Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Hurling Rankings

  • 03-03-2014 8:48am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭ Hanalei


    Yep, a hurling ranking thread again ;)

    However, the difference between this and other hurling ranking threads is that this is not in any way subjective, what I did last year was apply the IRB points exchange world ranking system to the results of each hurling league and championship game dating back to 2005.

    I think it is a fairly interesting and accurate guide myself, as we know, a ranking system is not a guide to future performance, but a guide of where a team stands based on how they have performed up to now.

    A few points of note, Clare have yet to overhaul Kilkenny who have been top since the 2011 All-Ireland final after they defeated Tipperary, who had been top since defeating KK in the 2010 decider. Up to then, Kilkenny were unsurprisingly number 1 for 4 years

    Clare started the Davy Fitz reign in 10th place, Limerick despite winning last season's Munster Championship are in 8th, as the system rewards long term consistency over short term achievement, however in terms of points score they are very close to the teams immediately above them.

    One change I had to make from the IRB system was that the IRB multiply the points exchange by 1.5 for a margin of victory greater than 14 points, I have elected to do that for a margin of victory of at least 8 points in hurling.

    I'll probably pop in and update this most weeks after games.

    EDIT: March 2016.

    A lot of posts in this thread now so with the help of the GAA mods links to some of the more interesting posts on this thread will be linked here in the OP.

    The unusual year that was 1998;

    A snapshot of the 1970's

    1975-1977 ; Kildare in the top 10

    Where are Cavan?

    10 year trend (2005-14)


«13456717

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭ Hanalei


    Position|(last week)|Team|Rating Point
    1st |(1)|KILKENNY|90.09
    2nd |(2)|CLARE|87.99
    3rd |(3)|TIPPERARY|87.37
    4th |(4)|CORK|86.51
    5th |(5)|DUBLIN|86.33
    6th |(6)|WATERFORD|85.19
    7th |(7)|GALWAY|85.02
    8th |(8)|LIMERICK|84.53
    9th |(9)|WEXFORD|77.76
    10th |(10)|OFFALY|75.08
    11th |(11)|LAOIS|73.7
    12th |(12)|ANTRIM|70.67
    13th |(13)|CARLOW|66.32
    14th |(14)|KERRY|64.75
    15th |(15)|WESTMEATH|62.66
    16th |(16)|DOWN|62.12
    17th |(17)|DERRY|61.06
    18th |(18)|LONDON|59.16
    19th |(19)|KILDARE|57.53
    20th |(20)|MEATH|57.29
    21st |(21)|WICKLOW|56.92
    22nd |(22)|MAYO|50.97
    23rd |(23)|ARMAGH|48.41
    24th |(24)|FINGAL|48.26
    25th |(25)|DONEGAL|46.05
    26th |(26)|ROSCOMMON|43.8
    27th |(28)+|TYRONE|40.26
    28th |(27)-|LOUTH|40.09
    29th |(29)|MONAGHAN|37.78
    30th |(30)|FERMANAGH|36.9
    31st |(32)+|LONGFORD|33.89
    32nd |(31)-|WARWICKSHIRE|33.54
    33rd |(33)|SLIGO|32.87
    34th |(34)|LEITRIM|26.04


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭ redlead
    Registered User


    Interesting. Could you post up how you are calculating the points. i.e. I'd be interested to see how Clare are ranked ahead of say Tipp if all games taken since 2005 are used in the calculation. I would have thought that Tipp would have been much more successful than Clare over this period. Similarly Waterford over Cork and Dublin etc. Do more recent results get a heavier weighting?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭ Hanalei


    redlead wrote: »
    Interesting. Could you post up how you are calculating the points. i.e. I'd be interested to see how Clare are ranked ahead of say Tipp if all games taken since 2005 are used in the calculation. I would have thought that Tipp would have been much more successful than Clare over this period. Similarly Waterford over Cork and Dublin etc. Do more recent results get a heavier weighting?

    I was hoping to avoid being asked this question as the IRB ranking system is a bit tricky to explain! I'll try my best but be warned; what follows is very boring :D





    Lets take this weekends clash between Kilkenny and Galway to illustrate.

    Currently; Kilkenny = 90.09, Galway = 85.02.

    Kilkenny have home advantage, so 3 points are added to their total to handicap their home advantage, bringing them to a total of 93.09.

    Next, calculate the difference between the teams; 93.09 - 85.02 = 8.07

    Now for the tricky part...

