1900+ group StreetSoccer

295 replies. Last post: 2019-04-16

Reply to this topic Return to forum

1900+ group
  • ypercube ★ at 2005-07-27

    After winning the 6th golem championship, lvf123 made it into the 1900+ group, that is the group that have reached or passed the 1900 point once or more.

    I think that only passenger and eldorado have already achieved this incredible feat. Some other (like me) have never even reached 1800.

    Congrats again.

  • antkam at 2005-07-27

    tigis has already reached 1901 before.

    and i seem to recall (but not sure) that Nostradamus also reached 19xx, but just like passenger, both milestones were reached while doing ratings manipulation experiments.

  • antkam at 2005-07-27

    oh i forgot to say: MANY CONGRATULAIONS to lvf123! :) not just on 19xx but also on the very impressive win-loss record in the championship!

  • ypercube ★ at 2005-07-28

    antkam, you are absolutely right. It's even in my outdated page (from Dec 2004) that Nostradamus has reached 1916 and tigis 1901. I don't recall whether they were both from experiments.

  • antkam at 2005-08-30

    finally! i reach 1901!! :D :D :D :D

    and not a moment too early, as i expect to lose another game very soon! but at least, i did not cheat! ;)

  • ypercube ★ at 2005-08-30

    And now antkam has 1910! wow! congrats.

  • tonywu at 2005-08-30

    well done. my friend ;)

  • Enrico at 2005-08-30

    And after beating me, Antkam even reached 1919 a few minutes ago.

    It will take some time for anybody to beat this rating!

  • FC Schalke 05 at 2005-08-30

    Ypercube - nostradamus told it was no experiment, it was drawing lines.

    tigis played normally.

  • eldorado at 2005-08-31

    Congratulations to you, antkam! Well-done!

    My record - 1931 - from April is in danger!!! ;-))

  • antkam at 2005-09-01

    nah, i lost a whopping 28 points in a regular time loss, now back to 18xx…

    it was fun while it lasted though. :)

  • Looser at 2005-09-16

    1932 - my new record, and soccer record but not for a long. p_a_k_o is coming.

  • p_a_k_o at 2005-09-17

    Now I have 1945 !!! And there are coming another victories :) Will I reach 2000 ?? It's almost impossible to have such rating :)

  • ypercube ★ at 2005-09-17

    p_a_k_o reached 1976 for about 5 seconds but that's incredible anyway! Will he make it to the unbelievable 2000?

  • ypercube ★ at 2005-09-17

    I sure hope he does so I can get a lot of points when I take him down. :)

  • thekid at 2005-09-18

    Pako attining 2000 is no significnt feat. He has over 80 open games. He's a manipultor of the system like all tht have come before him. Who cares how high he goes. It's a joke. Once before I played all my gmes down to zero and wound up with 1802. Right now I have 6 games to go and am at 1805. Cwali would be even higher. Show me the highest someone was with zero games to play and that's something to talk about.

  • bloke at 2005-09-18

    joe, go on, check who has the highest score with 0 games left to play. you would be surprised.

  • ypercube ★ at 2005-09-18

    I see no evidence that pako is manipulating the system as others have done. They deleberately delayed games they were losing and finish games that they were winning. So you could see they had a lot games at moves 48,49,50,51 where the loss was sure for them and didn't play for days and usually use also their vacation days.

    I see nothing of the sort at pako's games. And 80 games are not that many! The only manipulation he uses is that he starts a lot of games (and finishes them as soon as possible) but he lately wins far more often that he loses. And his mean rating is about 1800-1850 so achieving a 100 or 150 more by playing many games is possible.

    You're right about one thing though. If he does end all the games and reaches 0 where will his rating be? My prediction would be between 1850 and 1950. So I would never agree that it's a joke. And the definition at this thread is - I think - who has ever achieved 1900+ even for a brief period, not who has stayed constantly above 1900 (or 2000 ). That is - and we agree here - that is clearly another matter.

  • bloke at 2005-09-18

    joe, i believe you did your homework.

    just for the rest of us, the winner is, surprise, another polish player, luriusz. this guy has the highest ranking with 0 games at 1798.

  • Huw Rees at 2005-09-19

    how on earth did you establish this?

  • Gregorlo at 2005-09-19

    I don't say the point of _stopping playing_ as bloke state. p_a_k_o has 2001 points and he is an active player… if someone is not an active player, what does it mean?

  • bloke at 2005-09-19

    joe argued that in order to establish who is the best player, we should look for “highest someone [is] with zero games to play” – and that is luriusz

    so is he the best player? no.

    thus, ask joe what exactly is his point

  • Jordi at 2005-09-19

    Congratulations Gregorio. You're my new spanish idol in this game!


  • Gregorlo at 2005-09-19

    Jordi, you were always my spanish idol in GWG :-D

  • eldorado at 2005-09-19

    2001!!! Jesus! And 88 games still open?!

    It's out of this world!


    Time to start an “2000+” thread…

  • thekid at 2005-09-19

    What my point is that he has a bunch of games in the high 40's that are sure losses. Also the ones in extra time will also lose points as I have even won some of those and lost points. Just play those a lot slower and the rating can be infinite. But then those losses eventually get you. The only way to show all of those losses is to have 0 games open.

  • bloke at 2005-09-19

    come on, joe, the point is that pako is not manipulating. he plays his game adamantly against me, and he might lose it (it is tied at 2-2 with 12 moves left). there is no slowing down, deliberately postponing the losses here, unlike in the case of the passenger and nosferatu experiments.

    having a 100+ lead ahead of the second best ranked player certainly is untenable. he is going to lose lots of points and win the fraction of those points. but he has still many more winning games open than losing ones.

    this time around ypercube is right that pako will very well settle around the 1900-mark with zero games open.

  • thekid at 2005-09-19

    Didn't say he wouldn't be 1900, but he did manipulate to get to 2000, otherwise those losses would have been furiously finished as well as the wins.

  • antkam at 2005-09-19

    joe – are you saying (1) a 1900+ (or 2000+) rating is only valid if the player has finished every single game? or are you saying (2) the rating is still valid if the player has ongoing games but all those games are his opponent's turn to move?

    if (1), then i am afraid i would never qualify for anything. i've been playing here for 2 years and i dont remember the last time when i have all games finished. i.e. i always have ongoing games (though of course very often none of them is my turn to move). i am just addicted, i guess…

    if (2), then i think your position has certain validity to it, but as you pointed out, by slowing down some games it is possible to manipulate and still pass that test.

    in other words, i think (1) would indeed eliminate all manipulation but is too stringent a test for many players to ever pass (even if they dont manipulate), whereas (2) is not useful as a test because it can still be manipulated. so IMHO, we ultimately simply have to make our own decision whether to trust some player's results. in this case, pako is a longtime, very good player, so i am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, although you did point out some issues and i know (from my own trip to 19xx) that the temptation to manipulate “just a little bit” is very very great indeed. :)

    why dont we just ask pako? come on pako, you are among friends, and whatever you say, we all recognize your trip to 19xx as valid. so, did you manipulate “just a little bit” to get to 20xx? ;)

  • thekid at 2005-09-19

    Antkam the answer to your question is #2, for myself I was just curious to see what I would settle in at so I finished all my games once before and am doing it again.

