Talk:IFFHS

Removed the bias allegation. Every single ranking system can be accused of bias, that´s almost tautological. No need to start such an argument.

Specific biases should be mentioned and covered for every ranking. Methodology should always be explained and covered. If you're familiar with the IFFHS rankings, you'll see what I'm saying: they are badly flawed. I'm not pretending to be unbiased here: I feel that these rankings have little to no credibility. I'm willing to reason on how we explain the methodology and potential biases, but to leave out the information is just plain wrong. Bill Oaf 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Added some methodology information. Would be glad if you could verify it and add a few sources about the criticism section Lomibz 00:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurocentric

This ranking is a farce organised by people who want their name in the papers. Dmontin (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The RANKINGS NEED TO BE UPDATED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.74.44 (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The eurocentric criticism comment in the article sounds biased. It is unreferenced (making it appear as personal opinion), and its logic is flawed. Claiming that SA players are in Europe but not vice versa proves anti-SA bias only holds true if SA players are clearly more skilled. World Cups show roughly equal ability. A bigger reason for the one-way player movement is more likely economics, i.e. top players gravitate to Europe for higher salaries. Kemperb (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Flaw assumptions

This institution are a plain example of how numbers can be used by phony people to mislead a illiterate-math public. Pure data snooping, take the leagues rank for example: Even Today most national leagues like La Liga have just 2 main protagonists ( Madrid and Barcelona ) or some like Italian have 5 to 7 main teams; the Brazilian League already in Pele's old "quiet" times had 12, I repeat: 12 main team running for the cup Not counting the minor ones without much chances.189.62.129.250 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Madcynic´s reverts

Sorry Madcynic but I do not see what you mean. You wouldn´t seriously doubt that Colin José or Karl-Heinz Jens existed, would you? I did cite the Soccer Hall of Fame´s website, what more can I do? As for the books, I´ve got them all and you can still buy them through ebay or other sources... Incidentally, we have the same discussion - only worse - in the German wikipedia. There´s this one guy who has started the "one man show" punchline very successfully and nobody seems to ask for his sources or whether he just made it up. -- Not cricket, says SpVggLieth (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Recognised by FIFA

The given sources do NOT seem to say this. The first one says people sometimes confuse IFFHS rankings with theirs whilst the second says they have close relations. Recognition implies that FIFA believes their ranking to be correct and/or valid, which dos not seem to be the impression from the sources. Indeed the first one is them pointedly distancing themselves from the IFFHS.--Tiresais (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have removed that mention from the article. 71.210.187.182 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

IFFHS is recognized by FIFA (cfr. here, here and here) because, among other things, FIFA gives logistical support for their works and IFFHS has worked with FIFA in the development of publications such as the FIFA Century Club (Source: Rafa Jiménez, IFFHS: La calculadora del fútbol. Don Balón (1656), 9/15 julio 2007, p.50).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first two comments, FIFA itself declaring that it is not affiliated with the IFFHS and its ranking system should be enough to void that section.

No one says that the agency was "affiliated" with FIFA because it is not in his chart as the FIF-Pro or the International Board. However, all these sources indicate that the FIFA recognizes the agency and its work and that it, unlike the RSSSF or Castrol Performance Index.

Similarly, the CIHEFE, who has worked with the RFEF in the publication and recognition of events related to football in Spain, is recognized by the Association but not the affiliates to be an independent body.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New Rankings

There were new rankings released on Friday. I don't know how to update the graph, but for those of you in the know here is the link. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.222.118 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: The "Strongest National League in the World" section rankings have been not updated, because the rankings aren't yet final, the rankings shown in the link show the rankings at the half way point of the year. The final rankings will come out in January of next year. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The World's Club Team of the Month

I helped make the picture of the ranking of The World's Club Team of the Month, but I don't have experience, so I had some mistakes with the size and the translation from the Wikipedia in spanish. Please if you can arrel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.25.130.196 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Free Speech

Gaussians outside their narrow fields are good for nothing but to try convince a semi-literate public in math about fallacious arguments based on statistical manipulation. 187.38.245.233 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The World's Club Team of the Month (IFFHS)

someone placed "LDU Quito and Real Madrid" in the top upper row of "The World's Club Team of the Month (IFFHS)" sections This is how it looks: Year / Month January LDU Quito February LDU Quito March LDU Quito April LDU Quito May LDU Quito June Real Madrid July Real Madrid August Real Madrid September LDU Quito October LDU QUITO November Real Madrid December Real Madrid

could comeone avoid this user to perform this again?