IRB World Rankings ... Part 1

First topic message reminder :

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

Yeah the actual rankings aren't that important,you're better off looking at the points and I think it's fairly accurate that Ire,Eng and Wales are all fairly close.

Ok, fair enough. I didn't look at the points and how close we were in fairness. We're better off not playing sometimes! In all seriousness though, that's how Argentina stayed artificially elevated in the world rankings for so long, as someone else pointed out.

what will the rankings look like when we beat Aus on Dec 3 and we will

I just reprocessed the final post-RWC rankings from source data:

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 91.43
2(2) AUSTRALIA 87.41
3(3) FRANCE 84.70
3(4) SOUTH AFRICA 84.34
5(5) ENGLAND 81.58
6(7) IRELAND 80.65
7(8) ARGENTINA 80.28
8(6) WALES 80.18

then a relatively huge gap to

9(9) TONGA 76.63
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.20
11(11) SAMOA 75.81
12(12) ITALY 73.99
13(13) CANADA 72.92
14(14) GEORGIA 71.09
15(15) JAPAN 70.45
16(16) FIJI 68.78
17(17) USA 65.63
18(18) ROMANIA 63.98
19(19) NAMIBIA 61.24
20(20) PORTUGAL 60.67
21(21) RUSSIA 60.54

games have to be weighted on importnace- how much should be the question

Dontheman wrote:what will the rankings look like when we beat Aus on Dec 3 and we will

You can make the conjectures yourself Don.

Best you wait until the rankings are updated tomorrow noon/afternoon.

All the appropriate links are there in the OP (original post (repeated on each current page)).

The whole rankings system has to be the biggest load of wan.k since Cyril went in his brown long mac to zoo.

Wales 8th!!! England sit so high why?? they haven't beat any body ranked above them in over a year.

viewtothegym wrote:The whole rankings system has to be the biggest load of wan.k since Cyril went in his brown long mac to zoo.

Wales 8th!!! England sit so high why?? they haven't beat any body ranked above them in over a year.

Australia?

viewtothegym wrote:i think 3rd

Well, they'll be 8th when the new rankings are announced tomorrow.

viewtothegym wrote:The whole rankings system has to be the biggest load of wan.k since Cyril went in his brown long mac to zoo.

Wales 8th!!! England sit so high why?? they haven't beat any body ranked above them in over a year.

who has beaten them who is below- i think wlaes and ireland but england ahve also beaten them as well!

qand yep they have beaten australia. it all makes sense.

viewtothegym wrote:The whole rankings system has to be the biggest load of wan.k since Cyril went in his brown long mac to zoo.

Wales 8th!!! England sit so high why?? they haven't beat any body ranked above them in over a year.

Why the profanity ? You didn't think their was anything wrong with them when you posted this earlier in the thread:

Shame for Wales to drop after a one point loss,but they could jump back up if they beat the Aussies so lets see next week where we all end up.

Australia were above England in the rankings when they beat them less than a year ago. Wales are 8th as they lost 3 of the 7 games the played in RWC 2011 whereas England won 4 out of 5.

England rugby fan wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:The whole rankings system has to be the biggest load of wan.k since Cyril went in his brown long mac to zoo.

Wales 8th!!! England sit so high why?? they haven't beat any body ranked above them in over a year.

Why the profanity ? You didn't think their was anything wrong with them when you posted this earlier in the thread:

Shame for Wales to drop after a one point loss,but they could jump back up if they beat the Aussies so lets see next week where we all end up.

Australia were above England in the rankings when they beat them less than a year ago. Wales are 8th as they lost 3 of the 7 games the played in RWC 2011 whereas England won 4 out of 5.

So because England werent good enough to make it as far as Wales, they get penalised less because they didnt have a chance to play and lose against as many form teams who had also surpassed them in the competition.

Seems a very wishy washy way to score teams.

Wales drop to 8th?!

viewtothegym wrote:The whole rankings system has to be the biggest load of wan.k since Cyril went in his brown long mac to zoo.