  • p_a_k_o at 2005-09-19

    So i will tell something too. My last week was extraordinary. I won almost every game which i played: i dont know exactly how many games there were but i think that results were something like 30:3. I was wining 10 games and losing 1. And i didn't manipulate like Joe is telling. I reached 2000 and i didn't have any lose game which i could finish at that moment. So i had such rating without collecting lose games like did passenger or nostradamus(that was his nick?).I played very good and had many luck. Looser couldn't belive that he wins with others and lose almost everything with me :)

    I wanted to reach 1900 and maybe i could make streetsoccer record. I made this but i was still winning every game and unexpected i reach 2000. Now i'm still winning many games but there are coming few losts and surely i will fall down under 2000 cause for win i get 2-3 points and lose 25-30 for lost game.

    If i will have still so good form and luck i will at the end have 1900-1950 but there will be still some games cause i like playing soccer.

    About manipulations. Yes, i manipulate a little bit. If i played with one player 2 games and had win and lose, first i lose than i win but i didn't wait more than few hours so there were no collecting lost games.Even that i were in - cause my opponent had less rating a take from me more points than i get for win. For me stupid rule is when i win match 4:1 and lose 4-5 points. Why?? In my opinion there should be 0 points for that.

    ps. Joe if you are so good, try to reach 2000. You are telling that playing many games makes it easier?? Try to do that without colleceting lost games like passenger did. I think that you wouldn't reach even 1900 barier.

  • bloke at 2005-09-19

    so far i defended your stance, pako…

    but it is true that you were quick to make your moves against me when you had a good chance to finish off the game within regulation time, and when it did not work out, you stopped making moves. had you finished your game against me with the same speed as you did couple hours ago, you would not have the 2000+ rankings any longer (even a 1-4 would give me extra points i think).

    so is this manipulation? yes, an innocent kind even joe would do :-)

  • p_a_k_o at 2005-09-19

    bloke, you are wrong. I have so many games that i often play first with one person than with another but i don't play all day to finish game specially with you!!! If i stopped playing with you it doesn't mean that i saw a lose and went to another game. I have few games where my opponent is turn and they can win with high numbers.

    On the other hand you can think what you want; I know how I play and won't explain oneself.

  • bloke at 2005-09-19

    do not be offended, pako, i was on your side, if you did not happen to notice :D

  • bloke at 2005-09-19

    by the way, check out the five 1s (ones) out of my last seven rolls :D


  • strizz at 2005-09-22

    “It's a joke”, said Joe. Looking at pako's chart I think he is right.

  • Gregorlo at 2005-09-22

    I don't think p_a_k_o was manipulating his rating at all… when you reach 2000 points every lose is a fast fall of points, whereas a win has almost no increment.

    Furthermore, all my games with him were a played at normal pace, even if he was losing.

  • bloke at 2005-09-23

    in any case, the stat graph testifies now that it could not have been more than yet another passenger-nostradamus experiment, although at a higher level.

  • Gregorlo at 2005-09-23

    bloke, can you give an argument for that? I don't really that anything testifies what you say. It's very hard to stand at that level, and any loss (luck is luck) means a lot of point decrease… My graph is similar and I didn't make any experiment.

  • thekid at 2005-09-23

    It's obvious. If a loss equals 25 points give or take at that level then if you hold off on 4 you would bew at 1900 instead of 2000. Bloke had been defending him but said that Pako was playing really fast in his games with Bloke until Bloke tied it. So Pako didn't have the 10 or so games sitting at 50 or 51 moves but he quite a few in the high 40's or extra time that turned out to be losses. That is how he did it. Funny to see him in the mid 1700's after mouthing off.

    Hey Pako, I've got 5 open games to go and am at 1815, and there doesn't appear to be a loss in the bunch. I invite you to do the same.

  • Gregorlo at 2005-09-23

    When I'm losing, I calculate quite accurately the chances of my opponent… It takes time, you know?

    In go, I do the same: finish the won games, think the close games…

  • p_a_k_o at 2005-09-23


    1800 is easy to reach. I usually sit over this barier. You have 5 games with weak players which you will win. But on your rating chart we can see that first you finished your lost games or you have bad luck in that games?? :) Try to play more games and we will see if you don't fall down under 1800. 1 lose and you are there.

    When i was at 2000 i lost 8 games, won 8 games and summary i lost about 160 points. Noone could stand on this level playing more new games.

    I like playing so i won't have 5 games to finish like you.

  • thekid at 2005-09-23

    Hey pako don't try to paint other people as manipulators, like you. I play the games when they come on my screen - win, lose or draw. I'm sure the 2 people rated 1665 don't consider themselves weak. The other 3 are in the 1500's so its not like these are 1300 players. Just keep obfuscating the truth, maybe you'll convince yourself, but from your posts you probably already have.

  • p_a_k_o at 2005-09-23

    Tell more interesting things heheeh Joe the kid :)With Looser like reading your funny posts :)

  • Gregorlo at 2005-09-23

    Joe said: “I play the games when they come on my screen - win, lose or draw”. You mean you don't think deeper on hard situations? Are you proud of it?

    I don't see the point on questioning other people use of time. Like posts like “Bob is very sloooooow, it's so unfaaaaair”.

    At the moment, I didn't see any evidence of p_a_k_o being “experimental”, and p_a_k_o has stated he is not. Enough for me.

  • Micky at 2005-09-23

    Pako, played games very fast with me, both the winning and the lossing ones, he is a fine player.

  • FC Cwali at 2005-11-18

    1939 :) pr

    5 games in progress:

    In 2 I lead by 1 goal.

    3 are equal and in extra time.

    In 2 of these 3 games I scored the last goal. But those extra time games don't look good now.

  • antkam at 2006-02-21

    At this moment there are 2 players above 1900 – tigis at 1911 and p_a_k_o at 1909. Is this the first time we have 2 players above 1900 at the same time?

    Also Matthew (the leader of the current championship) is at 1899, so if he continues we will have 3 players above 1900 at the same time!

    Also, the top 9 are >1850. Will we get top 10 all >1850 soon? The rating inflation is really in full force!

  • neptun at 2006-03-31

    finally I can join this exclusive club :-)

  • Looser at 2006-04-04

    1957 … my new record! And I think it will be increase!


  • Looser at 2006-04-06

    I reached 1971 and lost with Havok:/ I lost 1:4 and “20 !!” points :/

  • Almaju at 2006-04-21

    Im on 1925, its a really big achievement for me, and a pleasure to join this important and… (taking the words from neptun) exclusive club.

  • FIDEL CASTRO at 2006-04-21

    Congrats Almaju. You deserve it! I?ll be waiting you finish our games. :)

  • Almaju at 2006-04-22

    Jajaja, yes TONTO, fix all your games on stand by, and we talk later. Maybe i will take 1 or 2 points from your final rating. .-)

  • Looser at 2006-04-23
    • 2001 p_a_k_o

    • 1971 Looser

    • 1939 FC Cwali

    • 1934 Almaju

    • 1931 eldorado

    • 1919 antkam

    • 1916 Nostradamus

    • ~1970 tigis

    • ~1920 jakster

    • ~1920 Matthew

    • ~1910 Luriusz

      Anybody know how many points tigis, jakster, Matthew and Luriusz reached precise?

  • Looser at 2006-04-23

    And maybe You know who else reached 1900?

  • FCGerard'91 at 2006-04-23

    my personal record: 1942

  • Jarug at 2006-04-23
    • 2001 p_a_k_o

    • 1971 Looser

    • 1942 FCGerard'91

    • 1939 FC Cwali

    • 1934 Almaju

    • 1931 eldorado

    • 1919 antkam

    • 1916 Nostradamus

    • ~1970 tigis

    • ~1920 jakster

    • ~1920 Matthew

    • ~1910 Luriusz

  • Looser at 2006-04-23

    Jarug is me as You can see. :P

    So thanks Gerard and sorry that I forgot about You but You didnt glory it in this topic :]

  • neptun at 2006-04-27

    I reached 1942 on 31 of march :-)

  • Looser at 2006-04-27

    How could I forget about You! :) Sorry my friend.

