's only ever been one team from South England). A look at the host cities for the next World Cup says the same, apart from the cup final at Wembley each year rugby league really isn't that popular outside its heartlands (which aren't as strong economically), union is a lot more nation-wide.

For what it's worth, apparently France has the opposite trend where rugby league's only popular in the south with brushes of Paris, while union is pretty much nation-wide.

Also alot of the talk before this England v Tonga game was about how a new rule change for this World Cup let Tonga call back a lot of players who had been representing 🇦🇺/🇳🇿 and developed in their rugby systems. Not saying England shouldn't have been favourites, but in this case it's a lot less simple than "[redacted] = money, 🇹🇴 = no money".
Yes, this and other truths have been considered. Rarely in a country will a sport maintain the same level of popularity and investment throughout the entire country.... the bigger a country gets the less it chance it has of retaining that consistency. Bigger countries cannot be expected to maintain the same consistency for this reason, otherwise they will be at a disadvantage in the rankings. The trick is finding the balance. Here in the states we have 3 major team sports: American Football, Baseball, and Basketball. In some parts of the country the sports are bigger than others... and then we have pockets of places that have a noticeable following in Ice Hockey or Association Football. This is one reason why the bigger a country gets in comparsion to the smaller country, the handicap for the smaller country must exponentially decrease along with it. I know I'm wording that wrong, but hopefully you understand what I mean. Other reasons the increase must incrementally decrease is the diminishing returns factor. The third is the psychological factor. After you are beating a team by so much you may or may not start to relax your urgency. There are other things that will screw with the rankings also, such as defensive strategies... but thanks to the law of large numbers most of these oddities will work themselves out, but of course for these and other reasons you can't ever get these ratings perfect. This is why I will always stand for regional teams based on economic size rather than teams based on strictly government borders. The point of these rankings is to reduce the wealth and population factor as much as possible to get decent results, and there still is much room for improvement. Clearly countries like Samoa shouldn't be ranked near Russia and the United States... yet in normal rankings they are... that is just ridiculous. Samoa could probably destroy any smaller region in Russia or United States with ease. These differences are reflected pretty well in most cases in my rankings.
Last edited by abramjones on 27 Nov 2017, 13:24, edited 3 times in total.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

27 Nov 2017, 13:15 #18

nfm24 wrote:
abramjones wrote: Alright, well I'm going to have to research this a bit. I also need to find internationals between these regions and other nations if they exist in order to get them into the rankings.
Well the rugby Currie Cup has been running since 1891, and interprovincial / colonial / territorial matches were played even before that.   I'm not sure if all the historical scores of this are published anywhere online - I would assume not.

Currie Cups also exist(ed) in soccer and cricket, and generally in most other sports (hockey, squash, swimming etc) in South Africa there were regular interprovincial competitions which were often referred to lazily as "Currie Cup" even if the actual trophy was called something else.   Rhodesia and SWA played in most of these, and the hockey one included also Bechuanaland I think.   These competitions were (initially) for the "white" community, and in many sports there were parallel versions for "Indians", "coloured" and/or "blacks" as well.

For example in soccer, the Currie Cup ran from 1892 to 1989, with the first multiracial edition in 1977.   Although professional soccer (among whites) in South Africa formally began in 1959, the Currie Cup remained restricted to amateur players.  Southern Rhodesia competed on and off from 1908 until they eventually won it in 1959.   Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia played in it separately in the early 1950s, and also played vs each other in the Levy Cup from the late 1940s until the early 60s.   SWA first entered the Currie Cup in 1954.

There were also other competitions for particular provinces, e.g. Beckett Shield (pre-WW2), Liverpool Cup (1950s), Boetie Mark Trophy (inter-Transvaal), and of course, friendly matches of provinces vs overseas touring teams, and vs each other.

The interprovincial soccer competition for "Indians" was called the Sam China Cup, which began in 1903.   The version for "coloured" was the Stuttaford Cup, and the version for "blacks" was the Moroka-Baloyi Cup.   This last one is the most interesting in my view, because it sometimes included teams from Swaziland, Basutoland, and Bechuanaland.    There was also the Kajee Cup, run by the SASF, for "non-Europeans".

