Vyacheslav Kuritsyn offers a new rating of football teams
From 1930 to 2006, four continents of 18 final tournaments of the World Cup were held in 14 countries of the world. 7 national teams (3 South American and 4 European) became winners (the hosts celebrated victory 6 times), 11 played in the final (of which 4 played in the finals but did not win, 3 lost in the decisive match 2 times), 16 fell into the top three , 24 - among the four strongest.
Most fans consider Brazil to be the best national team; statistics in this case, at first glance, confirms sociology - the “magicians of the ball” won the main world title 5 times.
However, they had more chances: Brazil was the only team participating in all 18 final tournaments (representatives of Germany and Italy played in 16, while the Germans in 1974 played as “two teams” - teams of Germany and East Germany ) Someone will say that a 100% presence at the celebration of life proves the heavenly status of Brazilians (after all, in these 18 tournaments you still had to get through the selection)? But there is already a reason for a dispute with “objective” figures. Firstly, the selection team in South America (on this continent there are only 12 states) is easier for a classroom team than in Europe. Secondly, in addition to sporting factors, statistics were often influenced by political and economic factors (say, Italians and British did not swim to the first championship in Uruguay “because they are far away”, and in 1938 Austria withdrew from the tournament because its strongest players were recruited to the team Germany). Thirdly, until recently, some countries simply did not exist (we follow the example no further than Kiev). So, the numbers that seem absolute are often relative. This, in fact, is the subject of notes.
So, there are several reasons for calculating the rating of football teams (the task is all the more interesting because the official FIFA rating has just absolutely disgraced itself, which called the Czech Republic the second and the USA the fifth national team before the tournament in Germany). Firstly and secondly, the championship is in absolute and relative numbers. Thirdly and fourthly, reaching the final is also in absolute and relative numbers. Fifth and sixth, getting into the four. Then an attempt will be made to make a total based on these ratings.
First of all. World Championships
1. Brazil 5 - the so-called pentacampions
2. Italy 4 - steel, respectively, tetracampions
3. Germany 3
4-5. Argentina, Uruguay 2
6-7. England, France 1
Secondly. Win rate
The first digit is the number of victories, the second is participation in the final tournaments, the third is
percent.
1. Brazil 5 (18) 27%
2. Italy 4 (16) 25%
3. Uruguay 2 (8) 25%
4. Germany 3 (16) 18%
5. Argentina 2 (14) 14%
6. France 1 (11) 9%
7. England 1 (12) 8%
Twice in a row, Italians (1934 and 1938) and Brazilians (1962 and 1958) became champions.
Thirdly. Participation in the final matches
1-2. Germany, Brazil - 7 finals
3. Italy 6
4. Argentina 4
5-9. Hungary, Netherlands, France, Czechoslovakia, Uruguay 2
10-11. England, Sweden 1
Formally, in 1950, when the championship was held for the first and last time in Brazil, there was no final match: the winner of the final “bullet of four” was declared the champion. But the last meeting - the hosts with Uruguayans - can be considered the final; it was she who determined the winner of the tournament. The Brazilians had a draw, they opened an account at the beginning of the second half, but then they conceded two goals and did not win back. By the way, this game was attended by 174 thousand spectators (Rio de Janeiro, Maracana); here is a record that is not easy to put it mildly.
Fourth. Finals Finals
The first digit is getting into the finals, the second is participation in the final tournaments, the third is the percentage.
1. Germany 7 (17) 41%
2. Brazil 7 (18) 38%
3. Italy 6 (16) 37%
4. Czechoslovakia 2 (6) 33%
5. Argentina 4 (14) 28%
6. Hungary 2 (7) 28%
7-8. Holland, Uruguay 2 (8) 25%
9. France 2 (11) 18%
10. Sweden 1 (11) 9%
11. England 1 (12) 8%
Ahead is Germany, which in each of the tournaments “0, 41” times made it into the main match (if we imagine that the tournament we are interested in is eternal, Germany would have reached the final 41 times in a hundred draws). And if she had gone to Berlin this year, which could have happened, had Podolsky used one of his three scoring chances, she would have had an absolutely surprising 47%: that is, almost everyone in her second championship. It would be in every second, but I considered it fair to count Germany 17 participation (two - in 1974). Indeed, on July 7, 1974, the golden statuette of the GDR and the FRG could be played in Munich; the eastern younger brothers were not at all weaklings, but, on the contrary, in the GDR group they then won 1-0 from Germany and took first place). At the same time, it is clear that in the second section (percentage of championships), Germany counted 16 participations, because at the same time both the GDR and the FRG could not take the first place even on Bavarian soil.