I can't understand how Wales are down in 8th? How the flip can Ireland be two places above them when Wales beat them by 12 points?

This double ranking points in the RWC is nonsence and has skewed the rankings. It should have only been double points for the QF/SF and Final and that way teams are rewarded for how far they go in the competition.

Portnoy wrote:I just reprocessed the final post-RWC rankings from source data:

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 91.43
2(2) AUSTRALIA 87.41
3(3) FRANCE 84.70
3(4) SOUTH AFRICA 84.34
5(5) ENGLAND 81.58
6(7) IRELAND 80.65
7(8) ARGENTINA 80.28
8(6) WALES 80.18

then a relatively huge gap to

9(9) TONGA 76.63
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.20
11(11) SAMOA 75.81
12(12) ITALY 73.99
13(13) CANADA 72.92
14(14) GEORGIA 71.09
15(15) JAPAN 70.45
16(16) FIJI 68.78
17(17) USA 65.63
18(18) ROMANIA 63.98
19(19) NAMIBIA 61.24
20(20) PORTUGAL 60.67
21(21) RUSSIA 60.54

Move Wales up to 5th and swap tonga and samoa over and I dont think anyone could really complain too much for a ranking system base don recent quality ratehr than results.
However from a results perspective Wales have had rank couple of years despite their progression through the world cup, not born out by their performances with many of their losses to high ranked opponents being very narrow.
The rankings are used for qualification, wales keep losing games even when playing well. If it were a qualification league table then they would qualify low with the kind of record they ended up with. Were the seedings for the next WC done today it would make no difference to Wales to be ranked 5th or 8th anway. Its hard under any desperate system to have them ranked fairly in the top 4.

roddersm wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:The whole rankings system has to be the biggest load of wan.k since Cyril went in his brown long mac to zoo.

I can't understand how Wales are down in 8th? How the flip can Ireland be two places above them when Wales beat them by 12 points?

This double ranking points in the RWC is nonsence and has skewed the rankings. It should have only been double points for the QF/SF and Final and that way teams are rewarded for how far they go in the competition.

Not if you lost to a team previously rated lower, then youd end up getting pushed belwo teams who didnt even qualify from the group stage.
The "how can we be rated below them" argument is bunk, surely Ireland should be above Aus because they won that game but Aus above Wales because they won theres? Are we goign to have a circular table?
Wales are ranked 8th because they keep losing games and rarely beat good sides, the rankings are based on sides ability to win games. Its really not that hard to grasp why they are ranked 8th.

Broken record on this but look at the ratings gaps too,m they tell you more than the actual position. Wales England and Ireland are very similar quality teams and at the start of a 6 nations youre usually coin tossing to call a winner in any games between them...the ranking points refelct that. Wales my have played some good rugby but they have a poor record of results both at the world cup and prior to it.

I do think weighting shoudl be cut to 1.5 times for world cup matches but the ranking system hasnt come up with such a massivley flawed table as it did at the end of the last one with argentina in 4th.

roddersm wrote:

I can't understand how Wales are down in 8th? How the flip can Ireland be two places above them when Wales beat them by 12 points?

This double ranking points in the RWC is nonsence and has skewed the rankings. It should have only been double points for the QF/SF and Final and that way teams are rewarded for how far they go in the competition.

Wales lost their last two games against higher ranked sides and therefore the points exchange was higher. It really is quite simple to understand as it's been in place for the last 3 RWC's now.

