IRB World Rankings ... Part 1

Current World Rankings

IRB
http://www.irb.com/rankings/full.html

4Ns Round 1
http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/match/fixtures/international.html

September 2012

Sat 15 Rugby Championship / Freedom Cup
New Zealand v South Africa, Dunedin
19:35 local, 07:35 GMT, 08:35 BST

nzl (on 92.43 points) at home -vs- rsa (on 84.20 points)

If nzl win by 1-15 points 0.000 92.43 84.20 No
If nzl win by more than 15 0.000 92.43 84.20 No
If result is a draw 1.000 91.43 85.20 No
If rsa win by 1-15 points 2.000 90.43 86.20 No
If rsa win by more than 15 3.000 89.43 87.20 No

Sat 15 Rugby Championship
Australia v Argentina, Gold Coast
20:05 local, 10:05 GMT, 11:05 BST

aus (on 86.62 points) at home -vs- arg (on 79.34 points)

If aus win by 1-15 points 0.000 86.62 79.34 No
If aus win by more than 15 0.000 86.62 79.34 No
If result is a draw 1.000 85.62 80.34 No
If arg win by 1-15 points 2.000 84.62 81.34 No
If arg win by more than 15 3.000 83.62 82.34 No

[ed]

Original post:

Pretty much World rankings provide both an 'official' balance sheet and P/L account of international bragging rights.

Sources:
IRB Rankings : http://www.irb.com/rankings/index.html
Rankings explanation : http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html
Rankings archive : http://www.irb.com/rankings/archive/index.html

Online calculator (Courtesy of Robbo277 (thanks)) : http://www.lassen.co.nz/pagmisc.php#hrh

No.

England are fourth, France to 5th and Ireland drop to 6th. No other change.

And it would be a balance sheet, as it shows positions in a snapshot of time. P/L account shows activity over an accounting period (win/loss records?).

Only whilst England are doing well.

Makes sense to put all rankings discussions in one place.

If anyones got the time and can read the p1ss poor diagram on the irb site they could do the calculations on possible changes according to reulsts on an international weekend.

https://www.606v2.com/t10858-irb-world-rankings

I'll update the post for next week's fixtures shortly.

I don't really care much about the rankings, I don't need them to tell me who fits in where. Besides I think it often creates a moot debating point, let's face it, a team can be ranked above another team by a mere decimal point and is used for bragging rights that really doesn't mean a thing.

I prefer wins over rankings.

To be honest portnoy I don't see the point until the natural order is restored an Ireland are back above England in the rankings.

robbo277 wrote:England are fourth, France to 5th and Ireland drop to 6th. No other change.

And it would be a balance sheet, as it shows positions in a snapshot of time. P/L account shows activity over an accounting period (win/loss records?).

Can you write a sticky article if the the proposal is accepted Robbo?

I know you are all over IRB rankings stuff.

Maybe we need a simplified online calculator on v2 which actually automatically connects to the current IRB rankings points so that the points exchange can be easily calculated?

There is an online calculator. Let me just get the link:

http://www.lassen.co.nz/pagmisc.php#hrh

Updated the topic I linked as well.

Yes.

biltongbek wrote:I don't really care much about the rankings, I don't need them to tell me who fits in where. Besides I think it often creates a moot debating point, let's face it, a team can be ranked above another team by a mere decimal point and is used for bragging rights that really doesn't mean a thing.

I prefer wins over rankings.

Which why I prefer to look at the ratings gap rather than the rating.
Wins is all very well but you either get silly situations like being able claim japan is one of the best sides in teh world or the paper rock scissors srguments.
World ranking points are one tool to assess if a general impression you have is correct. Its also goodd to look at the spread over tuime, Aus and SA have been very inconsistent over recent years and thats borne out by their ranking jumps. England have been on a steady upslope, Wales had a crash and a small recovery, Scotland had a surge and a flump. Cureently Ireland France and England are much of a muchness and the best teh NH has...but a distance behind teh triu nations sides who usually beat them all. The rankings refelct this fairly well.
On occassion you do have to remind people of where sides stand in the international pecking order. The rankings are one way. All Blacks currently fourth.