    • 2001 p_a_k_o

    • 1971 Looser

    • 1942 neptun

    • 1942 FCGerard'91

    • 1939 FC Cwali

    • 1934 Almaju

    • 1931 eldorado

    • 1919 antkam

    • 1916 Nostradamus

    • ~1970 tigis

    • ~1920 jakster

    • ~1920 Matthew

    • ~1910 Luriusz

  • tigis at 2006-04-28

    I reached exact 1965 on 13 of march :-)

  • Looser at 2006-04-28

    Why there isnt function of editing posts? I could have done only some corrections without writing the new one.

    tigis only 1965? Looking at your rating chart, I think it was about 1970 :)

    • 2001 p_a_k_o

    • 1971 Looser

    • 1965 tigis

    • 1942 neptun

    • 1942 FCGerard'91

    • 1939 FC Cwali

    • 1934 Almaju

    • 1931 eldorado

    • 1919 antkam

    • 1916 Nostradamus

    • ~1920 jakster

    • ~1920 Matthew

    • ~1910 Luriusz

  • Enrico at 2006-04-30

    Can I join the club too? I reached 1909 today, after beating Looser (thanks!) :)

  • Burton at 2006-05-22

    I have first time over 1900 (1908).


  • matjazo at 2006-12-18

    I reached 1904 yesterday for the first time, but only for a short time. I'll be back. :-)

  • David at 2007-01-05

    I managed to reach 1903 today. Not sure how long it is going to last, but it's been nice to finally climb over the 1900 mark.

  • Alan at 2007-01-06

    Finally made it! 1906 Thanks for that last minute miss David, that was tense


  • David at 2007-01-06

    you're welcome Alan, hope you can return the favour soon. :-)

  • strizz at 2007-01-22

    1902. I am down in none of the games I have open right now.

  • bloke at 2007-03-18

    Alan has 1927 now. myself, by the way, 1904 :-)

  • bloke at 2007-03-18

    Temporary breakout from mediocrity: I reached 1924 for the first (and probably the last) time. There are imminent losses and some nice wins coming down the road – I will surely drop some 100 points in the next couple days.

  • bloke at 2007-03-18

    The All-Time Top 20 (or so)

    \* 2014 tigis

    \* 2001 p_a_k_o

    \* 1971 Looser

    \* 1968 Almaju

    \* 1961 To_NiE_On

    \* 1942 neptun

    \* 1942 FCGerard'91

    \* 1939 FC Cwali

    \* 1931 eldorado

    \* 1927 Alan

    \* 1924 bloke

    \* 1924 mojito1

    \* 1919 antkam

    \* 1916 Nostradamus

    \* 1909 Enrico

    \* 1908 Peter Burton

    \* 1907 sawek

    \* 1904 matjazo

    \* 1903 David (SLO)

    \* 1902 strizz

    The exact rangking is not certain

    \* ~1955 Michal Piszczalka(piszczyk)

    \* ~1920 jakster

    \* ~1920 Matthew

    \* ~1915 Kubrick

    \* ~1910 Luriusz

    Almost reached the 1900+ Club:

    \* 1895 Grom_pl_Pedro

    \* 1878 Root Beer

    \* 1871 ypercube

    \* 1910 Luriusz

    Whoever is left out – speak for yourself! :-)

  • bloke at 2007-03-19

    I would say that 1951 is definitely the maximum for a while. A combination of good luck, stellar play, and some selectivity in finishing the games is the recipe :-)

  • Batman at 2007-03-19

    I'm at 1893 which is my highest ever. It looks to be temporary as I'm about to lose a game.

    No game manipulation here.

  • Batman at 2007-03-19

    Ok, Now I'm at 1909.

  • bloke at 2007-03-21

    The Updated All-Time Top 25 (or so)

    \* 2014 tigis

    \* 2001 p_a_k_o

    \* 1971 Looser

    \* 1968 Almaju

    \* 1968 To_NiE_On

    \* 1951 bloke

    \* 1948 Drago

    \* 1942 neptun

    \* 1942 FCGerard'91

    \* 1939 FC Cwali

    \* 1931 eldorado

    \* 1929 mojito1

    \* 1927 Alan

    \* 1919 antkam

    \* 1919 Batman

    \* 1917 sawek

    \* 1916 Nostradamus

    \* 1909 Enrico

    \* 1909 Grom_pl_Pedro

    \* 1908 Peter Burton

    \* 1906 FC Szczebrzeszynianka

    \* 1904 matjazo

    \* 1903 David (SLO)

    \* 1902 spl

    \* 1902 strizz

    The exact ranking is not certain

    \* ~2020 tigis

    \* ~1975 FCGerard'91

    \* ~1955 Michal Piszczalka(piszczyk)

    \* ~1925 jakster

    \* ~1920 Matthew

    \* ~1915 Kubrick

    \* ~1910 Luriusz

    Almost reached the 1900+ Club:

    \* ~1892 anwi

    \* ~1885 Petr Trojek

    \* 1878 Root Beer

    \* ~1877 R Pardoe

    \* 1875 _meanless_

    \* 1871 ypercube

  • Marius Halsor at 2007-03-21

    “Almost” reached 1900+ club doesn't sound like a very prestigous club. However, if it WAS, I'd have to point out that I've been above 1875 too :-)

  • Marius Halsor at 2007-03-21

    “Almost” reached 1900+ club doesn't sound like a very prestigous club. However, if it WAS, I'd have to point out that I've been above 1875 too :-)

  • bloke at 2007-03-21

    The “almost reached” is mentioned because we have no exact figures without reporting by the players themselves. Who knows, perhaps that “~1889” is actually above 1900? …

    So exactly how much is that “above 1875” that you have reached? :-)

  • Marius Halsor at 2007-03-21

    Not much. Looking at my graph, I'd say around 1880.

    However, it should be rather easy to view the players graphs and see if they have ever exceeded 1900 or not, as the graphs draw a line for every 25 rating points.

  • Marius Halsor at 2007-03-21

    I just checked, and I boasted about my rating in another thread. Thus, I can state that it was 1879. Again, I have a much lower rating now, but hope I one day can join the REAL 1900+ club.

  • Steven Pedlow at 2007-03-21

    My peak was 1899, but it was in the middle of a competition, so it was definitely not a stable point.

  • David at 2007-03-21

    For the sake of keeping the records, I have now actually made it three times over the 1900 limit and my peak was 1952 for a brief period of time.

  • bloke at 2007-03-22

    This club works basically on a self-reporting basis, so thanks Steven and David.

    The whole thread started with lvf123 reaching 1900+ but it was never mentioned what was his/her highest ranking. Any idea anyone?

    Batman now has a respectable 1927 rating, his highest ever, which he reached not by “game manipulating” but simply using the innocent and frequently used technique of postponing the final move in a lost game.

    Welcome also to the club of selective game finishers :-)

  • FatPhil at 2007-03-22

    Personally, I view postponing the last move of a lost game to be ratings manipulation.

    If the game's practically over, just finish it, and stop trying to play silly buggers with your rating.

  • bloke at 2007-03-22

    Well the current leader of the rankings, tonieon (PL) is losing a game 3-0 with 10 minutes after halftime. The more goals he gets, the slower he moves. Is that not understandable?