IRB Official rankings now announced:

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 91.43
2(2) AUSTRALIA 87.42
3(3) FRANCE 84.70
4(4) SOUTH AFRICA 84.34
5(5) ENGLAND 81.58
6(7) IRELAND 80.65
7(8) ARGENTINA 80.28
8(6) WALES 80.18
9(9) TONGA 76.63
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.20
11(11) SAMOA 75.81
12(12) ITALY 73.99
13(13) CANADA 72.92
14(14) GEORGIA 71.09
15(15) JAPAN 70.45
16(16) FIJI 68.78
17(17) USA 65.63
18(18) ROMANIA 63.98
19(19) NAMIBIA 61.24
20(20) PORTUGAL 60.67
21(21) RUSSIA 60.54

Comfort wrote:
So because England werent good enough to make it as far as Wales, they get penalised less because they didnt have a chance to play and lose against as many form teams who had also surpassed them in the competition.

Seems a very wishy washy way to score teams.

Wales drop to 8th?!

Wales got penalised for losing more games, this really is simple stuff to understand.

Not sure what's "wishy washy" about it. The ranking system has been in place for 8 years now.

Yes, Wales drop to 8th

England rugby fan wrote:

Comfort wrote:
So because England werent good enough to make it as far as Wales, they get penalised less because they didnt have a chance to play and lose against as many form teams who had also surpassed them in the competition.

Seems a very wishy washy way to score teams.

Wales drop to 8th?!

Wales got penalised for losing more games, this really is simple stuff to understand.

Not sure what's "wishy washy" about it. The ranking system has been in place for 8 years now.

Yes, Wales drop to 8th

comfort- if england got beat by a team that wales beat your point would make some sense- but as they didnt your point doesnt add up either way- england got beat by france only, wales got beat by france, SA and OZ.

mysti, my point is, England didnt play well enough to get far enough in the competition to play those teams aswell, thus England are being rewarded for not making it as far in the competition in a roundabout way.

For all this England won 4/5 compared to Wales 4/7 its nonsense, England didnt play 7 games because they werent good enough to get past their 5th game.

England Rugby fan, this really is simple to understand

I now officially absolve myself from the impartial reporter of facts.

What I find strange is:

That the RWC is deliberately organised to adversely affect the T2 finalists (rest days).

Considering that RWC started as:

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 90.55
2(2) AUSTRALIA 88.84
3(3) SOUTH AFRICA 85.69
4(4) FRANCE 83.78
5(5) ENGLAND 82.89
6(6) WALES 80.79
7(7) SCOTLAND 78.83
8(8) IRELAND 78.50
9(9) ARGENTINA 78.40
10(10) SAMOA 74.54
11(11) ITALY 73.88
12(12) TONGA 72.48
13(13) JAPAN 71.95
14(14) CANADA 71.56
15(15) FIJI 70.83
16(16) GEORGIA 70.30
17(17) ROMANIA 65.69
18(18) USA 65.00
19(19) RUSSIA 61.92
20(20) NAMIBIA 61.42
21(21) PORTUGAL 60.67

Nothing much has changed. But I have to question the double points for RWCs. They do seem to be fixed in such a way that the winner inevitably ends up on top.

IRB rankings play therefore too big a part in future RWCs. I think that like the footy WC, only the hosts should be exempted from qualifying. (at the expense of Summer/Autumn Internationals for T1 countries for a year or two (mid RWCs)).

Comfort wrote:mysti, my point is, England didnt play well enough to get far enough in the competition to play those teams aswell, thus England are being rewarded for not making it as far in the competition in a roundabout way.

For all this England won 4/5 compared to Wales 4/7 its nonsense, England didnt play 7 games because they werent good enough to get past their 5th game.

England Rugby fan, this really is simple to understand

France played worse and got there, then put in their best performance of the torunament to lose.
I think your point is that you dont like the idea that England are ramnked above Wales and cant understand the the rankings are not a list of who progressed the furthest at the world cup.
It was ridiculous that Argentina ended up ranked 4th after the last one, its isnt ridiculous that Wales arent ranked 4th after this one.

The simple fact is that Wales have lost a large mnumber of games against top 10 opposition before and during the world cup, that is why their ranking is low. England didnt, so theres is marginaly higher. The rankings are based on results, not which tream you want to be top.

comfort i get it , but its no different from england going over to the SH and losing a couple of times, wales on the other hand stay at home, and we go below you.

