Okay, there’s 9 spots left, 4 in Europe, 3 in Africa and 2 more in playoffs between Asia and Oceania and North and South America.
An important note: One minor change has been made to the National Team rankings. In the explanation to the rating system posted earlier, I explained that I needed to convert goal scoring to a number between 0 and 1. To do that I divided goals by the number ‘180.’ That number has been changed to 27. Why? Well because it appears to work better, it covers every single score in the history of international soccer and it also makes a favorite like Slovenia was over San Marino less likely to drop points (but not by a lot). For now that’s the only change I’m making as other changes have proven to be a little more complicated and I need time to work on them.
The updated National Team Rankings can be found here.
Full qualification chances can be found here.
Ireland vs France
France = 74.78%, Ireland = 24.22%. Bookies: France = 70.91%, Ireland = 29.09%. When it comes to individual playoff matchups like this, the results predicted by a National Team rating system can offer differ from folks expectations for a variety of reasons, most notably injury. With Franck Ribery out for both legs of this one and Damien Duff apparently ready to give it a go, the injury situation has certainly favored the Irish. My system often differs from others in that it takes a longer term look at the results of the teams involved. This also makes the French a bigger favorite than folks might think (it wasn’t that long ago where my system felt France was one of the two best teams in the world). It’s really hard to say just what to do with those numbers. But I still think the French are probably a better team than the Irish and the bookies seem to agree. We’ll see.
Portugal vs Bosnia-Herzegovina
Portugal = 84.52%, Bosnia-Herzegovina = 15.48%. Bookies: Portugal = 70.91%, Bosnia-Herzegovina = 29.09%. Speaking of injuries, Cristiano Ronaldo is out for this one which I think is a major reason for the wide discrepancy between the system’s odds and those of the bookie. Bosnia has some talent, there’s no doubt including former St. Louis University standout Vedad Ibisevic. But the Portguese have come from a long way back to just make it this far, and despite the losses of Ronaldo and others, they still should win this. But I think the system odds are a little high.
Ukraine vs Greece
Ukraine = 53.35%, Greece = 46.65%. Bookies: Ukraine = 53.33%, Greece = 46.67%. Have the bookies been sneaking a peak over here? 
That’s pretty insane how close that is. This is the one UEFA matchup where the seeded team is actually the underdog. This one’s essentially a coinflip, the small advantage Ukraine has is not particularly meaningful. It was a bad break for the Greeks as they were the worst of the seeded teams and drew the best of the unseeded ones. But they can win this one and both teams will need to bring their best over the two legs.
Russia vs Slovenia
Russia= 71.07%, Slovenia = 28.93%. Bookies: Russia = 78.31%, Slovenia = 21.69%. My ranking system has had Russia underrated compared to conventional wisdom for a while now and the difference with the bookies reflects that. But that does mean it was closer to getting the result against Germany right than conventional wisdom. They are a team whose record of winning is better than their record of goal scoring and the system looks at goal scoring. Slovenia has impressed lately and if the Russians take them lightly, they could get burned. The Russians are still the clear favorites, but an upset is certainly as possible here as it is in the two other matches with significant favorites.
Costa Rica vs Uruguay
Uruguay = 73.09%, Costa Rica = 26.91%. Bookies: Uruguay = 73.13%, Costa Rica = 26.87%. The bookies once again get caught peeking at my paper. The first leg is in a very difficult to play place in Costa Rica so we’ll know a lot about this one after the first leg. Costa Rica of course will feel they shouldn’t have to go through this, but have to put those thoughts behind them. Uruguay is a strong team and Costa Rica has some talent. The Uruguayans are a solid but not overwhelming favorite here.
Bahrain vs New Zealand
Bahrain = 61.73%, New Zealand = 38.27%. Bookies: Bahrain = 57.66, New Zealand = 42.34%. The first leg of this one finished 0-0 in Bahrain, and now the Kiwis will need a win at home to go through. A 0-0 draw sends it to extra time. All other draws and a Bahrain win send them to South Africa. The bookies like New Zealand’s chances a little better than the system, and it’s possible the system could underrate a Kiwi team that often plays less meaningful matches with an understrength side. But I think Bahrain is the better team (which mostly nullifies the Kiwi’s home field), and with most of the draws pointing in their favor, they deserve to be the slight favorites here.