    Is the protestant ethic of punishing yourself with bad news really that much stronger at this game site than the catholic ethic of basking in fame for a couple days and then pay for it?

    I don't think so. I would rather call it hypocrisy.

  • MichaeI X at 2007-03-22

    Whoever is interested in topics like “1900+ club” is highly tempted to do “selective game finishing”.

    Perhaps I did not get it (yet), but there's not too much strategy in streetsoccer, compared to other board games. And due to the random factor, it's less the single game which counts, but some long term strategy and an overall performance.

    So, you not only have the choice where to move on the board, but also when, within your 240 h range. And if that's part of your streetsoccer strategy, bad luck for your opponent. Hopefully he runs an opposite strategy (lose quickly, win later, which sometimes gives a higher total rating, especially if he's the one to win against someone's pushed temporary rating ;)

    Using vacation days selectively (i.e. continue some games but use vacation days to postpone others even more) is sure beyond what is meant by “vacation”.

    And, another clarification, for those without the goal to reach temporary rating peaks (like me myself), streetsoccer is fun because its quick.

  • FatPhil at 2007-03-22

    It's not protestant anything, it's not catholic anything, it's simply a matter of playing the game for the game itself, and not for ephemeral ratings.

    Where do you see me saying that one should “punish yourself with bad news”? Where is my hypocrisy? That's a strong word to throw about without any reason.

  • FC Malaj at 2007-03-22

    i think “hypocrisy” was a response to the “silly bugger” label. both strong phrases to throw about – especially “bugger” which originally means “sodomite” and “heretic”.

    not that i subscribe to cultural determinist arguments, but it is true, for example, that Almaju, from Catholic Mexico, keeps postponing his move. i have no problem with that at all, it is fun playing with him and discussing the effects of global warming in the meantime :-) i was also only smiling when in two games running with Batman he finished the one in which he was winning, and postponed his last move in the one he was losing.

    i agree with michael x that this is part of the game playing strategy in easy and fun games like streetsoccer.

  • FatPhil at 2007-03-22

    “to play silly buggers” is an idiomatic verbal phrase which has nothing to do with sodomy. Like “to mess about” has nothing to do with making a mess or creating disorder. If anything, “playing silly buggers” is a weaker and less weighty phrase than “messing about”. To an English ear, anyway.

    Anyway, your not finding the sentence where I say that one should “punish yourself with bad news” has been noted.

  • Batman at 2007-03-23

    I did not get my 1927 rating by postponing the last move of a game. That is simply untrue. I played my games as they came in the queue.

    I am guilty of withholding the last move of one game to enjoy the 1927 rating for a few more hours but I finished that game before I ever finished any other game. It was never used to artificially enhance my ratings. To suggest otherwise is a slight to me. I feel very strongly about this and would never use this tactic to boost my rating.

  • MichaeI X at 2007-03-23

    Batman “never used to artificially enhance my ratings” except “for a few more hours”

    Granted ;=)

    Hope you truly enjoy the feeling.

    And you're still > 1900!

    I understand member of the 1900+ club is everybody who ever reached it “once or more” (see first entry of this thread). A lifetime award!

    Perhaps I try to get that feeling myself. Not sure if just postponing the end of lost games is enough for me, but see how I try to reach the 1600 barrier ;)

  • Batman at 2007-03-23

    I reached my highest rating ever after over three years of playing on this site and I get accusations instead of accolades. My rating was earned the right way; by playing well and winning some tough games. I never delayed a game to finish some other games first to give myself an artificially high rating. I don't understand what the difference is between logging out for a few hours before finishing a game so that my rating doesn't drop ten seconds after earning it and logging out for any other reason. As soon as I logged back on again I finished that game before I ever played a single move in any other SS game.

    I stand behind my 1927 rating as earned without any ratings manipulation whatsoever. If I happen to get a higher rating it will be done, again, without any form of manipulation.

  • bloke at 2007-03-23

    In other words, being a member of the 1900+ Club is not only about reaching just a number, but a Milestone, with capital M. It is not a mundane affair but seemingly an emotionally charged one. “Silly bugger”, “hypocrite”, “artificial enhancement”, “boosting rating” are not examples of neutral use of words. Hard work, righteousness, merit – these are the solemn concepts attached to the way 1900+ Club membership is reached.

    There is no sense of irony and relativity – come on, this 1900+ Club membership is fun, just like the game itself, not a serious business :-)

  • Steven Pedlow at 2007-03-28

    1901 is my new peak. I'm tied in 5 games and ahead in the 6th of my 6 active games so hopefully, I'll be able to stay.

  • bloke at 2007-04-02

    Some update, only the recent 1900+ results, the full list can be compiled later by anyone:

    \* 1978 FCGerard'91 (to be confirmed, but 1930 right now)

    \* 1955 mojito1 (to be confirmed, but 1948 is for sure)

    \* 1952 David (self-reported, seems correct)

    \* 1941 Alan (to be confirmed, but 1931 is for sure)

    \* 1927 Batman (no ratings manipulation whatsoever :-)

    \* 1918 FC Szczebrzeszynianka (freefall projected)

    \* 1917 sawek (a little drop is likely)

    \* 1909 Grom pl Pedro (at 1900 with zero games left)

    \* 1909 meanguy (with 11 games running, it can go anywhere)

    \* 1907 Kubrick (likely to stay put)

    \* 1901 Steven Pedlow (close games, tensions rise)

    \* 1894 Phlegm (will break into the Club soon)

    \* 1879 Marius Halsør (will not break into the Club soon)

    long live silly buggers! :-)

  • bloke at 2007-04-02

    \* 1932 meanguy (up and coming)

  • antkam at 2007-04-03

    as of this moment (april 03, 2007, 5:11pm boston time), the top ten players are all 19xx, the 10th place belonging to FCGerard'91 at 1909. indeed, the top 12 players are all 19xx, with 12th place Grom pl Pedro at 1900 exactly. this is the first time i have seen it happen.

    congrats to all the players involved!

    IIRC, it was around early 2005 when we reached the milestone of top ten players all 18xx. it has taken 2+ years for the group to move up 100 pts. whether this is due to having many more players (therefore wider spread), or ratings inflation (bad players leaving therefore increasing the average), or both, i do not know.

    watch for the next exciting milestone around mid 2009, when top ten will cross 2000+ threshold! (but before that, someone will probably cross the 21xx threshold first…)

  • eldorado at 2007-04-05

    According to my rating chart i reached 1950+ level in 2006 Oct or Nov.

    Just before few hours i was certainly at 1942.

    It's a weak point of this site that there's no player stats for max/min level of rating and date reached. I think it's very easy to implement and it means only hundreds of kBytes for db extension which is definitely not crucial.

    We should call upon webmaster to do it, kindly of course ;-)

  • bloke at 2007-04-06

    \* 1951 eldorado (but 1942 is for sure)

    I agree with eldorado that it would be nice to have these player stats with maximum rating reached – although it is definitely more interesting in StreetSoccer than in any of the other games due to the high number of players and matches played. In other games it is less significant.

    And antkam, I believe the next milestone of the top ten being over 2000 will be earlier, probably as early as the end of this year.

  • bloke at 2007-04-11

    \* 1961 To_NiE_On (approaching his/her personal best)

  • bloke at 2007-04-17

    \* 1937 Batman (seems to top out here, but maybe can catch Krzysztof)

    \* 1933 David (come on, you can be better :-)

    \* 1919 Steven Pedlow (two very tight games left against the top of the crop)

    \* 1914 Kubrick (slowly but steadily)

  • Steven Pedlow at 2007-04-23

    10.1.1 was very kind to me; now at 1923 between competitions (“a fair rating”). I don't expect I will continue to be as lucky.