To actually find the results of all these would be an enormous exercise in newspaper archive trawling, unless someone else has already done it.

I suppose an excuse to dodge having to do that amount of work could be just to discredit the Southern African provincial matches, and possibly others, based on the teams not being representative of the true population of the country/province  - after all, your motivation with these rankings is to say something about the real population.   But then this would have to apply also to South Africa itself until the post-apartheid era, and maybe some other countries which weren't too keen on diversity.
This is very interesting. Either way I'll look into it after I finish up with water polo.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

27 Nov 2017, 13:19 #19

nfm24 wrote:
mattsanger92 wrote:it might be important to consider that rugby league in England is mainly just popular in the north (see the current spread of Super League teams, in fact in the league's history there's only ever been one team from South England). A look at the host cities for the next World Cup says the same, apart from the cup final at Wembley each year rugby league really isn't that popular outside its heartlands (which aren't as strong economically), union is a lot more nation-wide.
This sort of thing could be incorporated via the number of registered players of the sport, rather than (or in addition to) the total population.   Then you wouldn't necessarily have to analyze where the players are from, geographically.  Anyway, if all this information was gathered I could literally clone my website and replace my current economic data with that and recalculate the ratings.
The hardest part about this will be gathering income data for each sport and country for each decade... In this case I don't think you can just look at registered players. For example India may have a lot of registered players, but how well are they funded?
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

27 Nov 2017, 13:26 #20

pieter wrote:you can find a lot of pre-war rugby results in "The story of Rhodesian sport" Volume 1 (1889-1935)
True, but unfortunately it's a bit incomplete, and also there was no Volume 2...
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

27 Nov 2017, 13:29 #21

abramjones wrote:This is very interesting. Either way I'll look into it after I finish up with water polo.
There was Currie Cup water polo too.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

27 Nov 2017, 13:39 #22

abramjones wrote:
nfm24 wrote:This sort of thing could be incorporated via the number of registered players of the sport, rather than (or in addition to) the total population.   Then you wouldn't necessarily have to analyze where the players are from, geographically.  Anyway, if all this information was gathered I could literally clone my website and replace my current economic data with that and recalculate the ratings.
The hardest part about this will be gathering income data for each sport and country for each decade... In this case I don't think you can just look at registered players. For example India may have a lot of registered players, but how well are they funded?
I didn't write the last bit (underlined), I assume it's part of your reply.

It may be hard to gather such data, but I don't see that as an excuse not to do it.    It's hard to gather all the results of international matches since they began, in various sports, but that is also a fundamental requirement of your project.

I'm not suggesting to *just* look at the registered players figures, but I'm suggesting to use that rather than the total population.  The economic factor would be the same (GDP per capita) but only weight it with the subset of the population which plays the game.    The contribution of the wider population to facilities, spectator/TV funds etc will still be reflected in the GDP figure.   This takes care of your India case.   Mind you, I rather doubt that India has a lot of registered rugby league players.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

27 Nov 2017, 13:56 #23

mattsanger92 wrote:It's one way to do things, but the argument he was making suggested he's ranking purely on economics. Wider England could definitely throw more money into rugby league if it wanted to, but I'd suspect it's mainly a northern effort. A more extreme version would be saying USA should be beating India at kabaddi.

Of course "England > Tonga" in financial terms, but "Northern England > Tonga + Tongan expats" is a closer gap.
I don't think the wealth of the individuals/regions is as important so much as the general wealth of the country, in this sort of project, especially when a population weighting is being used.  If the country is rich overall, then the poverty of individuals/regions isn't necessarily a handicap to "success".  Particularly in sports which are highly physical and are often associated with the poorer demographics.  I expect the best boxers are from poor backgrounds, and the best chess players aren't, on average.