CAF Group A
Cameroon = 72.20%, Gabon = 27.80%. Bookies: Cameroon = 74.38, Gabon = 25.62%. Gabon had a golden shot but couldn’t hold serve at home against Cameroon. They will need at least a draw on the road against Togo, but that would require Cameroon to lose by at least two on the road against Morocco. A win for Gabon and anything but a win for Cameroon sends them through. All other results send Cameroon through. The odds above look more or less correct to me.
CAF Group B
Tunisia = 68.65%, Nigeria = 31.35%. Bookies: Tunisia = 73.96%, Nigeria = 26.04%. The Nigerians need some assistance now as they will need to win on the road against Kenya and need Tunisia not to win on the road in Mozambique. They do have the tiebreaker so a Tunisian draw and a Nigerian win sees the Nigerians through. The bookies sees this as roughly the same as above, but I think the Nigerians have a slightly better shot than Gabon as they have a weaker team to deal with than Gabon does and are a stronger team overall.
CAF Group C
Algeria = 70.01%, Egypt = 29.99%, Bookies: Algeria = 63.75%, Egypt = 37.25%. The first thing to note is that the tiebreaker (if needed) will be a one game playoff on the 18th in Sudan. That tie will come about if Egypt wins by two (and exactly two) goals with the specific two goal scoreline being irrelevant. Should Egypt win only by a goal or not at all, Algeria goes through. Should Egypt win by three or more, Egypt goes through. The bettors seem to like Egypt’s chances more than the system does. Egypt is considered the stronger team and is at home, but winning by two goals against a solid team like Algeria is easier than it sounds, particularly when Algeria knows this. There’s already been a woofing going on in this one and I expect Cairo is going to be quite an intimidating home field. Of all the matches on the 14th, this would be the one as a neutral I’d want to see. Should be fun.
There’s no real purpose to the data dump at this point. All of the in depth information is now boiling down to the basic results above. In terms of the bookie percentages all of the non-African percentages were taken from Bet365 and the African percentages were taken from Unibet. I thought I’d include them just as a sort of guide as to how well the system matches up with public perception.
I’ll put one more up after the weekend’s games (I think they’re all on the 14th but I’m not sure off the top of my head) and then after the 18th we’ll move onto the big enchilada.
25 responses so far ↓
1 Amir // Nov 13, 2009 at 2:33 am
Didn’t Australia won 31-0 against Samoa?
Anyway, I’m sure you’ve done enough testing to check it doesn’t screw up the rankings…
2 Voros // Nov 13, 2009 at 2:44 am
Yes but they were at home so HFA covers the rest. Going even lower actually improves the accuracy, so I stopped at the lowest point while still covering that game.
3 Mitz // Nov 13, 2009 at 4:37 am
Voros speaks! Been on tenterhooks for this one!
Re: Europe – I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: at least one of the so called seeds will fail, and the obvious choice would be Greece, but there is a case for any of the other three to cause an upset as well. For Ireland, the first leg is absolutely crucial – if they can stop France getting an away goal I will seriously fancy their chances in the return leg, but that is a big “if”. For Bosnia and Slovenia it will be all about the passion and belief that they can bring to the table.
I get the feeling that Costa Rica will be so crushed not to have already qualified that their game will shrivel. Uruguay are the kind of team that can expoit any emotional weakness.
Bahrain have got all the cards except home advantage – but in the return leg, having failed to score an away goal, home “advantage” can be a curse. Sorry New Zealand – 4 more years to wait.
As for Africa, I simply can’t see either Cameroon or Tunisia slipping up now. But I can definitely see all sorts of twists and turns going on in Cairo. What price Egypt leading by a single goal in the last few minutes and laying siege to the Algerian goal, winning a corner deep into stoppage time, the Egyptian ‘keeper going up to act as an extra striker… These are the things that make me love international football so much. But whose barmy idea was it to choose Sudan for the potential playoff?! Great idea, go to a country being torn apart by civil war, ethnic cleansing and all sorts of other nastiness. There must have been better options.
Anyhow, I for one will be glued to TV, radio and internet tomorrow and on Wednesday!
4 Nathaniel // Nov 13, 2009 at 4:48 am
Voros, what’s your reaction to Nate Silver’s new ranking system that has appeared on ESPN?
5 Voros // Nov 13, 2009 at 5:43 am
I haven’t looked it over that much, but the data in the database sounds impressive. There are ways for me to boil down my ratings to the player level as well, but that requires a lot more time and effort than I can muster as a hobby.
The only thing I see just glancing over Nate’s rankings is that he may be over-weighting most recent results. He’s got Honduras a couple spots ahead of the Czechs and that just doesn’t strike me as correct.