  • bloke at 2007-05-09

    \* 1925 Steven Pedlow

    \* 1924 sawek

    any other new personal bests?

  • Burton at 2007-05-09

    I'm second time over 1900.

    Now 1926.

  • bloke at 2007-05-14

    new personal bests

    \* 1984 To_NiE_On

    \* 1936 sawek

    \* 1930 Steven Pedlow

    \* 1926 Peter 'Burton' Chovanec

    corrections welcome

  • bloke at 2007-05-20

    \* 1984 To_NiE_On – will reach 2000 if postpones his losing game against me :-)

    nah, no ratings manipulation

  • bloke at 2007-05-24

    \* 1996 To_NiE_On (it seems that even if his loss against me would not stop him reaching 2000 :-)

    \* 1952 Looser (approaching his personal best – with this nick)

    \* 1938 Steven Pedlow (if i remember well)

    \* 1932 steve1964 (skyrocketing)

  • neptun at 2007-05-25

    finally I reached a new personal record

    : 1948 :

  • bloke at 2007-05-27

    excellent news. but, wow, it took a whole year for neptun to surpass his previous personal best – will i have to wait 10 more months to reach 1952?

  • Burton at 2007-05-28

    I reached my new personal record 1934.

  • Burton at 2007-05-28

    I increace my personal record: 1943

  • neptun at 2007-05-29

    good news for bloke : after a short trip under 1900 I start to increase my record again : now ______________1965_______________

  • bloke at 2007-05-30

    verification needed:

    \* 200x To_NiE_On (reached a peak between 2004 and 2010 but it is not sure from the graph

    \* 1968 neptun (this might still increase a bit)

  • Burton at 2007-05-30

    I increace my personal record again: 1956

  • Burton at 2007-05-30

    And another litte increase - 1970

  • bloke at 2007-05-31

    amazing developments: neptun and burton are marching towards 2000 in a very convincing manner, dethroning To_NiE_On

    new personal records:

    \* 1990 neptun

    \* 1970 Peter 'Burton' Chovanec

    \* 1940 Looser (although it is not a personal record, Looser is coming fast too)

    eleven (11) players are above 1900 right now (including myself with a local peak of 1934)

  • FC Malaj at 2007-05-31

    With a lucky spell I reached 1905 temporarily, with no serious ranking drop in sight

  • muggel_b at 2007-06-05

    With a humble bow I enter this room: actually at 1906 :-)

  • Looser at 2007-06-07

    Club 1900

    RankingPlayer's nickCountry2014tigis2009To_Nie_On2001p_a_k_o1990neptun1978FCGerard'911974Looser1970Peter 'Burton' Chovanec1968Almaju1955mojito11952David1951bloke1951eldorado1948Drago1941Alan1939FC Cwali1938Steven Pedlow1937Batman1936sawek1934Peter 'Burton' Chovanec1932meanguy1932steve19641925jakster1920Matthew1919antkam1918FC Szczebrzeszynianka1916muggel_b1916Nostradamus1914Kubrick1910Luriusz1909Enrico1909Grom_pl_Pedro1905FC Malaj1904matjazo1902spl1902strizz

  • Looser at 2007-06-07

    The newest ranking. I finally beat my previous best ranking and achieved 1974.

    I update ranking all the time in my profile but for those who hasn't javascript on input here and will input sometimes after some changes.

    PS: If you have better informations about ranks of players or yourself tell here.

  • bloke at 2007-06-16

    excellent copy-paste, Looser.

    my best ranking, for awhile, will remain at 1961. which means i broke the previous record within a month :-)

  • bloke at 2007-06-16

    omg, i just had a hat trick against neptun which catapulted my ranking to 1989. so this one is for the record books.

  • bloke at 2007-06-16

    make it 2013. exceptional day.

  • bloke at 2007-06-17

    i reached 2019 for a new StreetSoccer record.

    experience shows that over 2000 a regular 5-0 win brings only 1-5 points while a 4-1 victory brings or takes 1 point depending on the opponent's ranking. a tie or a loss results in a serious drop in the rankings, just watch the freefall.

  • bloke at 2007-06-17

    it is official: 2020

  • p_a_k_o at 2007-06-17

    pff bloke another passenger experiment. Many special unfinished games. Your record won't be count ;]

  • bloke at 2007-06-17

    i guess we need a rule to filter out experiments. firenze proposed a rule on that if i remember.

    \* 2020 bloke

    \* 2014 tigis

    \* 2009 To_Nie_On

    \* 2001 p_a_k_o

    \* 1990 neptun

    \* 1989 Looser

    \* 1978 FCGerard'91

    \* 1970 Peter 'Burton' Chovanec

    \* 1968 Almaju

    \* 1955 mojito1

    \* 1952 David

    \* 1951 eldorado

    \* 1948 Drago

    \* 1941 Alan

    \* 1939 FC Cwali

    \* 1938 Steven Pedlow

    \* 1937 Batman

    \* 1936 sawek

    \* 1934 Peter 'Burton' Chovanec

    \* 1932 meanguy

    \* 1932 steve1964

    \* 1925 jakster

    \* 1920 Matthew

    \* 1919 antkam

    \* 1918 FC Szczebrzeszynianka

    \* 1916 muggel_b

    \* 1916 Nostradamus

    \* 1914 Kubrick

    \* 1910 Luriusz

    \* 1909 Enrico

    \* 1909 Grom_pl_Pedro

    \* 1908 bachkiesel

    \* 1905 FC Malaj

    \* 1904 matjazo

    \* 1902 spl

    \* 1902 strizz

  • bloke at 2007-06-17

    not that i wanted – it is 2022 now.

  • FC Malaj at 2007-06-18

    This looks like a monologue, a personalized forum topic now. But otherwise bloke deserves the credit – I had my lucky run myself when I reached 1905. You can't help against a lucky run – but why would you?

  • Looser at 2007-06-18

    Especially You shouldn't say anything. Why? I will tell You why.

    I analized your games with bloke. First strange is that you can play faster with him than me but this is ok I can understand that you can prefer play with him first. Second and this I'm wondering specially. Your moves in games with bloke were really strange and suspicious. I don't know if they were your mistakes or intended. I can't tell that but one is sure, you really can play better.


    1. 719377 - moves number 18, 22, 26, 36, 40
    2. 715945 - moves number 7, 17, 21
    3. 714382 - moves number 31, 43, 59, 61, 63
    4. 696270 - moves number 28, 38, 48
    5. 701902 - this is still unfinished - moves number 39, 43, 47
    6. 730088 - this is still unfinished - move number 5
    7. 721494 - this is still unfinished - move number 13, 15

    I wanna believe you were playing drunk or sth but even really weak players doesn't make such horrible faults playing. You are very good and experienced player and I don't remember situation when you didn't score if you had opportunity to do it or let me score in such easy way.

    So maybe first explain me this, and then tell about lucky run of bloke.

  • FC Malaj at 2007-06-18

    As I said, I had my lucky run - it was against neptun who won 7-6 in our 13 matches but I earned more points. We played online and pretty fast, the games were over in 10 minutes. I had a similar batch of rapid games against bloke and this time I was on the losing side - he did not even win too much points against me. You were not online at that time, so that is why I did not play my matches against you. But I do not think there is much to explain, if you play rapid games you make more mistakes. In rapid games you might seem weaker. Shit happens.

