The Introduction and Map

                               
                                           Welcome to WFHC



“The True Passionate Sphere of World 
 Historical and Legendary Football Greatness
  
     We effort to discover the valuable evidences, creating the best method of 
      historical rating to implement and conclude the set of the best ever 
in the entire history of the game. 



Establishment : 7 August 2013
Approximated Capacity : 1,350 Pages


WFHC Definition
WFHC historical rating solution is an integration between scientific methodology and social values. The research methodology acts as a tool to standardize the criteria while social values has an essential role to define value of each performance aspect and function. WFHC represents the love of football historical value, having been identified as a semi-opened source of football historical innovation and has always been listening to the reader voice and a large number of the contributed comments has been considered and many of them led to further development.


WFHC Objective

1) To initiate and represent in research and development of football historical rating.
2) To preserve the greatness of football history for the recognition of the next generations.
3) To generate the mutual exchange of useful information, data and idea between football historians and group of interested person to expand the extent of historical knowledge. 

WFHC Policy

1) WFHC has been a non-profit body with spiritual contribution and centralization.  
2) WFHC has been continuously improving and developing to increase its level of objectivity. 
3) WFHC give importance to be a neutral workplace and pay attention in sustaining fairness of rating.
4) WFHC aim to lead the way of positive attitude and vision in football history discussion. 
5) WFHC provides the service for readers in replying the inquiries and soonest responding to the suggestion/requisition in the best way. 


WFHC Mission

WFHC strives for being a sustainable football historical centralization within the chronological extension of the history. We always detect significant point of history to absorb into the system and inscribe on the pages.

WFHC Commitment

I appreciate all WFHC readers, participants, followers and supporters who has been recognized as an indispensable propulsion of the progressive project. I would like to requite supporters in my commitment to perpetually update and develop the football historical work. The frequency of updating players is every half of season and update club/national team ranking at the end of season or tournament. 

Number & Format

WFHC constitution is divided into Body and Branch.









History of WFHC


Recent Important Update (Last 3 months)
Series
D/M/Y
Football Club Implementation Project
MFV
14/3/2017
Quantitative Analysis of World Annual Award of the Century
WFHC
27/4/2017
Positional Ranking of all time national squad improvement
ILM
18/06/2017

Logo Concept

The central golden sphere is a world map on the ball represent the word “World Football Center”. 
The three orbit encircles the sphere represents the major three affiliated branches surrounding WFHC.
The counterclockwise direction of the orbit lines represents “Historic”

The World Club Evaluation Result



  I.  Introduction and Historical Literature Review
          Throughout the World club football history, there was a chronological evolutionary change of competitions. The first professional football was formed in England 1892 while the amateur football was first ever established in South Americas a year later in Argentina but most of European and South American leagues turned professional in the 1930s. The limitations of football at the early era such as non-existence of international club competition, the irregularity of competition format and qualification, etc has left the complexity and difficulty for us to reach the status of each European club in its whole history. 
          The world club team all-time ranking[1]and The Worldwide historical club ranking[2] based on mathematics [Marcelo, 2016) ranks the team based on titles criteria which is set the standard points of title acquisition between the leagues and the point given to any league are equally given between seasons. By this context, there is no proven source of standard point and not represents the actual fluctuation of the league/international cup standard from era to era. The evaluations were also not differentiated the performances to achieve the round or title.
   Accordingly, this work’s objective is to study, integrally regulate and standardize the system of the entire Latin American club history for the evaluation, including all performance characteristics (win-draw-lose, goal difference, place, round and trophy) against the determined standard of competitions within the designed system of methodology conformed to the existed format or condition at any point of evaluation.  