    Kilkenny are treated as the leading team and Galway are the trailing team in terms of points.

    • IF the leading team wins, they gain and trailing team loses; (1 - (difference/10))
    • IF the trailing team wins, they gain and the leading team loses;(1 + (difference/10))
    • IF margin of victory 8 points or more, points exchange multiplied by 1.5.
    • Points exchange capped at 2 points (or 3 points for a victory of 8+ points)


    Still with me?! So back to the KK v GY game, we have 5 cases, either side winning by 8+ points, either side winning by 1-7 points, and a draw (which I will come to)


    1. Kilkenny win by 8+ points. KK gain and GY lose; (1.5*(1 - 8.07/10)) = 0.2895 points (round up to 0.29) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=90.38, Galway=84.73)
    2. Kilkenny win by 1-7 points. KK gain and GY lose; (1 - 8.07/10)) = 2.7105 points (round to 2.71) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=90.28, Galway=84.83)
    3. Galway win by 8+ points. GY gain and KK lose; (1.5*(1 + 8.07/10)) = 0.2895 points (round up to 0.29) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=87.38, Galway=87.73)
    4. Galway win by 1-7 points. GY gain and KK lose; (1 + 8.07/10)) = 1.807 points (round to 1.81) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=88.28, Galway=86.83)
    5. DRAW. GY gain and KK lose the difference divided by 10. (0.807, rounds to 0.81) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=89.28, Galway=85.83)
    So the only scenario whereby Galway finish next weekend ahead of Kilkenny in the rankings is if they go to Nolan Park and win by 8+ points.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,783 ✭✭✭ bren2001
    Registered User


    What competitions does this include, just league and championship? Are championship games weighted? I think we would all agree that beating Kilkenny in the league is far easier than the Championship.

    I would agree with the rankings with the exception of Clare. Don't see how they could be so high, they did not do much before last year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,773 ✭✭✭✭ KevIRL
    Registered User


    Fair play. You put some work into this


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭ Hanalei


    bren2001 wrote: »
    What competitions does this include, just league and championship? Are championship games weighted? I think we would all agree that beating Kilkenny in the league is far easier than the Championship.

    I would agree with the rankings with the exception of Clare. Don't see how they could be so high, they did not do much before last year.

    Just league and championship, I considered pre-season competitions when I did this last year but it's a bit messy with all the colleges and so on. I considered weighting the championship games (just like the IRB do with world cup games) but it had a fairly volatile effect on the rankings. Had last year for example had weighted championship games, it would have seen Kilkenny in 4th after the championship and Tipperary in 6th, and while those positions may have been representative of their performance in last years championship, I would feel it would not have been a fair assessment of their overall standing.

    And on Clare, look at their points rather than their position, a defeat this weekend in Thurles puts them down to third, possibly 4th depending on the outcome of the Waterford Dublin game.

    No such thing as a perfect ranking system, but I do believe this reflects fairly on the perception things are about as wide open as they have been since the mid 90's at present, 1st to 8th separated by a mere 6.5 ranking points.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,264 Fireball07
    Registered User


    This kind of stuff interests me a lot, and I do think that the IRB system is one of the better systems in sport to actually rank teams- rarely do I have too much disagreement with it.


    It is supposed to show how teams are ranked at the moment, it mightn't reward short-term achievement as much as other systems, but the rankings are (and generally do) supposed to show how good a team is at a certain time.

    Few questions:
    Why 2005 as the starting point? I know you have to start somewhere... but why 2005 in particular.

    I do think weighting the Championship would be better, simply because certain teams treat it asa lot more important... particularly as you go back through the years.

    And one reason why this system might not work is the amount of games... Limerick were Munster champions but only won 2 games... Clare played Waterford, Cork, Laois, Wexford and Galway before they reached the same stage as Limerick.

    And why 8 points? Again, I know you have to pick some number... just wondering why you settled for 8?





    But, on the face of it, I agree with how most of the list panned out so I think it's a good system. I'd personally have Limerick a little higher- I think we're better than Galway and Waterford atm, but I suppose while we're stuck in the 2nd tier of league hurling, we can't have too many complaints.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 Godge


    Hanalei wrote: »
    Just league and championship, I considered pre-season competitions when I did this last year but it's a bit messy with all the colleges and so on. I considered weighting the championship games (just like the IRB do with world cup games) but it had a fairly volatile effect on the rankings. Had last year for example had weighted championship games, it would have seen Kilkenny in 4th after the championship and Tipperary in 6th, and while those positions may have been representative of their performance in last years championship, I would feel it would not have been a fair assessment of their overall standing.