There is nothing in the rankings(between 5th and 8th)- we dont even use them as reference to who is better at present. england had the better year up to the world cup and that is why we are 5th, i am not gonna say to you that these rankings mean everything- they dont. current form and quailty is what matters.

tiger woods atyed at world no.1 for a year when he didnt even play the game- did any of us assume he was still the best- offcourse not!

rankings are normally there for a reason- worl d no.1 is a good thing to be and is a great boost but other than that , world rankings are only used to get exemptions and seedings into events- rugby is abit short on quality teams and this ranking wont effect you in the slightest bit- you are never gonna go 9th , you are in pot 2 and its all drawn out of a hat(fro next world cup)

The rankings are clear but not always a true representation of where teams currently stand. If i was a Welsh fan i would'nt be too worried about the rankings as you get points for beating teams above you.

Wales are one of the form teams and if they have some good AI results and have a good 6N (ie, if they maintain this form) then they will shoot up the rankings.

Comfort wrote:mysti, my point is, England didnt play well enough to get far enough in the competition to play those teams aswell, thus England are being rewarded for not making it as far in the competition in a roundabout way.

For all this England won 4/5 compared to Wales 4/7 its nonsense, England didnt play 7 games because they werent good enough to get past their 5th game.

England Rugby fan, this really is simple to understand

Why is it nonsense to mention how many games were won on the RWC ? Rankings are based on points exchanged between sides playing each other, not how far you get in a RWC competition. Wales went on to los etwo more games after beating Ireland, so they lost their ranking points in those games. To summarise: if you lose 3 games, you will lose more ranking points than a side who only loses one game. Easy enough for you to understand ?

Comfort, these rankings are only relevant until the next match. Who remembers that Ian Woosnam was ranked No 1 in the world, not many I guess, and then knows that he won a Major (Masters 1991) the opposite.

We know and everyone else will know that we were the 4th best team at the 2011 World Cup, the same position as the Runners up at this years World Cup finished in 2007, that can NEVER be taken from us.

Wales may have finished 4th at the World Cup, it doesn't mean they were the 4th best team at the World Cup. 4th in the RWC and currently ranked the 8th best team in the world.

England rugby fan wrote:Wales may have finished 4th at the World Cup, it doesn't mean they were the 4th best team at the World Cup. 4th in the RWC and currently ranked the 8th best team in the world.

So England wasn't the 2nd best team in the world in 2007, as the vast majority of your fans were spouting in 2007.

When you look in the record books in 2050 when it will show WALES as 4th and England nowhere my Grandson will say we were the 4th best team in the WORLD IN 2011.

wayne wrote:

England rugby fan wrote:Wales may have finished 4th at the World Cup, it doesn't mean they were the 4th best team at the World Cup. 4th in the RWC and currently ranked the 8th best team in the world.

So England wasn't the 2nd best team in the world in 2007, as the vast majority of your fans were spouting in 2007.

When you look in the record books in 2050 when it will show WALES as 4th and England nowhere my Grandson will say we were the 4th best team in the WORLD IN 2011.

Do you two realise quite how sad this argument is, essentially arguing over who is the best at not quite being the best in the world?

The rankings are what they are, accept them, move on, they will all change again so enough.

Moderator, I gave advice to Comfort about taking the moral high ground, as we finished 4th and that the rankings would change at the next match, I DO NOT APPRECIATE ADVICE FROM YOU.

Finishing 4th is worse than 1st, 2nd and 3rd, but is so much better than 5th to 8th as we got a round further in the 2011 RUGBY WORLD CUP

Chill out Wayne, Ozzy was posting as a poster not as a Mod. Mods use red text when we're being serious.

wayne wrote:

So England wasn't the 2nd best team in the world in 2007, as the vast majority of your fans were spouting in 2007.