II. Methodology

    1) International Club 
         1.1) Determine the winner of each annual continental competition by qualitative analysis. For the non-int-club era, the official friendly results are support to stipulate the value, if no enough record, performance of its national team are applied for consideration.
      1.2) Determine the competitive level by counting goal difference to calculate its average for each round and input by the following formula ; 
         (∑ Goal Difference Average/(Number of Round x 4.5))
         (Number of Round +((6-Number of round)/2))/6
          The standard of competition (STD) = Top Level X Competitive Level
       1.3) The Status Performance (STS) = SQRT(TLS- (FTC – 1) x GS x STD
             Finished Round Coefficient (FRC) (Winner = 1, Runner-Up = 2, SF = 3, QF = 4, R16 = 5, R32 = 6, R64 = 7, R128 = 8)
             GS = Gap Standard = 0.65+(6- number of round)*0.05
             TLS = Top Level Standard (UCL/EC =5, UC = 4.5, CWC/ERP = 3.7)
      1.4) The Raw Direct Performance (RDRT) is calculated by chain of beaten from top level to the evaluated team. Being beaten 1 goal is equal to – 0.4. For group round format, the difference will be calculated based on following formula ;                                  ∑ ((DGD/N)*0.4)/Nq i
DGD : The descending goal difference
N : The number of matches     
Nq : The number of qualified teams in the group

Then, the performance will be adjusted +0.75 and x 0.85 to give positive value for negative raw data.  
      1.5) The total performance = SQRT(STS X ADRT)

    2) Domestic League 
     2.1) Determine the raw direct performance (RDRT) by point and goal difference         
         Point Ratio = ((Games win x 2.5) +(Games Draw x 1))/Number of Games  
           Goal Difference Ratio = Goal Difference/Number of Games
           RDRT = (Point Ratio x 0.75) +(Goal Difference Ratio x 0.25)          
       2.2) Determine top level 
         2.21) Top Tier League : Referring to the best performance in international club (TEU) against the competitive level by the formula : PSTD (Primary Standard) = (TEU x (2 – Variance)/2)
          2.22) The Second League : Implementing benchmark method by calculating the average place of the promoted teams between the previous season to the calculated season and to the next seasons. The obtained calculated finished place is applied to the table in the calculated season linked to its raw direct performance that is a top level. The decimal > 0.15 and < 0.85 of the finished place value is required to calculate for average value between places. The obtained value is acted as TRDP in clause 2.23 
             2.23) The Top Level Raw Direct performance (TRDP) is adjusted by + 0.75 x 1.5 to give positive value for negative raw data to be the top level adjusted direct performance (TADP)
           2.24)  The top level performance (TLV) is the direct performance against primary standard 
                TLV = TEU+((Y-(((-X2)/8)+(X/8)+5))/2) ; Y = TADP, X = PSTD
      2.3) Standard of League (STDL)        
           STDL = Top Level Performance x Competitive Level 
           Competitive Level = (2-Sc)/2
            S1= Variance = ∑ (x1-µ)2/number of members ; 
            x1 = point ratio (win = 2.5 point, draw 1 point)
            S2= Variance = ∑ (x2-µ)2/number of members ; 
            x2 = goal difference (Separate positive and negative µ value)
            Sc (Combined Varaince) = S1 (0.75) + S2 (0.25)   
       2.4) Final Calculation
           Final Direct Performance (FDP) = (RDRT+0.75 x 1.5) x (TLV/TADP)
        Status Performance (STS) = SQRT[(5-(FP -1)*0.1) x STDL]for Top Flight
          SQRT[5-(N1-1)*0.1] x STDL1 - [SQRT[(5-(FP -1)*0.1) x STDL2] for 2nd Tier
           N1 = Number of team in top fllight
           League Performance = SQRT[FDP x STS]
    3) Domestic Cup
      Implement the same method as International club and the top level is determined from international club as well as the league competition. For tournament championship such as German Championship in pre-bundesliga era, it is implemented in the same concept as performance in knock-out tournament is used for identifying value of top level team.       

    4) Final Calculation
      Basic Proportional Weight : Domestic League 52 %, Domestic Cup 16 %, Int. Club 32 %    The performance is calculated in aggregate within a season not separated since the performance between competitions were a mutual dependent factors as football is purpose to mainly win the trophy not optimize the performance in any of competition level. As many of competitions are tournaments formats, it is implemented and calculated in aggregate mini-leagues method. For the season without domestic cup, basically the domestic league proportion is expanded to 60 % and increase more 16 % in non-international club era. Exceptionally the league proportion could be increased between 77 at minimum and 80 % at maximum by compensation from over number of participation (> 38 to 46 games per seasons).  However, if the obtained performance is a negative value, it is not applied to the system and equal to Zero. That mean the lowest value to apply for the system has been standardized.
    To standardize the opportunity of international club participation. The standard value of league performance at 3.25 has been set. The clubs that achieved this value but not get the opportunity because its league is competitive, will be compensated the higher proportion for domestic competition by 50 %. In contrary, the clubs that got the opportunity to play in international club with less than 3.25 of league performance in the previous season will be deducted the entire seasonal int. club points that is less than 2.5 in the over-participated number
    The obtained seasonal performance will be matched to multiply with proportional weight of the best 92 seasons whose number is an average of available league seasons for the 50 qualified teams and calculated the sum to obtain aggregate total.
       The trophy bonus is designed in the following table.