If I had to guess, I’d say I really only have one advantage over Nate, and that is I’ve been doing this longer. If he keeps at this, he will make more adjustments as time goes on. I certainly have made a ton over the years.
6 Thomas // Nov 13, 2009 at 6:25 am
That was a solid, gracious response from you.
I think his system has a couple of minor flaws, but it is otherwise pretty promising.
The good news for you, I think, is that if ESPN gives that index a high-profile push in the run-up to the World Cup — and I suspect they will — you will probably receive some of the trickle-over benefits. American sports fans, stats fanatics that they are, will likely start hunting around for other similar indices as their World Cup interest gets piqued.
So, probably a win-win-win for the likes of you, ELO, etc.
7 dorian // Nov 13, 2009 at 6:59 am
Voros, just out of curiosity regarding the change of 180 to 27, and how it impacted the Slovenia-San Marino estimates/probabilities (you mentioned not my much) — what are the numbers that the new 27 produce? Here are the old numbers from your post:
>>Slovenia = 2.65
>>San Marino = 0.17
>>Slovenia predicted chances of winning = 89.7%,
>>Slovenia predicted chance of a draw = 8.9%
Thanks!
8 california viola // Nov 13, 2009 at 10:31 am
At this point I would say Algeria 100% Egypt 0%. It seems strange FIFA will not punish the Egyptians for what has happened to the Algerians on the highway.
My other picks are France, Portugal, Greece, Russia, Uruguay, Cameroon, Tunisia, and … New Zealand. The Kiwis looked good in Bahrain and maybe they’ll exploit home advantage. For those of you in the U.S. the game will be shown tonight on FSC at 11:00 pm (Pacific Time).
9 Mitz // Nov 14, 2009 at 1:11 am
Congratulations New Zealand! I’m pleased for them (despite being wrong, again) and it’s good to have all 6 continents represented.
10 Amir // Nov 14, 2009 at 2:28 am
Nate Silver uses a linear time weighting, but the total time for each team is depends on the amount and importance of the matches it played (and the importance is impacted by the squad that play).
I think it is really a dynamic ranking, in the sense that it adjust itself for each team with their spacial needs.
It will be really interesting to compare it in reality to Voros’ ranking.
11 Amir // Nov 14, 2009 at 3:15 am
Voros, did you consider using multiple logit regression as Nate Silver does?
12 Amir // Nov 14, 2009 at 3:51 am
Well, Nate Silver’s rankings gives some wierd results, such as Chile ranked 8th, and Brazil have a better defense than Spain.
13 Sanchotene // Nov 14, 2009 at 6:25 am
It`s official. South Africa has 33% of chance having either Honduras or New Zealand in its group.
14 Mitz // Nov 14, 2009 at 12:10 pm
What did I say? Egypt only one goal up deep into injury time?
Well, I had to get one right some time…
15 california viola // Nov 14, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Well, I got the Kiwis right. They did look organized in Bahrain and they produced more in the second match. The level of the game was very low, however, with plenty of bad passes for both sides.
I was just looking at the current FIFA rankings. New Zealand (#83) had to beat only Bahrain (#61), Fiji (#108), New Caledonia (#141), and Vanuatu (#159) in order to qualify for the World Cup.
Looking at the closest ranked European teams, New Zealand’s qualification is equivalent to Iceland qualifying for the World Cup by beating Lithuania, Estonia, Liechtenstein, and Malta.
A bit of useless trivia: every time a team from Oceania has qualified for the World Cup, the cup was won by a European team: West Germany in 1974 and Italy in 1982 and 2006.
16 Mitz // Nov 15, 2009 at 6:12 am
Ha ha – good stat! I’ll take that as a good omen.
Quick summary as I see it for the remaining places:
France are almost home and dry. They will score in Paris and Ireland aren’t going to get two.
Portugal should be fine. Again, they really should be able to score in the away leg and I seriously doubt Bosnia can get three.
Russia will be full of angst about allowing Slovenia that away goal. I think an upset might just be on the cards here if Slovenia can score first in the return leg. Should be interesting anyway.
Greece or Ukraine? Who knows. Whichever of them makes it I can’t see them doing much in SA next year anyway.
Costa Rica are done, finished, bye bye, turn the lights out as you leave.
And if anyone is willing to put any money on what will happen in Sudan on Wednesday, then they are a braver man than I am…
17 california viola // Nov 15, 2009 at 10:11 am
A couple of notes:
Uruguay wins in Costa Rica has virtually decided the pots for the draw. It seems likely at this point that the non seeded African and South American teams will end up in the same bowl. FIFA will pair South Africa with a CONMEBOL team and Argentina and Brazil with two African teams and the draw is straightforward from that.
