Definitive stats for every African country at the WC, with rankings (credit to Folem for the initial data)

[Scipio Africanus]

Conclusions to come later but at first glance it seems the most important quality in WC success for African countries is number of players playing in top leagues, not the presence of an organized league, although that too is important.

How exactly does the presence of an organized league factor into this? Are the World Cup players drawn from such a league?

Look at the performance of the North African countries at the WC. I wager over time they’ve sent more local league players to the WC than say West Africa. They haven’t performed as well on aggregate as the West Africans.

So it is not just enough to have organized leagues. The leagues have to be of very good quality for NTs drawing on such leagues to make an impact at the WC.

I shouldn’t have to explain this

[camex]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

[Scipio Africanus]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

Croatia didn’t have a victory yesterday. They tied with Brazil and it will be registered as such in the record books.

Secondly what does the “World Cup not being a championship like the premier league” have to do with anything? Any competition will always have teams of varying quality. Please explain what you mean here.

Your Premier League analogy is flawed because beating Manchester City or beating Nottingham Forest still only gets you 3 points, even though Manchester City and Forest are clearly not the same level of quality, a condition that is crystallized by advancement beyond the first round of the WC.

[wanaj0]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

Kindly develop and share your own metric. Thanks in advance

[Bigpokey24]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

[Bigpokey24]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

Kindly develop and share your own metric. Thanks in advance

[Bigpokey24]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

Croatia didn’t have a victory yesterday. They tied with Brazil and it will be registered as such in the record books.

Secondly your Premier League analogy is flawed because beating Manchester City or beating Nottingham Forest still only gets you 3 points, even though Manchester City and Forest are clearly not the same level of quality, a condition that is crystallized by advancement beyond the first round of the WC

[Scipio Africanus]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

Croatia didn’t have a victory yesterday. They tied with Brazil and it will be registered as such in the record books.

Secondly your Premier League analogy is flawed because beating Manchester City or beating Nottingham Forest still only gets you 3 points, even though Manchester City and Forest are clearly not the same level of quality, a condition that is crystallized by advancement beyond the first round of the WC

Oga you are using up all the clapping emojis on CE. Abeg save some for di rest of us

[camex]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

Croatia didn’t have a victory yesterday. They tied with Brazil and it will be registered as such in the record books.

Secondly what does the “World Cup not being a championship like the premier league” have to do with anything? Any competition will always have teams of varying quality. Please explain what you mean here.

Your Premier League analogy is flawed because beating Manchester City or beating Nottingham Forest still only gets you 3 points, even though Manchester City and Forest are clearly not the same level of quality, a condition that is crystallized by advancement beyond the first round of the WC.

Your example is not a problem. every team in the league will have to play Manchester City. So those 3 points are difficult to get for everyone. At the end it evens out.

What I mean is that it is the team with the highest number of points who wins the championship. So a rating like yours makes sense there. On the other hand the World Cup winner is known after a series of playoffs. So your metric makes no sense there.

[Scipio Africanus]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

Croatia didn’t have a victory yesterday. They tied with Brazil and it will be registered as such in the record books.

Secondly what does the “World Cup not being a championship like the premier league” have to do with anything? Any competition will always have teams of varying quality. Please explain what you mean here.

Your Premier League analogy is flawed because beating Manchester City or beating Nottingham Forest still only gets you 3 points, even though Manchester City and Forest are clearly not the same level of quality, a condition that is crystallized by advancement beyond the first round of the WC.

Your example is not a problem. every team in the league will have to play Manchester City. So those 3 points are difficult to get for everyone. At the end it evens out.

What I mean is that it is the team with the highest number of points who wins the championship. So a rating like yours makes sense there. On the other hand the World Cup winner is known after a series of playoffs. So your metric makes no sense there.

The two teams with the highest number of points in the 1st round of the WC also “win” their “championship” by escaping the group and advancing to the next round. So the 1st round of the WC is like a league with 2
possible winners.

