Yesterday, we posted about skewed incentives caused by external corrupt influences.
Today, we focus on skewed incentives caused by a breakdown in logic with regard to the competition format.
What were UEFA thinking of when they determined the seeding and draw structure for the Euro 2008 Finals next summer? By granting three of the four seeded slots to Austria and Switzerland (the co-hosts) together with Greece (the European champions), UEFA have built a template that is causing a devaluation in the integrity of many of the matches towards the end of the qualifying phase.
To bring this reality into focus, we have run the remaining games in the Qualifiers through our computers to determine the most likely finalists - we are then able to evaluate each nation's coefficient. It is this UEFA coefficient that determines where the 13 other qualifiers will be placed in the seedings for next summer's Finals. If we've still got your attention then stay with it. It's worth it if you are taking any interest in the weekend Euro 2008 markets.
Below are the four ranks of seeds as currently projected by our model (the figures in brackets are the current FIFA Global Rankings of the projected qualifiers):
Seed 1: Austria (88); Switzerland (41); Greece (14); Netherlands (7).
Seed 2: Germany (5); Czech Republic (9); Croatia (10); Sweden (24).
Seed 3: Portugal (8); Italy (3); Romania (12); France (4).
Seed 4: Spain (6); Poland (20); Norway (21); Russia (16).
There's so much information in this data with respect to this weekend's markets and we attempt below to skirt the boundaries of our isolationism to disclose what we are able to without influencing either the markets or our proprietary trading and information provision. So here are some things to think about...
* Firstly, lets establish a core fact. The qualifiers listed above are the most likely finalists if one approaches the remaining games probabilistically. For example, we focused on the English group yesterday and we have no wish to add anything further today except to say that if England qualify automatically instead of Croatia, they would feature in the second seeding level.
* There is a clear dichotomy to the pattern in the seedings. Seeding Levels 1 and 4 (average FIFA ranking 27) are considerably weaker than Seeding Levels 2 and 3 (average FIFA ranking 9).
* In absolute terms, this does not matter with regard to the finals. The Seeding Levels are simply scrambled and should be more logically ordered as follows:
Top Seeds = Por/Ita/Rom/Fra
2nd Seeds = Ger/CR/Cro/Swe
3rd Seeds = Spa/Pol/Nor/Rus
4th Seeds = Aust/Swiz/Gre/Neth
* Now this would cause no issues apart from two key positions in the seeding matrix. The positions occupied in our projections by Netherlands and Spain are, by some distance, the key places in the overall matrix. The reasons are obvious. All the other potential favourites for Euro 2008 are grouped together while the Dutch and the Spaniards are seeded with the outsiders. Netherlands effectively could end up in a group with Italy, Germany and Spain. The top teams who avoid sharing with the outsiders will significantly improve their chances of being in an easier group as there will be a 75% chance of getting one of Pol/Nor/Rus and an equivalent percentage probability of getting one of Aust/Swiz/Gre.
* In 16-team Euro Finals, the benefits gained by being in an easy group are mammoth. If two of your six potential matches in the finals are against second tier opponents, the advantages for the latter stages are evident both with regard to disciplinary and fitness areas.
* Last month's Germany versus Czech Republic game represented the beginning of the shenanigans that are entirely of UEFA's own making. Germany had qualified a few days earlier and, as soon as the markets opened in Asia, money flooded onto the Czechs. The massive gamble was landed and only the leisure punters and the fans were left feeling short-changed. If Germany were to have won their final three group matches, they would have ended up in with the highest UEFA coefficient with the result that they would be in the unenviable position now occupied by the Dutch.
* For the teams that are clustered around the two extremities of this warped reversal in seeding, the final two rounds of games are problematic. A country obviously wishes to succeed. But, not too much... There are going to be a fair few games that will be determined by the skewed incentives of UEFA's own design. Effectively, UEFA have unwittingly created a bunch of fixed matches which is a pretty neat way of shooting your own integrity in the foot.
As Europe's governing body decided against utilising Game Theory when designing the format for their competition, they have produced a pickle. There's a simple enough solution to this UEFA autism although it is too late to change the rules for next year's brand of Euro. Use the FIFA rankings! If the FIFA rankings had been utilised for the format, the seedings appear logical and meritocratically hierarchical, namely:
Seed 1: Ger/Ita/Fra/Spa
Seed 2: Por/CR/Cro/Neth
Seed 3: Rom/Gre/Rus/Pol
Seed 4: Nor/Swe/Aust/Swiz
A further interesting aspect of this whole kerfuffle is its demonstration of German clear-sighted long-term strategic focus on a project in hand. Even if the English set up were able to organise a piss up in a brewery, I would not imagine that they would be planning their tournament route in October for the following June. My guess would be that, with McClaren, his strategic thinking always struggles to surpass his short term memory issues.
Italy, France and Germany are, respectively, the third, fourth and fifth strongest countries in Europe if one focuses on the performances in club tournaments eg Champions League and UEFA Cup. For UEFA international events, these three nations rate first, second and third. In comparison, England rank 2nd in club competitions and merely 10th internationally. Of course, lack of strategy is only one of the causes of this effect - the presence of corruption in England games and the weakness of the available domestic footballer pool are two rather obvious inputs.
UEFA have further muddied the level-playing-field today by allowing non-concurrency in the kick off times. From an analytical perspective, some matches may only be partially addressed until earlier games are concluded and the issue extends to games that, although not concurrent, share some of the same time window.
Be very wary of these matters if trading today and next Wednesday - these are both eyes-in-the-back-of-your-head days. There are some teams that need to do a certain amount to qualify without doing so much that they face first stage elimination in the finals. Others must win at all costs. And, in some cases, the incentive is able to invert in-running. Even more entertainingly, the whole matrix might be shuffled to a degree by, for example, Turkey beating Norway.
Our whiteboard is a mass of interactive formulae and non-linear mathematics today!
Enjoy...
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