Peter, for me our head to head of recent form tells me more about where my team is at, than the rankings.

Take as an example England's and Ireland's rankings prior to this weekend.

England wins Six Nations, Ireland come third. But Ireland based on one good win vs England gets that spot.

Now Irelands B team loses in Scotland and they fall to I think 6th now.

Based on a B team's performance.

What the rankings do not tell you is which team has played what players, whether it was an experimental team etc.

But head to head does allow the rock-paper-scissors scenarios.

Ireland have beaten England 7 times in the last 8 meetings. Ireland are better than England.

England have beaten France 4 times in the last 5 meetings. England are better than France. By extension Ireland are better than France.

France have beaten Ireland 8 times in the last 9 meetings. France are better than Ireland. By extension England are better than Ireland. By extension Ireland are better than Ireland.

The B-team thing isn't an issue for me. The rankings only take into account test matches. I could argue that Twelvetrees is the best English player in the history of the game, and every match that he doesn't play for England automatically isn't our strongest team and therefore all losses are by-and-large irrelevant because if Twelvetrees was playing they would have been wins. But that would be ludicrous. The only thing we can tell is who won the game and who lost the game and by how much.

The IRB World Rankings deal purely in results (not speculation or what didn't happen) and are completely impartial. Although not perfect, I think they are the best thing around for determining a world order.

And as Seabiscuit says, the cardinal ranking is more important than the ordinal number. For example, the gap between New Zealand and Australia is far larger than the gap between Australia and South Africa.

If you want to reason that way I suppose you could.

But I look at each individual opponent in his own right.

For example, let's look at our last number of years vs NZ.

In 2009 we beat them 3-0
In 2010 they beat us 3-0
In 2011 they slapped our B team silly.


You would think there isn't much to read into that.

Well there is the circumstances of squad selections, away or home fixtures and then of course form of players, injuries and current game plan and the execution of that.

New Zealand currently has a ranking around 93 and we have a ranking of 85.

that means very little to me.

I know as a fact that we normally win 3 out of every 10 matches. Our form in 2009 gave us win results. So if we meet NZ in the RWC, I would give us based on all thse factors a 40% chance to beat them. Purely because we have been succesful at finals rugby, and have beaten NZ in NZ twice in the last number of years.

The ranking provides me with an all round ranking against all opponents. But tells me little about SA vs NZ.

And so you can take all opponents on an individual basis.

Hi,Biltong if you wish to be accurate,2007-2011,All Blacks 2007,2-0.2008 2-1,2009 0-3,2010 3-0. 2011 to date 1-0.
Had Boks not won RWC the gap would be even larger, 3 off the 4 wins were weakened All Blacks sides missing key players .
The same could be said in reverse for the Boks in 2010,the record for Boks since 1996 is 12 wins,3 in New Zealand a total 9 away wins and 2 draws since 1921.
After you win the next two matches in the 3N ,you will have momentum going in to RWC.
With NZ v Aus probably the deciding 3Ns match a weakened NZ will probably lose there.
A Fortnight later NZ kick off the RWC,with extra rest,and the travel factor taken out of it ALL teams have a 50/50 chance.
Of Course it could be France,Tonga,or Japan.

biltongbek wrote:
New Zealand currently has a ranking around 93 and we have a ranking of 85.
that means very little to me.

I agree. I am not a big ratings guy either. Besides, ratings don't mean anything once teams line up and start to play. And especially now with tests being used as preparation for the RWC. If the All Blacks win the RWC, I don't think anyone will be cheering for a rating of 94.5 (or whatever). If they lose, I don't think we will see Richie McCaw tell the world they lost, but he is happy because they have a rating of 92.

Ratings are really for the fans anyway. Another way for us to compare teams and stir discussions. On that point, they are great. But in real terms, relatively meaningless.

Yes Alan, I am aware of all that, I still rate our chances 40% vs the All Blacks come world cup

The rankings only reflect teams that play a lot of rugby against top opposition and neglect teams that don't.