Every game after that is like a championship as well. You win, you get 3 points and you advance. What I have agreed upon with previous posters is that teams should get bonus points every time they advance to a higher level.

Now get off your behind and propose a better system, BASED ON THE WC DATA or stop wasting everyone’s time

[camex]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

Croatia didn’t have a victory yesterday. They tied with Brazil and it will be registered as such in the record books.

Secondly what does the “World Cup not being a championship like the premier league” have to do with anything? Any competition will always have teams of varying quality. Please explain what you mean here.

Your Premier League analogy is flawed because beating Manchester City or beating Nottingham Forest still only gets you 3 points, even though Manchester City and Forest are clearly not the same level of quality, a condition that is crystallized by advancement beyond the first round of the WC.

Your example is not a problem. every team in the league will have to play Manchester City. So those 3 points are difficult to get for everyone. At the end it evens out.

What I mean is that it is the team with the highest number of points who wins the championship. So a rating like yours makes sense there. On the other hand the World Cup winner is known after a series of playoffs. So your metric makes no sense there.

The two teams with the highest number of points in the 1st round of the WC also “win” their “championship” by escaping the group and advancing to the next round. So the 1st round of the WC is like a league with 2
possible winners.

Every game after that is like a championship as well. You win, you get 3 points and you advance. What I have agreed upon with previous posters is that teams should get bonus points every time they advance to a higher level.

Now get off your behind and propose a better system, BASED ON THE WC DATA or stop wasting everyone’s time

Here is my proposal. Every win in group stage is multiplied by a factor of 1. Every win in sixteen final is multiplied by a factor of 2. Every win in quarter final multiplied by a factor of 4. Every win in semifinal multiplied by a factor of 8. And last every win in the final mutiplied by 16.

[Scipio Africanus]

I took the data from folem's post in this thread and added the following columns: Goals per game(GPG), Points per game(PPG) and win percentage.

Code: Select all

      Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	GPG	PPG	Win%

 Cameroon	8	26	5	8	13	22	47	–25	24	0.85	0.92	19%
 Nigeria	6	21	6	3	12	23	30	–7	21	1.1	1.0	29%
 Morocco	6	20	4	7	9	18	23	–5	19	0.9	0.95	20%
 Senegal	3	12	5	3	4	16	17	–1	18	1.3	1.5	42%
 Ghana	        4	15	5	3	7	18	23	–5	18	1.2	1.2	33%
 Tunisia	6	18	3	5	10	14	26	–12	14	0.78	0.78	17%
 Algeria	4	13	3	3	7	13	19	–6	12	1.0	0.92	23%
 Ivory Coast	3	9	3	1	5	13	14	–1	10	1.4	1.1	33%
 South Africa	3	9	2	4	3	11	16	–5	10	1.2	1.1	22%
 Angola	        1	3	0	2	1	1	2	–1	2	0.33	0.67	0%
 Egypt	        3	7	0	2	5	5	12	–7	2	0.71	0.29	0%
 Togo	        1	3	0	0	3	1	6	–5	0	0.33	0.00	0%
 DR Congo[1]	1	3	0	0	3	0	14	–14	0	0.00	0.00	0%

This metric is seriously flawed because the world cup is not a championship like the premier league. Victories are not equal. Winning the WC final can not have the same weight as winning at group stage. You can not give the same weight to a victory Cameroon had against Brazil to the one Croatia had yesterday.

Croatia didn’t have a victory yesterday. They tied with Brazil and it will be registered as such in the record books.

Secondly what does the “World Cup not being a championship like the premier league” have to do with anything? Any competition will always have teams of varying quality. Please explain what you mean here.

Your Premier League analogy is flawed because beating Manchester City or beating Nottingham Forest still only gets you 3 points, even though Manchester City and Forest are clearly not the same level of quality, a condition that is crystallized by advancement beyond the first round of the WC.

Your example is not a problem. every team in the league will have to play Manchester City. So those 3 points are difficult to get for everyone. At the end it evens out.