Returning to the table: Argentina, with a percentage equal to that of Hungary, was put higher because it had more championships: 14 vs. 7. In general, it is more difficult to show high results on a longer segment than on a short one (one failure is enough to reduce the average speed ; no matter how fast you drive your car, any traffic jam depreciates as a result of your 180 on the speedometer). Perhaps it makes sense to think about a certain “qualification” (which we will think below in connection with the results of Turkey, which in one hundred percent cases - namely in one of one - took third place). But among the finalists there is no one who would play in less than six finals, and therefore you can not think about qualifications here.
Only Germany played in the finals three times in a row (1982, 1986, 1990); the same pair played twice in a row (1986 and 1990): Argentines and Germans defeated each other. The list of finalists since 1974 was replenished only once (France in 1998).
Fifth. Hits in the top four
1. Germany - 11 times in the four.
2. Brazil 10
3. Italy 8
4. France 5
5-7. Argentina, Uruguay, Sweden 4
8. Holland 3
9-15. Austria, England, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Czechoslovakia (Czech Republic), Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) 2
16-24. Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain, Korea, Russia (USSR), USA, Turkey, Croatia, Chile 1
A question that will inevitably arise: why are the hits in the top four, and not in the top three prize winners (the classic “pedestal”) analyzed. First of all, four is more than three: the sample thus becomes more representative. In addition, the author of these lines generally does not like matches for third place, this “holiday for the poor” (the third place was not played only once, in Uruguay-1930). After the tension of the semifinal battles, the question of the third or fourth laureate does not seem to be fundamental. All the semi-finalists deserved awards - at the European football championships, by the way, there is no consolation finale. No wonder it is with the “mundiales” that the stupid invention of a system of medals of four merits is associated (gold - gilded - silver - bronze; first tested at the 1974 World Cup). After the current German semi-finals, FIFA President Blatter had to make a special statement that he was against the cancellation of the match for third place, which indicates that the issue is ripe (of course, tickets and broadcasting rights for the consolation match are on sale; it makes sense, but commercial, not sports).
At sixth. Fourth Hits
The first figure is getting into the four (you can not say "in the semifinals", since there were no semifinal matches in 1950, 1974, 1978), the second - participation in the final tournaments, the third - percentage
1. Turkey 1 (1) 100%
2. Germany 11 (17) 64%
3. Brazil 10 (18) 55%
4. Italy 8 (16) 50%
5. Uruguay 4 (8) 50%
6. Portugal 2 (4) 50%
7. France 5 (12) 41%
8. Holland 3 (8) 37%
9. Sweden 4 (11) 36%
10-11. Austria, Czechoslovakia 2 (6) 33%
12. Croatia 1 (3) 33%
13. Argentina 4 (14) 28%
14-15. Hungary, Poland 2 (7) 28%
16. Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro) 2 (10) 20%
17. Chile 1 (5) 20%
18. England 2 (12) 16%
19. Bulgaria 1 (6) 16%
20-21. Korea, Russia (USSR) 1 (7) 14%
22.US 1 (8) 12%
23. Belgium 1 (10) 10%
24. Spain 1 (12) 8%
The incident with the absolute result of the Turkish national team is striking: in its debut final tournament (2002), it took third place and, thus, achieved absolute success in the nomination “getting into the four”. Of course, any rating is a big convention, it is impossible to ensure the complete absence of illogical results, but nevertheless, having made preliminary general calculations (which are discussed below) and found that Turkey in this situation is ahead of all non-champions (including Holland or Hungary, two examples - each in my era - blatantly tragic "non-championing") and even one champion (England), I still decided to introduce the qualification mentioned above: the teams involved in the ranking more than once appeared in the final tournaments. There are, of course, double and triple accidents, but there is no theoretical objection to them; protecting the system from a single error (“Once - not the highest class, not super pass, not an eye diamond,” say the players) I considered it my duty. So, the above table illustrates the complexity and ambiguity of all rating systems, but, summing up the overall result below, I excluded Turkey from the calculation (I considered Germany to be the sixth in the list and then on to the list).
