World Rankings - GBR positions

[gross2006]

According to the latest IOF World Ranking Lists published yesterday (Sept 23rd) Oli Johnson is the top British male in 42nd position followed by Jamie Stevenson in 46th.

GBR Head Coach Dave Peel said after the Japan WOC that it was one of the most successful WOC's ever for GBR. If this was the case then why are there no British men inside the top 40 in the World???

If we take the staements issued by BOF at face value & WOC was indeed one of the most successful ever then we need to assume that there is something wrong with the IOF World Ranking system in that it doesn't produce listings that reflect the real standings within the sport.

Within the women GBR has 3 athletes within the top 40... headed by Heather Monro in 11th, Sarah Rollins 28th & Helen Winskill 39th..... now if MTBO was added Helen would surely be higher:)

[graeme]

why are there no British men inside the top 40 in the World???

Because Jamie was injured for most of the season.

Graeme

[FatBoy]

MTBO rankings here:

http://www.mtbo.info/wre2005results.htm

Helen in 33rd - not bad when it's best 5 and she's only done 2!

[mharky]

So Gross, do you think Mats Troeng is the best orienteer in the world then?

[Kitch]

GBR Head Coach Dave Peel said after the Japan WOC that it was one of the most successful WOC's ever for GBR.

The claims were a bit more qualified than that. To my mind they reflected the general strength of results across the team - lots of top 20 performances and a medal from Heather.

If this was the case then why are there no British men inside the top 40 in the World???

because world rankings are not only about WOC.

[Guest]

GBR Head Coach Dave Peel said after the Japan WOC that it was one of the most successful WOC's ever for GBR.

The claims were a bit more qualified than that. To my mind they reflected the general strength of results across the team - lots of top 20 performances and a medal from Heather.

If this was the case then why are there no British men inside the top 40 in the World???

because world rankings are not only about WOC.

Could it be feasible to be top of World Rankings without attending WOC. I guess it could if you travelled to lots of events and did well.

[eddie]

novikov was sometime this year

[David May]

Don't forget that top 20 in WOC should, in theory, be an easier achievement (relatively speaking of course) than top 20 in the World Rankings as there is the restriction of 3 runners per Federation in each discipline in WOC, whereas there is no such restriction in the Rankings. So, the top 20 of the Rankings could be entirely populated by Swedes, Finns and Norwegians whereas only 9 of them could be in a WOC top 20.

Also, the Rankings and WOC measure different things. the first is the performance over a year whilst the second is a one-off result. It's a bit like comparing the Premiership with the FA Cup - the same team might win both, but it doesn't always follow ...

David

[graeme]

IOF World Ranking system in that it doesn't produce listings that reflect the real standings within the sport.

Compared with the people who actually ran in the WOC final, the British athletes finished in about the positions you would expect given their rankings (i.e they didn't generally beat people ranked above them). Their higher positions in WOC than WR are entirely
attributable to people who weren't there, through the 3-per-nation restriction or the
multiplicity of events.

Its WOC that doesn't reflect the real standings within the sport.

Graeme

[Kitch]

Its WOC that doesn't reflect the real standings within the sport.

Thats a bit disingenuous.

WOC is about WOC.
Its about getting in the team and performing on the day.

Comparing WOC to other competitions and rankings is pointless. Each provides a different perspective.

[gross2006]

Agree with Andy K... my original point was meant to question the validity of World Rankings as a measure of.... what???

[Ed]

Agree with Andy K... my original point was meant to question the validity of World Rankings as a measure of.... what???

as a measure of who's got the most ranking points

[graeme]

Its WOC that doesn't reflect the real standings within the sport.

Thats a bit disingenuous.

To clarify then...

The ranking list provides a pretty good measure of whereabouts people will finish in WOC.
WOC results do not provide a good estimate of where people will finish in the ranking list.

And the ranking list provides a better measure of who gets selected for the UK team than any other pre-selection race data (UK cup, UK ranking etc. British Championships)

Obviously no statistical measure can predict an on-the-day performance, but it is rather striking how much better it is than any other ranking list around.

Graeme (top Scot in M21 Scottish O-league, top M40 in UK Cup, not selected for VHI or SHI )

[Kitch]

The ranking list provides a pretty good measure of whereabouts people will finish in WOC.
WOC results do not provide a good estimate of where people will finish in the ranking list.

don't understand how the relationship is not reciprocal ?

Its interesting that World rankings predict a WOC team well
Also its encouraging that using a wide variety of races, with varying attendees World Rankings do infact give a good prediction of order at WOC - suggests the system is valid

[Ed]

the ranking list provides a better measure of who gets selected for the UK team than any other pre-selection race data (UK cup, UK ranking etc. British Championships)

on the other hand, those selected for the British team then get the chance to earn lots more lovely ranking points... in other words the world ranking list is skewed in favour of those who get to run world cups / woc and hence is good at predicting who gets selected.