      The league trophy bonus is given for only the club achieved the highest league point among national leagues in each season. The winners in the periods of 1927 - 1932 (pre-professional era) and 1940 - 1946 (war-time) are given bonus in less value than normal period. The domestic cup is not applied as a single bonus as the continental international cup has represented the teams in elimination format. However, it is applied for double and triple trophies if the club won International competitions and also won domestic cup. The International bonus is applied only to the winners of Intercontinental Cup/World Club Cup in its existed years. For the year without World competition, the winner of Europe and Latin American share the bonus by half of each. 

5) The Decisive Factors
      0.2 % is required as a minimum value to unanimously decide the rank. If not, consider if the comparison couple has the other seasons than average, if so, compare its other best season by one. 0.1 is a minimum value to beat, if not, consider another season until match the rule. In case of no other season, the peak season is a decisive value with a minimum 0.1 to significantly differentiate. If not, recomparing in the second peak season or more if necessary.   
                                 
III. Implementation
            
       The best 50 clubs from European and South American lists are rearranged. Previously, 103 European and 51 Latin American clubs are selected for implementation by considering number of available seasons and the entire finished places. The implementation was done by excel formula database by manual input and correction checking. All related Latin American seasonal league tables are calculated for the club performance and standard of competition. All related cup competition games are count for the goal difference to determine competitive level. Finally, all performance and standards result are input the conclusive table. Each club are input the performance data in each part of competition and calculate for the aggregate seasonal point by competition-level proportional weight conformed to the actual condition at the time.   
      The unavailable record : Paraguayan League (1906 – 1991). The Paraguayan clubs are ranked by international performance comparison against the estimative opportune factor of participation. Czechoslovakian Cup 1960 – 1970, Czech and Slovak Cup 1971 – 1980 ; Hungarian Cup 1934, 1935, 1941 – 1944, 1952, 1955, 1958, 1965 – 1968. For these related years, the competitive level is set by estimation. Ferencvaroc rating is effected little as there are the club result record. In the case of record unavailability, the case is equal to the unavailable competition that allows a higher portion of domestic league.

IV. Result

 The 50 Greatest World Clubs of All-Time





*Evaluation Result of Latin American Club
http://xtravictory.blogspot.com/2016/12/latin-american-clubs-evaluation.html 

*Evaluation Result of European Club
http://xtravictory.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-club-evaluation-result.html

Statistics by nation (also ranked by performance if equal in number)

8 : Brazil
6 : Italy
5 : Spain, England
4 : Argentina
3 : Holland, Portugal
2 : Uruguay, Scotland, Austria
1 : Germany, Paraguay, Czech Republic, Chile, Serbia, Hungary, Greece

Statistics by Continent

34 : Europe
16 : South America



Best League Performer in the World by Season


Statistics by club

5 : Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, River Plate, 
4 : Barcelona, Inter Milan, Ajax Amsterdam, Penarol, Nacional
3 : Liverpool, Juventus
2 : Boca Juniors, Rapid Vienna, Ferencvarosi, Arsenal, MTK Hungary
1 : Hamburge, Flamengo, Gladbach, Forest, Feyernoord, Internacional, Botafogo
   Bordeaux, Red Star, Vasco, Dortmund, Chelsea, Sao Paolo, Atletico Madrid, 
   Porto, Bologna, Athletic Bilbao, Torino, Slavia Prague, Sparta Prague, Santos,    Racing Club, Celtic 

Statistics by nation 

15 : Spain, 12 : Italy, 10 : England, 9 : Argentina, 8 : Uruguay, 
7 : Germany, 5.5 : Hungary, 5 : Holland, Brazil, 2 : Austria, Czech Republic
1 : Serbia, France, Scotland