    And on Clare, look at their points rather than their position, a defeat this weekend in Thurles puts them down to third, possibly 4th depending on the outcome of the Waterford Dublin game.

    No such thing as a perfect ranking system, but I do believe this reflects fairly on the perception things are about as wide open as they have been since the mid 90's at present, 1st to 8th separated by a mere 6.5 ranking points.

    Well done for all the hard work.
    Excellent idea.

    When I read the OP, the only question I had was whether you were weighting it for the Championship or not.

    you are right too about the points gap being crucial. Ireland can change very quickly between fourth and seventh on the IRB table but is rarely worse than seventh and rarely better than fourth which reflects the actual standing of the team.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭ Hanalei


    Fireball07 wrote: »
    Few questions:
    Why 2005 as the starting point? I know you have to start somewhere... but why 2005 in particular.

    I do think weighting the Championship would be better, simply because certain teams treat it asa lot more important... particularly as you go back through the years.

    And one reason why this system might not work is the amount of games... Limerick were Munster champions but only won 2 games... Clare played Waterford, Cork, Laois, Wexford and Galway before they reached the same stage as Limerick.

    And why 8 points? Again, I know you have to pick some number... just wondering why you settled for 8?

    Why 2005? Long story short that was as far back as I had access to complete results for all counties in both league and championship. And there was the added benefit of the formation of the Ring and Rackard cups. I don't have access to say the results of the All-Ireland senior 'B championship which ran up to 2004.

    I tried weighting championship results last season and it just seemed to have way too volatile an effect on the standings, maybe I should have given less weight to league games but increasing the weight on championship games can produce strange results.

    Last years top 8 (off the top of my head) with a weighted system was CLA-COR-DUB-KIL-LIM-TIP-WAT-GAL.

    Without a weighted system last years final standings were KIL-CLA-TIP-COR-DUB-WAT-GAL-LIM.

    Now as a proud Limerick man, I reluctantly accept that 8th was probably a fairer assessment of where we were overall than 5th, we have been marooned in division 2 for 4 years and apart from two scalps in the Munster championship at home last year, we haven't consistently beaten the teams above us in the rankings to merit anything higher than 8th yet, albeit it 8th with a comfortable margin down to 9th.

    8 points? I'm not really sure to be honest, I pretty much asked myself where is the line between a good win and a comfortable win. I'll admit that it was an arbitrary decision of mine to go with 8, I'd accept criticisms of that aspect but it's just what I felt fair at the time!





    Fireball07 wrote:
    But, on the face of it, I agree with how most of the list panned out so I think it's a good system. I'd personally have Limerick a little higher- I think we're better than Galway and Waterford atm, but I suppose while we're stuck in the 2nd tier of league hurling, we can't have too many complaints.

    I know, I'd like to think we'd be above them but they're up in division 1 playing against teams nearer them in terms of points, so they have the potential to gain points in every game whereas Limerick don't- our hammering of Antrim earned nothing as they're more than ten points behind in the rankings!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 Godge


    Hanalei wrote: »



    I know, I'd like to think we'd be above them but they're up in division 1 playing against teams nearer them in terms of points, so they have the potential to gain points in every game whereas Limerick don't- our hammering of Antrim earned nothing as they're more than ten points behind in the rankings!

    This is the problem faced by Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Romania and Spain in the rugby equivalent. They don't get to play higher-ranked teams so don't get the opportunity to gain points.

    Similarly, in cricket, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Afghanistan have limits to their upward potential.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭ Martin567
    Registered User


    There is a decidedly odd element to how that system works and I find it strange that the IRB would adopt it.

    Take the example provided by the OP in the detailed post. If Kilkenny were to defeat Galway by 1 pt then their points average would increase by 0.2 while Galway's would decrease by 0.2. However, if Galway were to win by 1 pt, their points average would increase by 1.8 and Kilkenny's decrease by the same. Therefore, under this system, Galway would benefit 9 times more than Kilkenny by narrowly winning a closely fought game!

    Is there any logical reason why that should be the case? It would just seem to lead to needless fluctuation in the rankings based on a single narrow win. If two teams are relatively evenly matched, why should the potential rankings reward be so much greater for one team compared with the other?