    Nevertheless, I checked some of the moves you picked meticulously. Honestly, I do not see any of those as causing a fatal change in the flow of the game. In certain cases, especially when I rolled ones, it was basically meaningless to decide were to move - the next kick was a certain goal. No impact factor at all.

    So I believe you have overreacted something that is insignificant really.

  • p_a_k_o at 2007-06-18

    hahahahaha what a cheater :) For me Malaj, Bloke, Firenze and other Butan flag nicks are the same person who makes games between them to rise ratings(especially Bloke now). Weak player who has 2000 rating, lol :D

  • FC Malaj at 2007-06-18

    Whatever you think. I could just as well say that all Poles are the same person and they help each other to reach 2000 one after the other. Saw and sawek are both in the first division playing against each other “a suspicious game” by Looser's standards. I could also say that To_Nie_On, mojito, FC Szczebrzeszynianka, Looser, and you are the same person - prove the opposite.

    But what is the point? Jumping up and down screaming that the other player is “weak”? This is boring for me, sorry.

  • bloke at 2007-06-18

    i guess this is all about the flags, lots of polish flags :-)

    Club 1900

    RankingPlayer's nickCountry2020bloke2014tigis2009To_Nie_On2001p_a_k_o1990neptun1989Looser1978FCGerard'911970Peter 'Burton' Chovanec1968Almaju1964eldorado1955mojito11952David1948Drago1941Alan1939FC Cwali1938Steven Pedlow1937Batman1936sawek1934Peter 'Burton' Chovanec1932meanguy1932steve19641925jakster1920Matthew1919antkam1918FC Szczebrzeszynianka1916muggel_b1916Nostradamus1914Kubrick1910Luriusz1909Enrico1909Grom_pl_Pedro1908bachkiesel1905FC Malaj1904matjazo1902spl1902strizz

  • Looser at 2007-06-18

    You said that you don't see anything wrong in those moves which I mentioned? Really? Maybe we looked at different games. Look at them once more especially at the moves which are bold.

    Game 714382 - move 43 - you didn't score but you have enough eyes to do it.

    Game 696270 - move 38 and 48 - you let bloke score twice despite you could easly block

    Game 701902 - move 47 - you could score but you didn't

    Game 730088 - move 5 - again! you could score but you didn't

    Game 721494 - move 13 - you could block but you didn't

    Sorry, one time it could happen but you didn't score 3 times in 3 different matches in short term!! (As I remember I miss the occasion to score 1 time in my whole carrier in over 5000 matches). And you said it's okey? I don't know if you are bloke or not. But surely you let him reach the barrier 2000.

    BTW You didn't mentioned blablabla, czarek, gromplpedro, Krzysztof, anwi, Luriusz, Adam Malysz etc…

  • bloke at 2007-06-18

    come on, in the span between 1961 and 2013 i had four victories against neptun and three against FC Malaj (and one each against matjazo, jose.ibiza, perugia etc.). they both played online and both lost in rapid games. would you also challenge neptun and the others for the same “suspicious” play?

  • FC Malaj at 2007-06-18

    I said I checked some of them but did not find anything fatally wrong with those moves I saw. But I am willing to admit that I made mistakes in these five you mentioned - except for Game 721494 - move 13 where it does not matter if I move to d2 or d4.

    So what next?

  • Looser at 2007-06-18

    It doesn't matter with whom you played or with whom you won. Did you look at those games though? Those moves which I pointed. You really see anything? Hey guys, am I stupid or sth? Look at those bold moves again and tell me why FC Malaj didn't score 3 times (714382, 701902, 730088) and didn't block you (696270, 721494) This is 5 matches, not

    1. 719377 - moves number 18, 22, 26, 36, 40
    2. 715945 - moves number 7, 17, 21
    3. 714382 - moves number 31, 43, 59, 61, 63
    4. 696270 - moves number 28, 38, 48
    5. 701902 - this is still unfinished - moves number 39, 43, 47
    6. 730088 - this is still unfinished - move number 5
    7. 721494 - this is still unfinished - move number 13, 15

    How many times you didn't score because you didn't notice that you have an opportunity? Believe me he always scores with me.

    PS: if you copy/paste the html code, first remove all those tags then there won't be white space above.

  • Looser at 2007-06-18

    @FC Malaj: You can kick the ball to the corner.


  • firenze at 2007-06-20

    couple years ago i proposed a rule that only those players will be an “official” member of the +1800 or +1900 etc. clubs who have reached that level three times without dropping 150 points below the +1800 or +1900 plateau in between (that is, to 1650 or 1750).

    so if someone reaches 2022 points does not qualify him/her an “official” member in the +2000 club (which, by the way, does not yet have an “official” member).

    but if having a series of lucky turn of events combined with a selective finishing of the running games catapults someone to a high ranking disqualifies someone from the top of the list of highest rankings (which is only an informative list, anyway) then p_a_k_o and To_Nie_On should also not boast a +2000 top result, maybe even the consensus superstar tigis should not have an official +2000 ranking, and neptun should not have a 1990 ranking, etc.

    likewise, nostradamus' 1916 was also stigmatized as yet another “passenger experiment” but he could keep his ranking, unlike passenger

    it seems that there are lots of examples of applying double-standards here

  • bloke at 2007-07-09

    lets get back to normal reporting mode. here are the new personal records of the past two weeks i noticed:

    \* 1962 jakster

    \* 1925 Kubrick

    \* 1924 Nevermind

    \* 1917 matjazo (who actually had this record earlier)

    c 1914 Grom pl Pedro (another earlier record that went unnoticed)


    \* 2022 bloke

  • jim O at 2007-07-09


  • bloke at 2007-07-16

    new personal records of the past week i noticed:

    \* 1965 Grom_pl_Pedro

    \* 1923 matjazo

    \* 1908 strizz

    \* 1903 bachkiesel

    i do not have exact figures for these players:

    \* 191x dopplefunker

    \* 190x TnT

    \* 190x Manou

  • Arsenal at 2007-07-17

    Here I am. Finally I have reached 1900 with 23 games outstanding.

  • bloke at 2007-07-19

    new personal records:

    \* 1965 Grom_pl_Pedro (with lots of help)

    \* 1913 Arsenal (with determination)

  • bloke at 2007-07-31

    new personal records, if i did not miss something:

    \* 1973 Grom_pl_Pedro

    \* 1935 steve1964

    \* 1925 dopplefunker

    \* 1920 bachkiesel

    make corrections wherever necessary

  • TnT at 2007-07-31

    I made it to 1908. I had one game outstanding and was leading, but managed to lose it anyway. Would have been cool to be 1900+ with no games.

  • bloke at 2007-08-02


    \* 1908 TnT

    \* 1906 Manou

  • George Schafer at 2007-08-03

    I finally made it as well! 1917 with 31 games outstanding.

  • George Schafer at 2007-08-03

    And right back below 1900 I go. :-(

    Just so I can always remember it…

    Message: Game #726475 is finished.

    George vs. matjazo 5:0

    George old rating: 1901 newrating: 1917

    matjazo old rating: 1910 newrating: 1894

    Tournament: soccer.mc.2007.jun.1.15

  • bloke at 2007-08-13


    \* 1951 dopplefunker

    \* 1942 steve1964

    \* 1929 Arsenal

  • bloke at 2007-08-21


    \* 1953 Kubrick

    \* 1937 spl

    \* 1937 (?) Arsenal

    \* 1917 George

  • bloke at 2007-08-24

    new rankings

    \* 1958 Kubrick

    \* 1947 Arsenal

  • Huw Rees at 2007-09-09

    heres my first entry; 1905

  • bloke at 2007-09-13

    new rankings

    \* 1956 Arsenal

    \* 1950 steve1964 (sorry if i missed a higher ranking)

    \* 1920 Calle

  • bloke at 2007-09-13


    \* 1901 _meanless_

  • Black Cat at 2007-09-18

    1900 on the 18 Sept 2007.