Statistics by Continent

68 : Europe
22 : South America




V.  Discussion

        The methodological implementation allows the rankings to have represented the clubs’ entire performances against the determined standard and greatness throughout the history. However, the qualitative analysis to determine top level performance of the best club in international competitions between seasons and eras are provided by author’s cumulative tacit knowledge converted to mathematics that is always debatable but the scale of tolerance is however quite narrowed, possibly effecting on the change of rankings in a minor part. Additionally, the proportional criteria between parts of evaluation and the proportional weight given to highest to lowest performance has a main role to finalize the ranking. 
       The seasonal weight applied to the seasonal rating reduces the disadvantage of the teams that participated in lower seasons than average group in case of achieving a competitive high peak and the teams participated in more seasons than average group is just advantageous as they had more opportunities but the number of calculated seasons is still limited in average value.      
          The result of implementation saw Real Madrid unsurprisingly ranked as a number one of the World. Barcelona achieves the highest peak by aggregate season. Penarol is the best Latin American representative and their only one appeared in top ten. Estudientes and Ujpest are narrowly beaten by Feyenoord as the last 50th place.           

Reference




The Country Evaluation Result

I.  Introduction and Historical Literature Review
         
           The international country football history officially began at the 1908 summer Olympics’ football tournament although all participants are from Europe. Football tournaments at Olympics games in the pre-world cup era between 1908 and 1928 are generally considered as a world stage of competition until the first ever World Cup was established in 1930.   
           The World Football Elo rating[1] is a ranking system to calculate national team performance based on every official matches played, invented by Alpad Elo and implemented in 1872, with a formula that includes various football competition parameters are marginal victory coefficient, level between competitors, importance of matches and finally concludes the ranking of nations by month. The FIFA World ranking system[2] was followed in 1992 with a similar factors of formula to Elo Rating. However, these two systems allows the performance in friendly matches to take advantage although the game is just an uncompetitive trial playing and the game result is meaningless in historical status. Also, the determination between competitors level from previous result could be highly erroneous when the fluctuation of team performance is commonly existed within a single tournament.  Importantly, there has been none of all-time national teams ranking works established to date.   
        Accordingly, this work’s objective is to study, integrally regulate and standardize the system of the entire international country history for the evaluation, including all performance characteristics (win-draw-lose, goal difference, place, round and trophy) against the determined standard of competitions within the designed system of methodology conformed to the existed format or condition at any point of evaluation.  

II. Methodology

    1) International Major Tournament

            Aside from the actual participants in historical tournament, there are some additional participants in the expansive remodel of competition to standardize the opportune factor between era based on qualifying performance but the additional teams will be given the performance rating just 50 % in comparison to actual participant. The number of additional teams is considered from minimum standard value of qualifying performance and level of participants in qualification round in specific years. The finished round is extended to the existed round and is also based on the ranking of their raw direct performance. 
       1.1) Determine the winner of each major international tournament by qualitative analysis.     
      1.2) Determine the competitive level by counting goal difference to calculate its average for each round and input by the following formula ; 
         (∑ Goal Difference Average/(Number of Round x 4.5))
         (Number of Round +((5-Number of round)/2))/5
            The standard of competition (STD) = Top Level X Competitive Level
            CC = Competition Coefficient (World Cup = 1.2, Continental Cup = 1.1)
          1.3) The Status Performance (STS) = SQRT(FRC x STD)
             Finished Round Coefficient (FRC) = TLSC – (1-GS)  ; (Winner = 1, Runner-Up = 2, SF = 3, QF = 4, R16 = 5, R32 = 6)
             TLSC (Top Level Standard Coefficient) : World Cup =5, Euro/Copa Americas = 4.5, African Cup of ualNation = 3.5, AFC Asian Cup = 3.2 
               GS (Gap Standard) = 0.85 (AFC Asian Cup), 0.8 (World Cup, African Cup of Nation), 0.78 (Europe, Americas). These value is from comparative experiment of average performance between World Cup and Continental Cup.
        1.4) The Raw Direct Performance (RDRT) is calculated by chain of beaten from top level to the evaluated team.
               For elimination format, being beaten 1 goal is equal to – 0.35.
              For league format, the difference will be calculated based on following formula ; ∑ ((DGD/N)*0.35)/Nq if number of team > 3
                      ∑ ((DGD*0.75/N)*0.3)/Nq if number of team = 3
DGD : The descending goal difference
N : The number of matches     
Nq : The number of qualified teams in the group
        1.5) The total performance (TP) = SQRT(STS X RDRT)
    
*Remark : FIFA Confederation Cup is not considered.
    