Financial measures of national wealth can often be misleading indicators of actual cost of life for people.   You don't have to be a Russian/Arab millionaire to buy a house up North.   I think in this sort of project, you want some nice crisp unfuzzy factors which you can be confident are relevant, and as few of them as possible.  To get too involved in the detailed demographics would not necessarily be enlightening.   Although certainly more details can be considered in trying to explain the correlation (or lack of) for certain data-points.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

27 Nov 2017, 22:01 #24

nfm24 wrote:
abramjones wrote:
nfm24 wrote:This sort of thing could be incorporated via the number of registered players of the sport, rather than (or in addition to) the total population.   Then you wouldn't necessarily have to analyze where the players are from, geographically.  Anyway, if all this information was gathered I could literally clone my website and replace my current economic data with that and recalculate the ratings.
The hardest part about this will be gathering income data for each sport and country for each decade... In this case I don't think you can just look at registered players. For example India may have a lot of registered players, but how well are they funded?
I didn't write the last bit (underlined), I assume it's part of your reply.

It may be hard to gather such data, but I don't see that as an excuse not to do it.    It's hard to gather all the results of international matches since they began, in various sports, but that is also a fundamental requirement of your project.

I'm not suggesting to *just* look at the registered players figures, but I'm suggesting to use that rather than the total population.  The economic factor would be the same (GDP per capita) but only weight it with the subset of the population which plays the game.    The contribution of the wider population to facilities, spectator/TV funds etc will still be reflected in the GDP figure.   This takes care of your India case.   Mind you, I rather doubt that India has a lot of registered rugby league players.
Yeah, I wrote "Anyway, if all this information was gathered I could literally clone my website and replace my current economic data with that and recalculate the ratings." Not sure why it didn't show on my post and why it was underlined.

I meant registered football players in India, not rugby players.
Reply

TheRoonBa
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

28 Nov 2017, 22:27 #25

nfm24 wrote:
abramjones wrote:This is very interesting. Either way I'll look into it after I finish up with water polo.
There was Currie Cup water polo too.
This could possibly have been the first water polo activity in Africa.  Apart from South Africa and Northern Africa, there aren't many water polo playing countries in that continent.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

29 Nov 2017, 10:06 #26

Early South Africa is often overlooked when people think of the origins of international football.   British touring teams visited since 1897, and that a SAFA team toured Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil in 1906 and beat almost all opponents.   In the long run, a determination to remain totally amateur did not help them maintain this early head start, among other things.

I suppose, to rephrase what I was saying above, if you consider an early match like Transvaal vs Natal as a valid "international" or intercolonial match, in the same way we consider Hong Kong vs Singapore or Trinidad vs British Guiana, then there are many such matches before the Union in 1910. 

Similarly in Australia, the formal union of the various colonies didn't occur until 1901, and there were matches before that.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

30 Nov 2017, 12:36 #27

nfm24 wrote: Early South Africa is often overlooked when people think of the origins of international football.   British touring teams visited since 1897, and that a SAFA team toured Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil in 1906 and beat almost all opponents.   In the long run, a determination to remain totally amateur did not help them maintain this early head start, among other things.

I suppose, to rephrase what I was saying above, if you consider an early match like Transvaal vs Natal as a valid "international" or intercolonial match, in the same way we consider Hong Kong vs Singapore or Trinidad vs British Guiana, then there are many such matches before the Union in 1910. 

Similarly in Australia, the formal union of the various colonies didn't occur until 1901, and there were matches before that.
The main problem with this, besides finding results, is getting them connected to the other teams in the rankings.  I would like to do it though, if possible.
Reply

TheRoonBa
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

01 Dec 2017, 01:11 #28

There's a list of Currie Cup water polo winners here - No results, but somewhere to start:

http://swimhistory.org/sports/water-polo/currie-cup
Reply

TheRoonBa
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

01 Dec 2017, 01:17 #29

Sounds like it was quite a lethal sport in the early days!