  • ypercube ★ at 2007-09-22

    1900 at 23:44

  • bloke at 2007-09-23

    new rankings

    \* 1961 Calle (interesting run)

    \* 1932 Steven Pedlow (close to his personal best)

    \* 1930 meanguy (close to his personal best)

  • strizz at 2007-10-17

    \* strizz 1954

    But you'll have to hurry if you want to see it, I'm two moves away from a defeat by Grom_pl_Pedro.

  • Alan at 2007-10-24

    currently on 1943 but must have been a couple higher a little before (1945?) as my peak goes a little higher.

    About to lose to a last minute goal from Tigis mind…

  • ypercube ★ at 2007-10-30

    1900 again at 11:40

  • Alan at 2007-11-01

    1970 today hurrah!

  • bloke at 2007-11-07

    new rankings

    \* 1994 Arsenal

    \* 1966 steve1964

    \* 1950 Petr Trojek

    someone will make a new aggregate list soon, i am sure

  • Koniin Sarrass at 2007-11-08

    And a new entry for the list… and a new member. :)

    Koniin Sarrass old rating: 1894 newrating: 1903

  • bloke at 2007-11-09

    what? Arsenal has 2043?

  • bloke at 2007-11-14

    2056 for Arsenal… another passenger experiment or a massive dose of luck?

  • Looser at 2007-12-12

    My new record 1899, but it would be better if stev wouldn't keep my two win games with him. So…

  • pensando at 2008-03-21

    Wow! 1908 points right now!!!! How long will I stay at this level? ;-)

    Best Regards from Spain…

  • bloke at 2008-03-25

    back to the club. this time with a local record of 1926.

  • bloke at 2008-03-29

    1955 -- my second best record and the highest ranking in nine months.

  • bloke at 2008-03-30

    make it 1960.

  • chianti at 2008-07-02

    May I humbly join the club with 1904 rating points on July 1, 2008.

  • chianti at 2008-07-02

    And a win-loss ration of 142-80, just for the record.

  • muggel_b at 2008-07-04

    hi, new personal best at 1948 :-)

  • matjazo at 2008-07-15

    My new pwrsonal record at 1970. So close to 2000 but so far away…

  • profBSW at 2008-09-04

    for second time over 1900. new personal record with 1945. nice feeling. but i know, it will going down soon ;-)

  • Marc74 at 2008-09-24

    When i read my charts right my record is 1925.

    At this time i am a little under this score :-)

  • Ray Garrison ★ at 2009-01-12

    I have just climbed over the 1900 mark for the first time (1903)

  • pensando at 2009-02-03

    Here back again… 1907 just now! :)

  • Ray Garrison ★ at 2009-02-23

    After hovering in the 1600-1700s for a good while, I had a very long hot streak (including winning my championship section) and it lasted all the way until I ran out of games, so I am at 1943 with all games complete, and I made it to #5 on the list. I am going to retire for awhile at 1943. Not to rest on my laurels, but because I am getting ready for the Monster finals:)

  • Mojmir Hanes ★ at 2009-05-02

    It lasts ages but I am on 1904 right now after very lucky win.

  • olsszak at 2009-06-03

    It is my first time here. I have just reached 1903. Quite a good come back after almost two years break (birth of my daughter:)). From this place I want to thank two special players I learned a lot from: R Pardoe and Looser. And also thanks to all players I have been playing to casue every game is a lesson.

    Cya on the pitch!

  • olsszak at 2009-06-27

    1903 yesterday for the second time:)

  • Marc74 at 2009-09-12

    1946 now, my all-time-high :-)

  • pensando at 2009-10-15

    Vaya! 1903 justo ahora… He vuelto! :)

    Wow! 1903 right now… I'm back! :)

  • chianti at 2009-10-18

    \* 1914 *

    I have reached a new personal record of 1914, with 7 games left. Looks good and there is a chance it will be even better.

  • pensando at 2009-10-18

    He llegado a 1914!

    I've got 1914!

  • Dvd Avins at 2009-10-18

    I suppose the way to attain the highest rating in any game here (without out and out cheating) is once you get your rating up to a reasonable level, only play in championships. That way you'll get a lot of points from people who forfeit. Ordinarily, when people's ratings get inflated that way, they'll go down again as they face opponents who don't play in the championship; the spoils of the forfeiters eventually get shared. But if you avoid sharing by avoiding monthly cups and other non-championship tourneys, you can remain higher rated than others with your skill level. I think I do this without intent in some games, where the championships are all the games I want to play.

  • chianti at 2009-10-20

    Was this an allegorical comment?

  • Dvd Avins at 2009-10-20

    No, ust a comment on how some ratings may not represent the skill they imply.

  • chianti at 2009-10-21

    But how else would you measure “skill”? In streetsoccer the picture is more complex than in other games: you also need a lucky run to maintain your high rating.

    On the other hand, you are right in that many Top10 players, including Alan, Nacional Montevideo, Honved and Everlast, have zero or one games left to play, so they indeed avoid spoiling their high ratings.

  • chianti at 2009-10-22

    \* 1922 *

    Nice to be in the Top25 all time. Top25 of nicks, of course, not players.

  • pensando at 2009-10-25

    1923 :)

  • chianti at 2009-10-26

    pensando, you won :-)

  • pensando at 2009-10-26

    1928 :)

  • pensando at 2009-10-26

    1935 :)

  • pensando at 2009-10-31

    1941 :)

  • bloke at 2009-11-01

    Not bad. On the other hand, does anyone know what was spl's best record?

  • pensando at 2009-11-01

    1951 :) (Mine ;-)

  • bloke at 2009-11-01

    Go for 2000. Be a member of that prestigious club.

  • pensando at 2009-11-01

    Wow! 1957 right now…

    Bloke, I'll try the 2000, but it seems a bit far away… ;-)

  • pensando at 2009-11-03

    1961… But 1941 just after… :/

  • chianti at 2009-11-20

    \* 1931 *

    One small step ahead in almost a month.

  • chianti at 2009-11-22

    \* 1943 *

    Most likely I will not get any higher. But who knows - my opponents are slow.

  • Cane at 2009-12-03

    I was happy to make it! 1913.

  • chianti at 2009-12-10

    \* 1957 *

    Fourth place on the current Top10 list. It is not going to get any better after winning soccer.mc.2009.jun.2.5.

  • chianti at 2009-12-10

    Wait, not fourth but seventh place according to the last game result message:

    Game #1101080 is finished.

    chianti vs. green_hornet 5:0


    old rating: 1948

    newrating: 1957

    rating position: 7th

    It means that the results of three players are not listed in the Top10 of the GWG main page because of inactivity. I guess they are tigis, Arsenal, and … who is the third?

  • ypercube ★ at 2009-12-11

    Kubrick 1973

    You can find all (including inactive) users at tasuki's LittleGolem_Monster_Ratings page. Just click on the soccer column.

  • chianti at 2009-12-11

    Thanks! I should have thought about that. Is there an updated all-time list somewhere showing the best results of each individual players (nicks)?