     2) Qualification
       2.1) Determine top level in each group : the furthered best performer in major international tournament within a qualification group is set as the top level value in that group.
      2.2) In the pre-1960s, the performance in zonal competition are Central European International Cup, British Home Championship, Balkan Cup, Nordic Cup and Central American Cup could either replace the disappearance of any qualification tournament or combined with existed qualification performance by average if the zonal performance is higher.
       2.3) For the continental tournament without qualifying competition or not participate in qualifying round as a host or a provider, the performance in major tournament overs qualifying performance automatically.  
      2.4) Calculate the raw direct performance in the same procedure as clause 1.5     
    4) Final Calculation
             To standardize the opportunity of continental tournament participation. The standard minimum value of continental performance at 4.75 (for Europe and Americas) and 4.5 (for Africa and Asia & Oceania) has been set. The less value than standard is excluded from calculation.

         The obtained tournament performance partition (OPP) =∑ TP x PRT
; PRT = Periodical Ratio between Periodical Coefficients (4 years = 2, 3 years = 1.5, 2 years = 1. 1 year = 0.5)  
OPP will be matched to multiply with proportional weight whose number is an average of available tournaments between continents.
         Each sum of competitions’ performance are aggregated as a basic total score.
           The trophy bonus is given for only the winner in World tournament and designed as following ; World Cup since 1934 : 3 point, 1930/1950 World Cup :2 point, 1920/1924 Olympic Games : 1 point, 1928 Olympic Games : 0.5 Point

5) The Decisive Factors
          0.1 % is required as a minimum value to unanimously decide the rank. If not, consider the aggregate peak value at 0.05 is a minimum value to significantly differentiate, if not, consider second peak partition or even more until match the rule.
                                 
III. Implementation
            
   The performance result in continental ranking in this paper http://xtravictory.blogspot.com/2015/10/nt-evaluation-result.html is standardized of opportune factor in continental competition and rearranged to establish top 50.

IV. Result

 The 50 Greatest Football Nations of All-Time

Statistics by continent 

26 : Europe
12 : Americas  
7 : Africa
5 : Asia & Oceania


V.  Discussion

        The methodological implementation allows the rankings to have represented the countries’ entire performances against the determined standard and greatness throughout the history. However, the qualitative analysis to determine top level performance of the winner between tournaments and eras are provided by author’s cumulative tacit knowledge converted to mathematics that is always controversial but the scale of tolerance is however quite narrowed, possibly effecting on the change of rankings in a minor scale. Additionally, the proportional criteria between parts of evaluation and the proportional weight given to highest to lowest performance has a main role to finalize the ranking. 
       The partition weight applied to the tournament rating reduces the disadvantage of the teams that participated in lower tournaments than average group in case of achieving a competitive high peak and the teams participated in more seasons than average group is just advantageous as they had more opportunities but the number of calculated tournaments is still limited in average value.      
         Germany appeared as the all-time best country ever, having unanimously surpassed the second place Brazil by 1.7 % of point when the highest aggregate peak ever is pertained to Brazil. The key factor effects on Brazil’s defeat is its performance in South American Championship/Copa America, having won the title only 8 times from total 45 and the nation often sent B-team to participate in the continental tournament. In all-time World Cup performance ranking, Brazil is still the number one.
        The European nations dominate the top 50 ranking as 23 of them are included in top 30. Czechoslovakia surprisingly beat Holland and Uruguay at 8th place thanks to its consistency. In the peak years, Holland and Uruguay performed in a much higher level. However, Holland in the pre-1970s can be classified as a below-average team in Europe and the same status in the additional period between 2016 to date. Uruguay’s related peak years were existed in the early era of football that is less competitive than the second half of the century.
          As the methodology is designed to control the limitation of opportunity in major international tournament to save the actual quality, it allows Israel to appear in the ranking. Additionally, the greatness within a specific continental zone is saved as the evolution of football was progressed in absolute different conditions and incomparable developing rates. This protects Asian and African teams from being devalued when its performance was out of the competitive group in world competition.     