I think you'll find that the England fans said England finished 2nd in RWC 2007

wayne wrote:When you look in the record books in 2050 when it will show WALES as 4th and England nowhere my Grandson will say we were the 4th best team in the WORLD IN 2011.

Of course it will

Its simple. Play and beat good teams and you go up the ladder. In the end Wales didn't beat SA, France or Aus - close but no cigar for all of them.
I think the double points for WCs is dumb - but if some UK based folk want to use that phrase friendlies (not a SH phrase at all as far as I know) then double points makes sense.

Portnoy, I know this will be a lot of work, but is there a possibility of working out the rankings wihtout awarding double points for the RWC.

It will be interesting to know how much of a difference it would make if there was no double points.

just wondering.

thanks

Cant this be merged into the rankings sticky so we dfont have to have the same debate yet again?

Should England be punished because they lost to France in the quarters rather than the semis? Is it fair that Wales got an easier ride because they lost a pool game, and that somehow means they should be ranked higher?
They lost all 3 games agaisnt sides ranked above them and only narrowly beat one of the sides below them. Yes they performed well but the IRB raninkings are result not performance based, Wales have had cr@p results despite progressing resonably far in the world cup....without ever beating a genuinly good side.
Are they suddenly better than SA because they got a stage further?Because last time i checked they kept losing to them. Yes theyve narrowed the gap, and thats reflected in the ratings gap. As others have said thats a better guide than actual positioin.
All the big 4 of the 6 nations have had good runs of form in the last couple of years ( Irish grand slam, french grand slam, england wins against aus and 6 nations, welsh world cup performances) but none have sustained it. The rankings reflect that on their day they can all beat each other but almost always lose to the tri nations.
Scotland, Argentina, and the pislands are lurking behind that, capable of picking up occassional wins.
I cant see how you can get too upset by them. Its not a list of who got the furthest in teh world cup, its a list of who has the best results. If Wales had got to the finaland were ranked in the top 4 i doubt so many would be moaning about the double points.

For what its worth id prefer to see it as 1.5 times for world cup games but in general people get far too precious over the wolrd rankings and far to bogged down in " but we once beat them i dont care if they beat 3 sides that beat us" arguments.

[quote="Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler"]Cant this be merged into the rankings sticky so we dfont have to have the same debate yet again?

quote]

Done

[quote="Kiwireddevil"][quote="Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler"]Cant this be merged into the rankings sticky so we dont have to have the same debate yet again?

Done

Can you lend me £500?

haha guys, i think some of you have me down as a component of the Eng/Wales argument and only being against this because Wales have ended up below England.

Far from it, its just a perfect example of why I dislike the ratings.

As Mysti mentioned, if a homenation goes on tour to the SH and gets beat by all the SARU nations, they come back, and may have dropped below a side that hasnt even played - thats not right.

Also, this higlights my problem with the points in World Cups, Wales go to the world cup ranked above England:
-England win 4 group games, lose their QF, no more games - 4/5 wins.
-Wales win 3 group games, win their QF, lose the SF/3rd place playoff so ending up 4/7.
Wales come back ranked 2 places below England despite progressing further in the competition - not right.

Anyway, once again im not knocking England being above Wales, as portnoy mentioned, it really doesnt matter where your rated between 4 - 8, they chang so often and it has no real affect on seeding. Just highlighting my problem with the ratings.

Que the "you cant beat the welsh" "its results based" yada yada yada.

biltongbek wrote:Portnoy, I know this will be a lot of work, but is there a possibility of working out the rankings wihtout awarding double points for the RWC.

It will be interesting to know how much of a difference it would make if there was no double points.

just wondering.

thanks

Cripes, biltong!

Every match would have to be reprocessed in strict order otherwise the points exchange would get screwed.

Plus there is the human error component.

Give me a pause to think about it.

Portnoy, if it will help, I beleive in you.

Comfort wrote:
As Mysti mentioned, if a homenation goes on tour to the SH and gets beat by all the SARU nations, they come back, and may have dropped below a side that hasnt even played - thats not right.