    The only reason I can see is to artificially prevent one team from being too far ahead of everyone else in the rankings. A dominant team will receive increasingly fewer ranking points for every win while a single defeat will undo anything up to 10 or even more earlier wins.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 Godge


    Martin567 wrote: »
    There is a decidedly odd element to how that system works and I find it strange that the IRB would adopt it.

    Take the example provided by the OP in the detailed post. If Kilkenny were to defeat Galway by 1 pt then their points average would increase by 0.2 while Galway's would decrease by 0.2. However, if Galway were to win by 1 pt, their points average would increase by 1.8 and Kilkenny's decrease by the same. Therefore, under this system, Galway would benefit 9 times more than Kilkenny by narrowly winning a closely fought game!

    Is there any logical reason why that should be the case? It would just seem to lead to needless fluctuation in the rankings based on a single narrow win. If two teams are relatively evenly matched, why should the potential rankings reward be so much greater for one team compared with the other?

    The only reason I can see is to artificially prevent one team from being too far ahead of everyone else in the rankings. A dominant team will receive increasingly fewer ranking points for every win while a single defeat will undo anything up to 10 or even more earlier wins.

    I see what you mean, but the rankings aren't about what happens after one match. They are about calculating which team is currently the best team around. In rugby the rankings have generally worked out ok and most have accepted them as more or less accurately reflecting relative positions.

    What will be interesting is whether the hurling rankings based on a similar system are equally acceptable or will anomalies appear. The methodology may need to be adjusted in time, whether it is through the weighting for championships or through the method of calculation or through the 8 points being the divisor between large and small wins. However, the aim isn't to make sure that the result of any one match is fair, it is to ensure that the overall picture is fair.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,798 ✭✭✭✭ dastardly00
    Registered User


    Well done Hanalei for doing this, it must have been a fair amount of work. I had wanted to do something like this myself, but I never had the time to sit down and do it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,798 ✭✭✭✭ dastardly00
    Registered User


    Hanalei wrote: »
    1. Galway win by 8+ points. GY gain and KK lose; (1.5*(1 + 8.07/10)) = 0.2895 points (round up to 0.29) leaving new totals of; (Kilkenny=87.38, Galway=87.73)

    just a small typo...
    0.2895 points should be 2.7105 (I think!)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭ Martin567
    Registered User


    Godge wrote: »
    I see what you mean, but the rankings aren't about what happens after one match. They are about calculating which team is currently the best team around. In rugby the rankings have generally worked out ok and most have accepted them as more or less accurately reflecting relative positions.

    What will be interesting is whether the hurling rankings based on a similar system are equally acceptable or will anomalies appear. The methodology may need to be adjusted in time, whether it is through the weighting for championships or through the method of calculation or through the 8 points being the divisor between large and small wins. However, the aim isn't to make sure that the result of any one match is fair, it is to ensure that the overall picture is fair.

    In fairness, the team that wins the most matches will always be top of the rankings, no matter what the system. Any system that gave any other result would not be fit for purpose.

    I really don't get the point you're making in your last sentence. The overall picture will be derived from all of the individual fixtures. If the ranking points provided from individual fixtures is unfair, how can the overall picture be fair?

    Imagine if Team A wins their first 9 matches by 1 point while Team B loses their first 9 matches by 1 point. In the 10th match, the two teams meet and Team B wins by 8 points. Under the above system, this one result would bring the two teams very close together on ranking points. Is this really fair? Should one odd result be allowed to skew the rankings to such a degree?

    It seems to me that the above system is more akin to a boxing world title fight situation rather than a proper ranking system. In other words, the team that beats the top team gets an enormous lift and this one result has a disproportionate effect compared with all other results.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 Godge


    Martin567 wrote: »
    In fairness, the team that wins the most matches will always be top of the rankings, no matter what the system. Any system that gave any other result would not be fit for purpose.

    I really don't get the point you're making in your last sentence. The overall picture will be derived from all of the individual fixtures. If the ranking points provided from individual fixtures is unfair, how can the overall picture be fair?

    Imagine if Team A wins their first 9 matches by 1 point while Team B loses their first 9 matches by 1 point. In the 10th match, the two teams meet and Team B wins by 8 points. Under the above system, this one result would bring the two teams very close together on ranking points. Is this really fair? Should one odd result be allowed to skew the rankings to such a degree?

    It seems to me that the above system is more akin to a boxing world title fight situation rather than a proper ranking system. In other words, the team that beats the top team gets an enormous lift and this one result has a disproportionate effect compared with all other results.