And more about the system. It was said a little higher that “four is more than three”; in this logic, the question is possible - eight is more than four, why not, according to the same principle, also count the quarter-finalists? Frankly, I had such an intention, but in the course of work stopped his laboriousness. There are, however, more objective explanations: reaching the quarter-finals is, nevertheless, to a much greater (to me, in the “Rubicon”, principal) measure the result of the lottery than reaching one-second. An example, again, is at hand: Ukraine 2006, which crawled out of the simplest group with big problems, accidentally defeating the not too strong Swiss and routinely defeated in the next round. (In parentheses: quarter finals were not played due to regulation mutations in 1932, 1950, 1974, 1978, 1982; of course, the methodology for determining the fifth or eighth teams is not a problem, but still ...).
Generally
So, we can proceed to compiling - based on six existing estimates - the overall rating. For the first seven places in each of the six lists the national teams are awarded points from 7 to 1 in descending order. Why seven places? - according to the number of existing champions. When several teams occupy one step, the corresponding points are divided.
Example:
"First of all". Championship wins
1. Brazil - 7 points
2. Italy - 6
3. Germany 5
4-5. Argentina, Uruguay - 3.5 each (4 and 3 points are added for 4 and 5 places and divided in half)
6-7. England, France - 1.5 each
More complex example:
"Thirdly". Finals
... 5-9. Hungary, Netherlands, France, Czechoslovakia, Uruguay 2
These teams played twice in the final matches and divided fifth to ninth places. Six points - three for fifth place, two for sixth and one for seventh - are junior for five teams, that is, 1.2 for each team.
Everyone can easily check the accuracy of the remaining calculations, here I will give a general result:
1. Brazil 38.5 points
2. Germany 36.5
3. Italy 36
4. Uruguay 16.2
5. Argentina 15.5
6. France 10.7
7. Czechoslovakia 5.2
8. Hungary 3.2
9. Portugal
10. Holland 2.7
11. England 2.5
12. Sweden 2
findings
Thus, Brazil really turns out to be the absolute leader, in accordance with public opinion, but its separation from the two main competitors is quite modest, so it’s more logical to talk about the three world leaders (B. I. G. - by the first letters of the names of countries), far ahead of the rest of the planet.
In the dynamics, one can assume a decrease in the rating of Uruguay, the leader of the second three, but not too relevant according to current concepts of the player. The main candidates for increase are those who have already been champions (a victory in South Africa 2010 in England or Argentina will automatically give an increase in points in all or almost all six ratings, but the increase is hardly fundamental). The dynamics of Portugal and the Netherlands are favorable: they did not play too often (4 and 8 times, respectively), which means a noticeable increase in the rating of “second”, “fourth” and “sixth” with any subsequent appropriate success (which can be expected due to the relatively high quality of their game); however, between the three current points of Portugal and the Brazilian result, the abyss is extraordinary.
Another jerk option: “the case of Turkey”; if the newly made Europeans become, for example, the next time champions, then leadership in all even nominations and a common seventh place will pass to them; it’s another matter that they won’t become champions next time. In principle, the “new agility” (maybe not Turkey, maybe someone from Africa, finally) has matured, but since there are many candidates, they will inevitably eat each other in the overall standings. So, given the magnitude of the gap between the Big Three and the fact that the “world format” is changing so quickly that no one can vouch for the scam of the existence of the World Cup after 2010 ... Given all this, Brazil, Germany and Italy will never be overtaken, and perhaps there will be a rearrangement of the insiders of the first truvirate.
In order to satisfy a scammy body, craving for constant updates, it is possible to establish, on similar grounds, an adjacent rating, taking into account, for example, basically not all 18 championships, but the last few (ten, nine ...). This, kognechno, will more accurately reflect the current state of football affairs.
The Big Three
Brazil, Italy and Germany played each other in the final World Cup tournaments 12 times, with 10 games in Italy and eight rivals each.
Brazil: 7 (+5; - 2; = 0). The goal difference is 12: 7. Average points per match - 2.1
Italy: 10 (+5; - 3; = 2). The goal difference is 16:13. Average points per match - 1.7
Germany: 7 (+0; - 5; = 2). The goal difference is 4:12. Average points per match - 0.3.
(note: for a victory here and below 3 points; Brazil's penalty shoot-out in Italy in the 1994 final is counted as a Brazilian victory and a Italians defeat (although the main and extra time, of course, ended in a draw); goals from the post-match penalty in the goal difference not taken into account).
Vyacheslav KURITSYN (writer, literary critic)