With CONCACAF, Asia, and Oceania in the last bowl, this could end up as the most important part of the draw. Pick United States or Mexico and your group is suddendly very difficult. Pick North Korea or New Zealand and you can breath a little easier.
The Kiwis’ qualification is generating tons of debate over the Internet. While the great majority is happy to see them in the World Cup, many are pointing out that there is something wrong with the qualifying system.
Last night Fox Soccer Channel commentators called New Zealand “possibly the only team ever to qualify for the World Cup by eliminating only countries with population under a million.” Some European observers are not happy that much stronger teams are out. Many Asian fans are irate that Asia will only get three real Asian teams in the World Cup and want Australia back in the OFC.
I wonder if New Zealand’s qualification will lead to a change in the qualification system starting with the next world cup. I wonder if …
… FIFA will decide to expand the World Cup (possibly for the 2018 edition)
… Asia and Oceania will be combined in one confederation
… Asia will be divided in two subconfederations in order to avoid that all teams west of Korea be shut out of the World Cup like it has happened this year
… an extended system of interconfederations playoff will be used
One more thing to keep in mind: considering that Slovakia and Bosnia have already played in the World Cup (as Chechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), this is going to be the first World Cup ever without at least a debutant.
18 Sanchotene // Nov 15, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I think FIFA will put CAF and CONCACAF together, and pray Honduras to be drawn with the hosts.
AFC, OFC and CONMEBOL would be in the other pot.
19 keopar // Nov 15, 2009 at 4:37 pm
@Mitz
“it’s good to have all 6 continents represented”
it was alaready since australia is an oceania country
imo shame on FIFA to have accepted this move of australia. And Asian teams, espcially arabic ones, must have huge regrets for accepting this dummy evolution
20 keopar // Nov 15, 2009 at 4:42 pm
@sanchotene
should be AFC+OFC+CONCACAF together imo
so the pot would be better balanced, considering CAF>AFC/OFC and CONMEBOL>CONCACAF
but I heard FIFA alternate this combination and it was CONMEBOL/CAF in 2006
21 Sanchotene // Nov 15, 2009 at 4:46 pm
The Aussies won’t go back, unless FIFA creats a Pacific Conference and merges OFC with East Asia. Doing that, Middle East would become another Conference.
But I can’t see this coming…
P.S.: I have no problem with the current system.
22 Paulo Sanchotene // Nov 16, 2009 at 6:24 am
Keopar,
I believe it’s more balanced, but the problem here is getting the easiest path as possible to South Africa; and the best way is pairing Africa-N.America.
That would give Honduras a chance of 33% to join the hosts; and 50% to a non-S.America squad, between AUS, JAP, KOR, PRK and NZL.
Obviously, I’m considering Uruguay will keep the advantage over Costa Rica.
If not, FIFA will pair CAF- CONMEBOL-OFC and AFC-CONCACAF: giving the hosts a chance of 33% to face New Zealand; and a 75% chance facing either JAP, AUS, KOR, KPR, HON or CRC.
This is not about balance, but politics…
23 Paulo Sanchotene // Nov 16, 2009 at 6:30 am
About Australia, the move to AFC was NECESSARY. They simply couldn’t belong to OFC anymore.
And Australia, now, is an Asian country in the same way Turkey and Israel are Europeans, or Suriname and Guinae are North Americans.
Maybe another solution would be what I wrote at #21: split Asia; and put East Asia together with OFC.
24 BarmyArgie // Nov 17, 2009 at 7:31 am
Splitting Asia won’t work because the Middle East region is rather weak right now. How many spots would you give them in the World Cup? Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and maybe Bahrain and Qatar are all capable of reaching the World Cup on their best days, but this campaign has been disastrous for them. It’s not Australia’s fault that they were too good for Oceania.
Expanding the WC is not an option either as it is already quite large and lasts a full month. To have more than 32 teams would only devalue the competition and the qualifiers.
Maybe NZ got to the WC by beating small countries, but population doesn’t really mean quality anyway. Look at India, China, Indonesia, Bangladesh… they’re all quite rubbish.
25 End of the Road to South Africa // Nov 18, 2009 at 9:12 pm
[…] a previous installment I compared my percentages to the bookies. For no particular reason and with no particular meaning […]
Leave a Comment