  • chianti at 2010-01-10

    \* 1961 *

    Historic moment: first place (!) on the current Top10 list. Whahooo.

  • Phlegm at 2010-01-11

    Hit my high of 1920 the other day. First time over 1900. Ranked 14th

  • chianti at 2010-01-11

    So, does anyone keep an all-time best list somewhere?

    I wonder what new nicks tigis, Arsenal and Kubrick use after successfully landing on top of the hill. :-) Any ideas?

  • Koniin Sarrass at 2010-01-29

    And a new personal best with 1953. :)

  • antony at 2010-01-31

    1902 \o/

  • Kevin Whitmore at 2010-02-01

    After many years of steady progress, I have finally topped the 1900 level. 1905

    Kevin Whitmore

  • simon craddock at 2010-02-19

    Finally made this list with 1900.

  • Luca Bruzzi at 2010-04-07

    My first time over 1900. Actually 1918!!

  • Hollo at 2010-04-21

    My personal best is now above 1900 at 1912.

  • pensando at 2010-05-23

    1910… here again ;-)

  • Matteo A. at 2010-05-27

    Yesterday my new record: 1982! :-)

  • pensando at 2010-05-27

    … 1926…

  • Rex Moore at 2010-05-28

    1905 … I'm finally in the club. Woo-hoo!

  • pensando at 2010-05-28

    … 1941…

  • pensando at 2010-05-30

    … 1952…

  • pensando at 2010-06-01

    … 1955…

  • pensando at 2010-06-01

    … 1966… :)

  • pensando at 2010-06-01

    … 1978…

    But I think I'll go down soon… :p

  • pensando at 2010-06-01

    … 1987!!!

    Will I reach the 2000? Who knows :)

  • bloke at 2010-06-06

    No you wont :D

  • pensando at 2010-06-07

    Sure not… under 1900 now :'(

  • Hollo at 2010-06-13

    My personal best is now 1919.

  • Nethshrac at 2010-07-18


  • Nethshrac at 2010-08-09


  • Eduard at 2010-08-10


  • Eduard at 2010-08-10


  • Bernhard Herwig at 2010-09-23


  • pensando at 2010-09-27

    1905. Here again :)

  • Richard Pijl at 2010-10-13

    I've joined the club: 1907

  • pensando at 2010-10-17

    1915 :)

  • pensando at 2010-10-22

    1935 :)

  • pensando at 2010-10-22

    1947 :)

  • pensando at 2010-11-06

    1952 :)

  • pensando at 2010-11-10

    1956 :)

  • pensando at 2010-12-08

    1962 :)

  • bloke at 2010-12-08

    one man show :\|

  • pensando at 2010-12-12

    1979 :)

    (Show must go on… ;)

  • MRFvR at 2011-04-27

    Once again I revive a topic to advertise one of my accomplishments: I have now reached a 1912 rating (my strongest so far) in StreetSoccer.

  • pensando at 2011-06-02

    1906. I'm back… I hope ;)

  • Matteo A. at 2012-09-09

    1990 today! :-)

  • maguire at 2012-09-11


  • Matteo A. at 2012-09-26

    now 1992!

  • Dvd Avins at 2012-12-03

    I suspect rating inflation must be diminishing the distinction, if even the likes of me are now included. (1905)

  • MRFvR at 2012-12-05

    Again there. Now at 1906 and, hopefully, going up! 8-)

  • maguire at 2013-05-26


  • Henrik Sjøl at 2013-06-11

    1900 :-)

  • pensando at 2013-09-18

    1.907 :)

  • Malaj at 2013-09-18

    1921 – I have just realized that is is by far my highest ranking.

  • passenger ★ at 2013-09-18

    1935…. 8 years after “passenger experiment” I was finaly able to do it on my own. That counts for something:)

  • ypercube ★ at 2013-09-19

    Well done, passenger! I see you have a few more games going on - and you are ahead in goals in most of them!

  • bloke at 2013-09-19

    It has been eight years…

  • klaashaas at 2013-09-19

    Congrats! :-)

  • passenger ★ at 2013-09-19

    Damn, Klasshaas, I realized it was indeed 9 year ago. Crazy! I was teeneger up then still:) 1947 by the way:)

  • Malaj at 2013-09-19

    And here is the original bid, dated September 22, 2004. Now that was indeed almost exactly nine years ago.

  • Malaj at 2013-09-19

    I have 1937 now, by the way, a PB without any experiment :)-

  • pensando at 2013-09-20

    1914… :)

  • JJ10 at 2013-09-21

    I finally reached 1900 but am going down soon

  • Malaj at 2013-09-23

    It is 1959 now, thanks to the victories against big shots (tigis, Cane, Rumpelfamilie) in the Premier League.

  • pensando at 2013-09-24

    1922… :) But perhaps falling down soon ;-)

  • Burton at 2013-09-25

    Little increase of my best:

  • Malaj at 2013-09-27

    It is 1977 now, which is unbelievable, since all recent victories of mine are in the Premier League.

    I was certain that I would drop out of this class with the speed of light because I felt that I do not belong here – but there is now a good chance that I will remain in the top league for the next round.

  • pensando at 2013-10-01

    1923… :)

  • pensando at 2013-10-06

    1929… :)

  • Malaj at 2013-10-12

    It is 1984 at the moment. It might go higher a bit then there is a sharp fall predicted. Still, the most promising run in my streetsoccer career.

  • Malaj at 2013-10-13

    Make it 1990. And it is now official that I will remain in the Premier League during the next championship. Great.

  • Steven Pedlow at 2013-10-14

    Not quite. More players are relegated than RoRoRo the Robot thinks. I think a full half of the league is relegated (8-14), not just the bottom four (11-14).

  • ypercube ★ at 2013-10-14

    @Stevn is correct. RoRoRo hasn't been informed that the chmahionships groups have less players now (13 instead of 19) and so only the first 7 do not relegate (instead of the first 10.)

  • Malaj at 2013-10-17

    I know that. This is why I made a different calculation: if you reach 50 percent of the points you could theoretically collect (65 points in a 14-member league, 75 points in a 16-member league), then you are fine.

    When I reached 32 points on October 13 I was sure it is enough to stay in the top league. All right, not 'official'.

  • Malaj at 2013-10-17

    And now it is 2007, and 37 points. More than necessary. Thanks, Steven.

  • Malaj at 2013-10-17

    That is, Steven.
    (Too bad you cannot correct typing mistakes once you posted.)

  • Malaj at 2013-10-17

    Forget it. :D

  • MarleysGhost at 2013-10-18

    I think you mean Steven, which shows as Steven.

    I don't know if single quotes around the URL work, but double quotes do. Also, it's better to provide the closing .

  • pensando at 2013-10-21

    1936… :)

  • pensando at 2013-10-28

    1945… :)

  • pensando at 2013-11-04

    1954… :)

  • TUMRAK at 2014-03-05

    Finally 1912

  • passif at 2014-03-18

    I have no idea how this happened - 1916. Not expecting to be in the 1900 club for long though.

  • pensando at 2015-07-05

    1.994… :)

  • Tommah at 2015-08-29


  • pienza at 2015-09-01

    Look at that, my current 1902 seems to be a PB by far

  • Ralf at 2016-11-14

    Woohoo, 1904 :)

  • Diamante at 2018-05-25

    “1906” 10 years later :-)

  • MRFvR at 2019-04-16

    After brief passages in 2011 and 2012 I've surpassed the 1900 line for the third time. I'm now at 1941, and claiming definitive membership on this club

Return to forum

Reply to this topic