Reference

   [2] http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/procedure/men.html

WFHC Appreciation


WFHC is profoundly appreciated the support, contribution and compliment from the participated readers that has long been an indispensable propulsion of WFHC project. As WFHC is a non-profitable body, it is only requited by the readers' feedback through media tools such as personal messages or comments in e-mail, facebook, webboard or these blogs as provided examples ;

“I've been a huge fan of your work for a long time now. I just wanted to say thank you for the well thought out, researched and organized information. The time and energy you put into all of this is very much appreciated. Well, if you need help with anything or are looking for volunteers, assistants, researchers or anything like that, I'm more than willing to help at anytime. Thanks again man”
Solomon Tesfay, Ethiopia

“I stumbled into your WFHC blog and it is the best thing I have ever found on the Internet. I spent hours in your site and really enjoyed everything about it. I have a passion for the history of football and I really value efforts like yours. I am also a computer programmer and would like to offer my help for anything you need to improve the site, anything from getting data to offering advice. I just want to be part of something as great as this”
Armando Vinciguerra. Venezuela

"I've followed your rankings for years. Fan of your work because of my love for soccer and because I love to play fantasy football in PES. I am obssesed with creating the all time teams and squads in my saved data and your lists are my reference for assigning skills on my created players. Keep the hard work, this is an excellent site. Excuse my English, I am from Ecuador"
Daniel Romero, Ecuador

“I've read your work on WFHC and I am amazed by all the incredible and extensive data you have collected and written about. I was wondering if you could contribute an article to The Antique Football. The article can deal with any subject in football history. We'd like a more statistical/analytical viewpoint on our site and we think you fit that mold perfectly.”
Dela, USA

“Hi, I wanted to let you know, that I have great respect for your work with football stats. I'm working for my own with stats for about 14 years, but your knowledge is simply amazing. P.S: from your stats I'm a big fan of José Moreno and Alberto Spencer. Have a nice week man, bye.”
Mircea Fatusan, Romania

“I went to say you are a great football rater. I’m also interested in football history and very like your method. I always browse WFHC and based on it in my rating. Are you continuous update rating for current players ?? and again I thank your work and effort in WFHC.”
Ali Legended, Iraq


"Hello, Naratorn, I'm a huge fan of your blog. Thanks you so much ! I respect you and your blog so much and I have never seen a more accurate view on beautiful game that we call football. I know you have made a lot of work"
Daniel Knab, Denmark


"I love football and always read and respect your commitment to all-time players evaluation. I agree most of your opinions and I think you're number one football expert of Thailand"
Hamin, Korea Republic

“Hey Naratorn, My name is Anurag and I recently visited your blog which contained the rankings of the best central midfielders in the history of football. Although people have criticized your work, I have to admit I am really impressed with your work. I managed to find you on facebook and I would like to know if you are still writing. Do get to me thanks.”
Anurag Yeddula, England

“Hi Dearman, I'm Mad, from xtratime, we hadn't the opportunity to know each other, because when I started writing there, you were leaving, and I don't write so much anyway. But in the past I read your threads and posts, your rankings and your hypothesis. I was not always agree with you, but I think that's quite normal, I've my background, you've yours, and it's ok like this. Anyway, I appreciate your dedication at the subject.”
Manuel, Italy

“Dearman, I had to join to say thanks for this. I'm working on a custom database for Football Manager 2010 and this has been invaluable, I will credit you on its release. Naturally I have to rank things too so it helped a lot! Normally these lists you find you disagree with almost the whole thing but yours has been agreeable for the most part, more than others. Good knowledge !”
Slorry (FM Editor), Italy

“I have to admit to getting some help. All player ratings so far are based around these excellent posts on Xtratime Community : Welcome by a really great researcher called Dearman: I should add that all of the player in post 1 above who qualify as modern legends are already in the database.”
BoomSwitch (FM Modern Legend Database Moderator), England

“Hi Dearman, I read and appreciate very much your posts on xtratime forum and in this forum. I have been always interested in football since i was 16-17 and internet still didn't exist so I took information from great italian magazine guerin sportivo. Thank you.”
Caligora, Italy

"Thanks you so much for having such a nice and entertaining stuff for us. I really enjoy your blog and the way you have described your content"
Akmai Niazi Khan, Pakistan