    If Team A is in Division 2 and Team B in Division 1, then yes, it could be fair. But you are ignoring the strengths or not of the teams other than Team A and B. It is the inter-relationship of all of the teams that counts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭ Martin567
    Registered User


    Godge wrote: »
    If Team A is in Division 2 and Team B in Division 1, then yes, it could be fair. But you are ignoring the strengths or not of the teams other than Team A and B. It is the inter-relationship of all of the teams that counts.

    In my example above, I assumed that Team A and Team B had both been playing against the very same teams. I don't think one random very strange result should be allowed to affect rankings in the way that this system would allow.

    As I said in my first post, I can see no good reason for such a system other than to keep the teams all bunched artificially closely together in terms of ranking points and to make it impossible for any team to build up a very big lead. In any match, a victory for the lower ranked team will have a much greater impact on the ranking points than a win for the higher ranked team. Therefore one win for the lower team will undo several wins for the higher team. Teams will swap position more often than is in any way meaningful.

    Imagine in soccer if the Premier League table was done like this instead of simply points for winning, losing and drawing. The 20 teams would all be bunched far closer together than genuine merit would tell you they should be.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,264 Fireball07
    Registered User


    I'd have to sit down and work it all those possibilities, and see how the maths work out, because I can't do it in my head.


    But as has been said before, the IRB rankings do generally give a fairly accurate measurement... much more than, say, the FIFA rankings. There are always going to be 1 or 2 anomalies but I do think it works much better overall.



    Also @Hanalei, what weighting were you giving to the Championship? And if you had went back and done it for every year since 2005, would that have made a difference rather than just doing it for one year? Personally, I don't think it's that unfair to have Tipp slip down the rankings based on last year... they were poor in the league final, and they didn't seem to have the fight necessary against Limerick when put under pressure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭ Martin567
    Registered User


    The FIFA rankings are awful and utterly meaningless. Teams are frequently ranked 10 places or more behind other teams they are clearly better than.

    In fairness, there are only a very small number of strong rugby teams so it is far simpler than soccer. In fact, the number of strong international rugby teams is fairly similar to the number of strong hurling teams. It is not the most difficult task to put these into some order. Any of us could come up with a ranking off the top of our heads that wouldn't be too different to the one early in this thread.

    I wouldn't give this system much credit for giving a fairly accurate picture of the international rugby rankings. Any system that didn't have New Zealand & South Africa at the top with England, Wales, Ireland, France & Australia lining up behind would have to be questioned. If the IRB system works as set out earlier in this thread, the end result is reasonably accurate in spite of rather than because of the system.

    To take the earlier example, Kilkenny would make minuscule gains for every win and would need to keep winning to stay at the top. A 5 point lead over Galway represents a lot of wins. Yet Galway, despite currently being 7th, would actually overtake Kilkenny if they win by 8 pts on Sunday! That is ridiculous and places far too much weight on one result. It's just far too volatile. Why should a victory for Galway be 9 times more significant in terms of ranking points than a similar win for Kilkenny?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,264 Fireball07
    Registered User


    The main argument in favour of that system would be, that if Galway beat Kilkenny by more than 8 points, then they would have a pretty good case for being a better team than Kilkenny.


    It is supposed to reflect the order of teams at the moment..... but that is the main reason why I'd weight the Championship. Some teams put out weakened teams in the league, and it wouldn't be a true reflection of where a team is at if they lost 3 games while playing their subs. But if a team isn't up to speed by the Championship, that's their own fault, and they're obviously not good enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭ Martin567
    Registered User


    Fireball07 wrote: »
    The main argument in favour of that system would be, that if Galway beat Kilkenny by more than 8 points, then they would have a pretty good case for being a better team than Kilkenny.

    I get that but it's a pretty terrible argument. They would be a better team on that day but surely a ranking system (especially one as complicated as this!) is there to look further than one day. The problem is that it is simply wrong that a vastly different number of ranking points are available to both teams for victory in a two horse race. As I said earlier, this serves no function other than to keep the teams closely bunched whether this is appropriate or not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭ Henwin
    Registered User


    As a Kerry hurling supporter I would love if they were entered into the Leinster qualifiers if they wing the Christy Ring Cup.They are better matched against teams like carlow and Westmeath than entering Munster where they wud get hammered.
    in 2006 I attended the division 2 league final in Semple stadium between dublin and kerry. they were on the same level then, now they are miles apart, one reason for this i think is tat they have a better chance in improving in Leinster than Munster.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,264 Fireball07
    Registered User


    Martin567 wrote: »
    I get that but it's a pretty terrible argument. They would be a better team on that day but surely a ranking system (especially one as complicated as this!) is there to look further than one day. The problem is that it is simply wrong that a vastly different number of ranking points are available to both teams for victory in a two horse race. As I said earlier, this serves no function other than to keep the teams closely bunched whether this is appropriate or not.