If the PI teams were in a SH competition with the Tri-Nations and Argentina and they gained a few wins, actually had regular games against teams above them on their home shores where they stood a good chance of winning a few games then they would likely be higher placed than they currently are.

Maesteg
That is a very good point you make regarding the PI teams,especially Western Samoa.
I look at the IRB rankings the same way as I look at the Duckworth Lewis system, Not perfect,but the best we've got..

Rankings are a baseline to where teams are at in relation to each other. It is purely formulaic and therefore has no bias provided the formula used doesnt.

I believe it should be used for trends, and a general awareness of where each team is at.

Anyone who 'hangs their hat' on the results I believe is looking for something probably not there.

Like Biltong says actual fixtures, matches, trophies guide us in where our team is at. The other thing is I don't wake up middle of night and celebrate- 'Oh, our team is no.1' yehooo....but I will celebrate beating the Boks, winning the 3N or the WCup.

The matches provide us moments, points in time to celebrate or commiserate.

Which is why I still rate the World cup. I will get no solace if we are still no. 1 after a semi exit. But if we win it and go to no. 5 I'd still celebrate...

(later I'd have the defect checked though...)

Do Wales now jump up above Ireland and England?

Above Ireland I believe

1(1) NZL NEW ZEALAND 91.64
2(2) AUS AUSTRALIA 87.75
3(3) RSA SOUTH AFRICA 85.70
4(4) FRA FRANCE 83.79
5(5) ENG ENGLAND 81.82
6(7) WAL WALES 80.79
7(6) IRE IRELAND 79.57
8(9) SCO SCOTLAND 78.83
9(8) ARG ARGENTINA 78.40
10(10) SAM SAMOA 74.55



https://www.606v2.com/t11084-irb-world-rankings#388939

Does this include last weekends results ? it does not mention Wales v Argentina

Cymroglan wrote:Does this include last weekends results ?

Yep - http://www.irb.com/rankings/index.html

They updated the results but not the article.

Yes. And thanks Milk - wrong url (sorry).

England will stay in 5th unless they lose by over 15 points (as they did in the 6 Nations). Wales will stay in 6th regardless as, if Ireland stuff England, Ireland will leapfrog Wales into 5th.

France will go into the World Cup as the 4th ranked team, neither England nor Ireland can catch them regardless of the result in Dublin.

Crikey, if we manage to fluke a win Ireland go down to 8th

Yikes! Samoa are creeping up after us..

You have to feel sorry for Argentina. They get so little opportunity to play international rugby.

I hope their introduction to Tri Nations Rugby isnt ruined by the european clubs that their top players play for

maestegmafia wrote:You have to feel sorry for Argentina. They get so little opportunity to play international rugby.

I hope their introduction to Tri Nations Rugby isnt ruined by the european clubs that their top players play for

Why would it ? The European clubs would have to release them.

nottins_jones wrote:Yikes! Samoa are creeping up after us..

They have raised quite a few places recently since the PI Nations Cup.

Good team too they deserve to be higher but they get so few games.

biltongbek wrote:I don't really care much about the rankings, I don't need them to tell me who fits in where. Besides I think it often creates a moot debating point, let's face it, a team can be ranked above another team by a mere decimal point and is used for bragging rights that really doesn't mean a thing.

I prefer wins over rankings.

Totally agree. They are meaningless when you get to a RWC. Look at Argentina last time round. Watch out for Samoa this time round.

Gibbo, Biltongbek.

Of course the World rankings are irrelevant (I notice that in cricket they actually pass a gong around for climbing to the peak of the greasy pole of all eight test playing sides - which is just silly).

But it does provide a curious aside between fixtures - and it is a sort of objective ranking as expressed in my OP. A Balance sheet and a P/L account.

nottins wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:You have to feel sorry for Argentina. They get so little opportunity to play international rugby.

I hope their introduction to Tri Nations Rugby isnt ruined by the european clubs that their top players play for

Why would it ? The European clubs would have to release them.

If anything it would make it harder for Argentinian players to get European contracts as they would miss the start of the season. They need a stronger domestic league if they are to be successful in the long-term (unless we get a global International window).

