Talk:AFC club competitions ranking

Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please help us according of conversations above to improving the article.in my opinion we must just use official ranking table published by AFC and don't use any unreliable other sources specially a self-made source.so now tell us what's your opinion.thanks Shahin (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I believed we must wait until AFC published new ranking and then update the table. Shahin (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Although I'm not saying only the official update should take as sources, more reliable sources could use as references. Like ESPN. Not self made publication. No - Price Zero|^talk 12:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't you take the official source? Third-party sources are only required for establishing notability of a subject, a primary source should be fine for something like this. – PeeJay 12:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, I couldn't agree more with that - Price Zero|^talk 13:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Per [1], AFC has published wrong table. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Up to now, AFC only organized 3 Group stage matchday and qualifying play-off in 2018, but the table says: China and Japan has 20+ points in 2018. So exactly AFC has published wrong table. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    • But, also agree with NOT using self-published or unreliable website. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - But in my opinion I think we must wait for AFC to update and publish new table, From my experience AFC always make a mistake.Ministerboy (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Any attempt to update the table ourselves even using the computation method is original research. At least the source from the AFC is verified though it may be outdated.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - We'd better wait for the updated AFC table. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know much on how the rankings works but is there any chance that even though it says 2018, it actually includes all results since past one year? Just a thought. - User:Sagavaj (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sagavaj: See [2] 14:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My doubt is that when it says last 4 years, is it 4 calendar years or past 4 years from the date of updated rankings? It was never mentioned in the above reference that you need to consider past 3 calendar years and current calendar year.

• Support - How quick and efficient are AFC at updating their tables? If we could do the calculations ourselves, shouldn't it hold? Although I support your idea ultimately. Ayoopdog (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - First of all, official rankings from AFC should be the final decision especially when there is conflict with other source, although sometimes AFC also had mistakes. But in advance, considering the usual delay of updates from AFC, we could use the most common reliable source like ESPN, Goal, BBC and etc to update rankings every time the matches are ended. Please be aware that only English source is acceptable. Then we can use official rankings from AFC to fix difference. Simply skipping other source would make this ranking article not useful at all. We should be careful of making comments every time you make changes by indicating the source. DO NOT just leave comments blank. Troubleo.WS 🍁 ^Talk 15:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That's exactly what I am saying - Price Zero|^talk 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I also think that other sources should be considered for this, eventually we can make the final updated edits when AFC finally puts up the updated rankings.--Anbans 585 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Let's wait for the official AFC table. Nokhodi (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - We shall only use the updated AFC table. UA3 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Absolutely, we should use the official AFC tables. Is the alternative calculating the points ourselves? That just seems like it would be prone to errors, although some people here claim that AFC has made a couple of mistakes in the past. Leave a message on my talk board if you want to discuss something - BardiaSaeedi. 09:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BardiaSaeedi (talk • contribs)
• Comment - Sorry for updating the table using original research. However because of original research, we can know that AFC sometimes make mistakes in updating the rankings. Despite that, we only have AFC as reliable source on this topic. So, what should we do about the mistakes? Should we correct it or not? Fauzannaufan (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • We also know that the current ranking table in AFC website is outdated. It is last updated on December 2017. You also can check that using Wayback Machine. So, why we display the rankings table in this article as if it's 2018 rankings? I think it is misleading. We should just let the readers know that this article displayed the 2017 ranking table. Fauzannaufan (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Then how about the club rankings? AFC never use this ranking for ACL and AFC Cup draw. AFC also don't give update about this ranking since years ago. We also can't found anything regarding club rankings in AFC website. Because of that, there is no reliable source for this section. What should we do about that? Cheers. Fauzannaufan (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Guess having the updated one as an external link is fine. -Koppapa (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Rankings Formats

The AFC have announced changes in the format for ACL and AFC Cup, splitting into 3 competitions from 2024/25.

The format has not been finalised. The addition of a new table into this article is misleading, as it is WP:CRYSTALBALL.

In particular there is to be a weighting system applied to the results from the past 8 years, and an additional retroactive recalculation for the years affected by COVID-19 disruptions, as per . . .

CLUB COMPETITIONS RANKING AND SLOT ALLOCATION

• At the same time, members noted the need to introduce a calculation methodology that better reflects the new competition formats, whilst noting the challenges and impact brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic during the 2020 to 2022 seasons.
• It has been approved that the Club Competitions Ranking to determine the Slot Allocation for the 2024/25 season onwards will be based on the performance of the MAs' participating clubs from the previous eight years (with weighted value) to better reflect their historical performance.
• The MAs' final points will be based on the average performance of all clubs in the AFC Club Competitions Group Stage onwards which will be applied retroactively for re-calculation of the MAs' 2021 and 2022 points for the AFC Club Competitions Ranking 2022.

Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Shouldn't be added for now. -Koppapa (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References