4 ms·

Table tennis uses a similar system. My wife used to play competitively, and people at the club would always ask each others' ratings when looking for a good mat

Table tennis uses a similar system. My wife used to play competitively, and people at the club would always ask each others' ratings when looking for a good match. Of course, a single number can only tell you so much -- it's a very gross generalization of skill. A lower-score player can have a particular strength corresponding to another's weakness, thus leading to a win for the (generally) weaker player. I imagine that this is similarly true for soccer teams.

carbocation 16y ago
Absolutely. What you're describing is basically an interaction effect. Looking at all the data, A may be better than B by virtue of the fact that A is better than X, Y, and Z, while B is worse than them. But A has a specific weakness (an unprotected heel) and B has a rarely useful strength (ability to shoot arrows into the heel) that leads to B defeating A.
lotharbot 16y ago
> "Of course, a single number can only tell you so much -- it's a very gross generalization of skill." In a system where new players can enter after competition has begun (and others have accumulated points), there's also a good chance that a new player will not yet have had enough time to accumulate a score that's in line with their actual skill, which can lead to some misleading matchups. Depending on the details of the ranking system and the ease of finding similarly-ranked partners, it can take a long time to converge to a "true" rating. For example: I had friends in college who played competitive card games that had some sort of lifetime ranking (Bridge, perhaps?) Because they were young, they were often the lowest seed in tournaments. Despite above-average skill, they were normally eliminated by the very most skilled teams in the first round, and therefore had few opportunities to accumulate points against more equal competition. Once they finally broke through and won a couple of tournaments, there was a bit of a snowball effect as they moved out of the lowest seed.

carbocation 16y ago

Absolutely. What you're describing is basically an interaction effect. Looking at all the data, A may be better than B by virtue of the fact that A is better than X, Y, and Z, while B is worse than them. But A has a specific weakness (an unprotected heel) and B has a rarely useful strength (ability to shoot arrows into the heel) that leads to B defeating A.

lotharbot 16y ago

> "Of course, a single number can only tell you so much -- it's a very gross generalization of skill." In a system where new players can enter after competition has begun (and others have accumulated points), there's also a good chance that a new player will not yet have had enough time to accumulate a score that's in line with their actual skill, which can lead to some misleading matchups. Depending on the details of the ranking system and the ease of finding similarly-ranked partners, it can take a long time to converge to a "true" rating. For example: I had friends in college who played competitive card games that had some sort of lifetime ranking (Bridge, perhaps?) Because they were young, they were often the lowest seed in tournaments. Despite above-average skill, they were normally eliminated by the very most skilled teams in the first round, and therefore had few opportunities to accumulate points against more equal competition. Once they finally broke through and won a couple of tournaments, there was a bit of a snowball effect as they moved out of the lowest seed.