"According to the article the circa 1910 South African Water Polo championship final took place in the Durban Beach Baths. The pool was then and still is 100 yards long and 25 yards wide and water polo was played in the deep end 25 yards – that is the polo field was 25 yards x 25 yards and between 7 and 8 feet deep. The pool was filled directly from the sea which is/was less than a stone throw away across the lower Marine Parade.
So swimming and water polo competitions took place in salt water which was pumped in raw from the sea, usually a heavy dark brown colour because of the pollution caused by the nearby Umgeni River. In those days an important rule of the game of water Polo was that when the referee blew his whistle players were required to remain completely stationary until the ball came back into play. Moving position to be nearer an opponent or to get away from one was an offence resulting in a free throw for the opponent. Repetitions resulted in the offender being thrown out of the pool until the next goal.
Regrettably these periods of immobility provided an ideal opportunity for older, less scrupulous players to engage in various abominable kinds of fouling such as attempting to break an opponent’s little finger, kicking in the testicles, and other equally despicable acts. That was the case in most swimming pools but the filthy seawater in Durban created ideal conditions to take these activities to extreme."

http://swimhistory.org/articles/histories/water-polo
Reply

Luca
Joined: 09 Feb 2011, 19:58

01 Dec 2017, 08:21 #30

TheRoonBa wrote: players to engage in various abominable kinds of fouling such as attempting to break an opponent’s little finger, kicking in the testicles, and other equally despicable acts.
Well, it seems the perfect description of the 1962 FIFA World Cup...
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

01 Dec 2017, 09:14 #31

abramjones wrote:The main problem with this, besides finding results, is getting them connected to the other teams in the rankings.  I would like to do it though, if possible.
In some sports this could be done using the results of touring team which played test matches (vs South Africa) but also provincial matches vs Natal, Transvaal, OFS etc.

At this point it is worth noting that the Cape Colony (later the Cape Province) was split into several regional associations.  In football these were Griqualand West, Eastern Province, Frontier (later Border), and Western Province.    In other sports there were some differences.
Reply

mattsanger92
Joined: 04 Jul 2011, 10:46

01 Dec 2017, 12:51 #32

TheRoonBa wrote: Sounds like it was quite a lethal sport in the early days!
As someone who's terrible at treading water and even less confident without goggles it sounds like a lethal sport to me already. Might give it a go if they had some sort of 'lite' version where there's floor at your feet, then it's basically slow handball. This works too.
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

03 Dec 2017, 14:23 #33

nfm24 wrote:
abramjones wrote:The main problem with this, besides finding results, is getting them connected to the other teams in the rankings.  I would like to do it though, if possible.
In some sports this could be done using the results of touring team which played test matches (vs South Africa) but also provincial matches vs Natal, Transvaal, OFS etc.

At this point it is worth noting that the Cape Colony (later the Cape Province) was split into several regional associations.  In football these were Griqualand West, Eastern Province, Frontier (later Border), and Western Province.    In other sports there were some differences.
How often did these teams play against South Africa and other nations?
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

05 Dec 2017, 21:27 #34

It depends on the sport.  In a major sport such as rugby union, there would usually be one major tour every year, and/or the Springboks would go make a reciprocal tour. 

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Brit ... ca#Results

This sort of schedule was fairly typical of rugby and cricket tours.  In soccer the touring teams were often British clubs or FA XI, and then later, teams of retired players (to beat the sanction).

Example:
http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/britishfat ... ml#1956ENG
Reply

abramjones
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 20:06

06 Dec 2017, 03:24 #35

nfm24 wrote: It depends on the sport.  In a major sport such as rugby union, there would usually be one major tour every year, and/or the Springboks would go make a reciprocal tour. 

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Brit ... ca#Results

This sort of schedule was fairly typical of rugby and cricket tours.  In soccer the touring teams were often British clubs or FA XI, and then later, teams of retired players (to beat the sanction).

Example:
http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/britishfat ... ml#1956ENG
Looks like I have some games to add to my database, even outside of the South African regions.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

08 Dec 2017, 22:19 #36

Well, that's the case in almost all sports.   How many sports have a complete set of records, for all countries?
Reply

TheRoonBa
Joined: 31 Oct 2006, 22:16

09 Dec 2017, 17:26 #37

Floorball is the only one I can think of.
Reply

nfm24
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 16:28

09 Dec 2017, 17:27 #38

That's because all the records were kept on the floor, so they couldn't drop any further out of reach.
Reply