    I don't know about that. I think the volatility of the rankings actually fits in pretty well with reality.

    If a team beats another by 8 points in the Championship, I will almost certainly call them a better team than the other. It increases the importance of individual fixtuers, and such is the nature of knockout competition... it's a bit different for the league, but with the newly added competitiveness to the league, I think it does show who is the best at a certain time.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 9,275 Mod ✭✭✭✭ seligehgit
    Moderator


    Fantastic work Hanalei,just curious did you ever do a similar rankings for the football??


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,264 Fireball07
    Registered User


    Henwin wrote: »
    As a Kerry hurling supporter I would love if they were entered into the Leinster qualifiers if they wing the Christy Ring Cup.They are better matched against teams like carlow and Westmeath than entering Munster where they wud get hammered.
    in 2006 I attended the division 2 league final in Semple stadium between dublin and kerry. they were on the same level then, now they are miles apart, one reason for this i think is tat they have a better chance in improving in Leinster than Munster.

    Possibility, I suppose, although Dublin have got a few hammerings themselves, even in recent years.


    I would say that the investment and work put in at underage level, plus bigger playing numbers, probably has more to do it. Although, it's true that getting hammered every year in Munster wouldn't help Kerry.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭ Martin567
    Registered User


    Looking into it further, a Galway win by 8 pts would mean they would overtake Kilkenny. If the same two teams met again at Nowlan Park the very next Sunday and Kilkenny won by 8 pts or more, they would go back ahead. But the gap would have closed considerably compared with before the first match. That's just another quirk of a fundamentally flawed system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,264 Fireball07
    Registered User


    Martin567 wrote: »
    Looking into it further, a Galway win by 8 pts would mean they would overtake Kilkenny. If the same two teams met again at Nowlan Park the very next Sunday and Kilkenny won by 8 pts or more, they would go back ahead. But the gap would have closed considerably compared with before the first match. That's just another quirk of a fundamentally flawed system.

    I agree that that quirk is most certainly a flaw. But I would still go along with it being the best ranking system that I know of.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,773 ✭✭✭✭ KevIRL
    Registered User


    Henwin wrote: »
    As a Kerry hurling supporter I would love if they were entered into the Leinster qualifiers if they wing the Christy Ring Cup.They are better matched against teams like carlow and Westmeath than entering Munster where they wud get hammered.
    in 2006 I attended the division 2 league final in Semple stadium between dublin and kerry. they were on the same level then, now they are miles apart, one reason for this i think is tat they have a better chance in improving in Leinster than Munster.

    I present in Walsh Park in 1993 when Kerry beat us (Waterford) in the first round of the Munster Senior hurling championship :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭ Martin567
    Registered User


    Fireball07 wrote: »
    I don't know about that. I think the volatility of the rankings actually fits in pretty well with reality.

    If a team beats another by 8 points in the Championship, I will almost certainly call them a better team than the other. It increases the importance of individual fixtuers, and such is the nature of knockout competition... it's a bit different for the league, but with the newly added competitiveness to the league, I think it does show who is the best at a certain time.

    That being the case, the whole discussion is redundant. We can just look at the most recent championship results and rank the teams accordingly. That may very well be the right approach but it would take all of about two minutes and there would be no need for any complicated calculations!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,264 Fireball07
    Registered User


    Martin567 wrote: »
    That being the case, the whole discussion is redundant. We can just look at the most recent championship results and rank the teams accordingly. That may very well be the right approach but it would take all of about two minutes and there would be no need for any complicated calculations!

    Possibly, but this ranking system still allows some leeway for narrow losses... and for form of teams over long periods of time. Kilkenny are still top despite falling at the quarter-final stage last year.

    But if you win by a large amount, the weighting increases, as it should imo. If I was tweaking it for GAA, I would definitely give some sort of weighting, even a small one for Championship. I'd probably try and bring in some allowance for the different amount of big games played.


Advertisement