Portnoy wrote:Gibbo, Biltongbek.

Of course the World rankings are irrelevant (I notice that in cricket they actually pass a gong around for climbing to the peak of the greasy pole of all eight test playing sides - which is just silly).

But it does provide a curious aside between fixtures - and it is a sort of objective ranking as expressed in my OP. A Balance sheet and a P/L account.

And as I tried to explain, it can't be likened to a P/L account in any way, shape or form. Although the balance sheet analogy isn't a bad one.

The rankings do give an indication of where international teams stand but i dont really pay too much attention to them. For me its all about wins and on the day performances.

Nobody can be obsessed billy.

It would be interesting if the IRB decided to offer a gong at the the end of the year to the top side though.

Nobody I have corresponded with has argued the general accuracy of the relative placings.

The world rankings only matter when your team is moving up them of course and we can gain brownie points off our foes on here - Other than that they are pretty irrelevant - Hold on! Wales up to 6th and climbing - of course they matter!!!!!!

I think argentina will soon have their players rather contract to the Super XV, as soon as their european contracts run out.

The world rankings is an often interesting debate i agree on.

But let's look at what happened during these warm up matches.

Ireland was 4th before the warm ups, they play second stringers lose to Scotland then twice against France, but as far as I know not once did they play their best team, so now they find themselves in the 7th position.


Makes little sense really.

Its not about being obsessed Portnoy, its more that i just dont read too much into them. Even when Ireland were 4th, i never truely believed that they were the 4th best team in the world.

eirebilly wrote:Its not about being obsessed Portnoy, its more that i just dont read too much into them. Even when Ireland were 4th, i never truely believed that they were the 4th best team in the world.

Which is quite different to us welsh of course who when we are 9th assume we are the 3rd best team in the world

PMSL Ruby

biltongbek wrote:I think argentina will soon have their players rather contract to the Super XV, as soon as their european contracts run out.

The world rankings is an often interesting debate i agree on.

But let's look at what happened during these warm up matches.in this not thedebate id

Ireland was 4th before the warm ups, they play second stringers lose to Scotland then twice against France, but as far as I know not once did they play their best team, so now they find themselves in the 7th position.


Makes little sense really.

Ireland's fall just goes to emphasise the closeness between the NH sides just as the top three positions are held by the currently held by the SH giants.

As has been emphasised before in this debate, the interesting thing is the difference between the actual (ordinal / Balance sheet) position is to my mind represent factually the relative strength of the nations whilst the current points (cardinal) position (P/L) displays the relative difference between the sides (and their ability to play second stringers).

And as RWC points count double, any anomalies should be resolved.

It would be horrible if the rankings counted for anything concrete though as that might lead to the tail wagging the dog.

I posted the "true" positions last week - here they are again:

1 - NZ
2 - Aus
3 - SA & France
4 - England, Ireland Wales (tie)
5 - Argentina, Scotland, Samoa
6 - Italy, Fiji
The Rest

p.s. I'm sure that Robbo will explain the reasoning as to how the next RWC draw pools will be worked out, but I clain that the official rankings would be a better indicator than past RWCs.

RubyGuby wrote:I posted the "true" positions last week - here they are again:

1 - NZ
2 - Aus
3 - SA & France
4 - England, Ireland Wales (tie)
5 - Argentina, Scotland, Samoa
6 - Italy, Fiji
The Rest

So you agree with the official rankings (more or less) Ruby. If you take out any subjectivity.

What does make a difference is being awarded double points during the world cup.
Some sides are in far easier group than others so why don't they just award normal points, over the long run it will be a much fairer system.

Cymroglan wrote:What does make a difference is being awarded double points during the world cup.
Some sides are in far easier group than others so why don't they just award normal points over the long run it will be a much fairer system.

Teams that are 'way ahead' (i.e. >10 ranking points) have nothing to gain. That's why the rankings are so well organised. Teams that come out of tight pools will benefit according to their results.

But is there any need to double the points ? it's the same competition for all involved not every international side gets to the world cup.