What I mean is that it is the team with the highest number of points who wins the championship. So a rating like yours makes sense there. On the other hand the World Cup winner is known after a series of playoffs. So your metric makes no sense there.

The two teams with the highest number of points in the 1st round of the WC also “win” their “championship” by escaping the group and advancing to the next round. So the 1st round of the WC is like a league with 2
possible winners.

Every game after that is like a championship as well. You win, you get 3 points and you advance. What I have agreed upon with previous posters is that teams should get bonus points every time they advance to a higher level.

Now get off your behind and propose a better system, BASED ON THE WC DATA or stop wasting everyone’s time

Here is my proposal. Every win in group stage is multiplied by a factor of 1. Every win in sixteen final is multiplied by a factor of 2. Every win in quarter final multiplied by a factor of 4. Every win in semifinal multiplied by a factor of 8. And last every win in the final mutiplied by 16.

Now we are talking! What are your multiplication factors based upon? I think you should work out the mathematical probabilities of advancement to each round and use those to come up with appropriate factors.

[kofi86]

I meant 2014 World Cup, not 2018, my bad. I pointed out that your "several metrics" are missing the most important one. And the moment you have the most important one, the others might only become interesting for _further_ investigation.

I gave plenty of example (Italy/Brazil in 1982, Holland/Spain in 2010, Uruguay/Korea in 2022, South Africa and CIV in general, and CIV/Nigeria at 2014 (not 2018)). So won't you answer, just quick questions:

Who played a better World Cup between

1. Italy and Brazil in 1982
2. Spain and Holland in 2010
3. Nigeria and CIV in 2014
4. Uruguay and Korea in 2022

Out of curiosity I will use my 3 metrics to see who had a better WC from your examples above.

So what my metric be?
Roughly something that is based on advanced rounds and participations, i.e.

Nigeria 3/6
Ghana 2/4
South Africa 0/3
Senegal 2/3

Of course, it has a serious flaw: it does not diffentiate between second round and quarter finals.

Now you’re talking! Maybe you can come up with a points system: 10 points for advancing to a final, 6 for a semifinal, 3 for a quarterfinal, 1 for R16 etc

That sounds good and then divide it by participations.

Some general thoughts on why I think most metrics proposed in here aren't suitable:

1. What are we trying to say? Which team performed best at the World Cup? How would you measure it without thinking of any statistic whatsoever, just in general how would you define a good performance. Also consider past tournaments, for example the last EURO: who performed best? Was it Portugal because they won? Was it France for any other reason? Did Poland perform better than Cameroon?
-> for me the only thing that matters is how far you advance. The rest might only be interesting for teams that were eliminated at the same stage

2. If we agree that how far a team advances is the most important thing and defines how well a team performed at a tournament, the next question would be: Is it measurable? The answer is yes, as per Scipio's post (add the total numbers and divide by participations). If you disagree with the most important thing being the reached stage, then other metrics become relevant

3. The proposed metrics have some flaws that have been mentioned before:
a) wins do not mean the same for each team, i.e. Cameroon vs Brazil during the group stage. By the time Cameroon scored it was a glorified friendly (where the scorer was sent off smiling) whereas Senegal's win against Ecuador meant that Senegal advanced to the next round. Should these 2 wins really count the same?

b) playing additional games might reduce ppg/wpg: Ecuador was eliminated with 4 points while Poland advanced with 4 points. Poland lost the additional game to France and thus ended up with a lower ppg/wpg than Ecuador. Does that match your definition of success at the World Cup? If not, how could that be adressed? By looking at how far a team advanced! Another possible example would be Croatia/Brazil. That game ended as a draw, if Croatia loses the next two games it would reduce their ppg/wpg compared to Brazil. Would a penalty loss in the quarters really be better than finishing 4th by losing the semis and the 3rd place match?

I just don't see how measuring the stage reached per participation would not be the most sensible metric.