Also, this higlights my problem with the points in World Cups, Wales go to the world cup ranked above England:
-England win 4 group games, lose their QF, no more games - 4/5 wins.
-Wales win 3 group games, win their QF, lose the SF/3rd place playoff so ending up 4/7.
Wales come back ranked 2 places below England despite progressing further in the competition - not right.

Anyway, once again im not knocking England being above Wales, as portnoy mentioned, it really doesnt matter where your rated between 4 - 8, they chang so often and it has no real affect on seeding. Just highlighting my problem with the ratings.

Que the "you cant beat the welsh" "its results based" yada yada yada.

Point one...that couldnt happen. You cant lose points for losing to teams ranked above you. If England went to NZ and got beaten by 50 points in every game and Wales stayed home then their relative rankings wouldnt change....unless England had previously been ranked above NZ in which case they rightly would have lost points from one of those games.


The rest of it Im sick of dealing with, Wales lost many games and a higher percentage of those games. Why does that mean they should be at the top of the rankings? OK France are probably over ranked, but by your " wales finsihed fourth" logic they should be second.

The rankings arent perfect, but they are better than the paper rock scissor circular table method.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Comfort wrote:
As Mysti mentioned, if a homenation goes on tour to the SH and gets beat by all the SARU nations, they come back, and may have dropped below a side that hasnt even played - thats not right.

Also, this higlights my problem with the points in World Cups, Wales go to the world cup ranked above England:
-England win 4 group games, lose their QF, no more games - 4/5 wins.
-Wales win 3 group games, win their QF, lose the SF/3rd place playoff so ending up 4/7.
Wales come back ranked 2 places below England despite progressing further in the competition - not right.

Anyway, once again im not knocking England being above Wales, as portnoy mentioned, it really doesnt matter where your rated between 4 - 8, they chang so often and it has no real affect on seeding. Just highlighting my problem with the ratings.

Que the "you cant beat the welsh" "its results based" yada yada yada.

Point one...that couldnt happen. You cant lose points for losing to teams ranked above you. If England went to NZ and got beaten by 50 points in every game and Wales stayed home then their relative rankings wouldnt change....unless England had previously been ranked above NZ in which case they rightly would have lost points from one of those games.


The rest of it Im sick of dealing with, Wales lost many games and a higher percentage of those games. Why does that mean they should be at the top of the rankings? OK France are probably over ranked, but by your " wales finsihed fourth" logic they should be second.

The rankings arent perfect, but they are better than the paper rock scissor circular table method.

Point is Wales lost more games because they got further in the competition, thus surely ranking higher? Be as sick of it as you want, it will not alter my dislike of said ratings - its not even intense in anyway- but people on here get really touchy about them if you mention why you think they dont hold weight.

Im not sure why people (mainly the Englsih surprise surprise) are getting so disgusted and upset im questioning the rankings worth

Sides down in 8th generally do tend to think the rankings suck. Only human nature, I guess.

Still, look on the bright side, you're unlikely to drop any further in the near future unless you lose to Italy/Scotland in the 6Ns.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Point one...that couldnt happen. You cant lose points for losing to teams ranked above you. If England went to NZ and got beaten by 50 points in every game and Wales stayed home then their relative rankings wouldnt change....unless England had previously been ranked above NZ in which case they rightly would have lost points from one of those games.

Point one. Sorry Peter but you are wrong, you can lose points if you lose to a team ranked above you.

To anyone thinking that Wales should be higher in the rankings, you are wrong. Losing two games in a row means you lose ranking points. If Wales lose to Australia in their next game the will lose even more ranking points, but could go above England if they win.

The official IRB rankings shows where everyone is currently ranked.

SAM, this is Wales we're talking about, thats as likely to happen as we are to win the Grandslam.

And yes, this is all because im Welsh and we should be higher in the rankings. Nothing to do with the argument I've put forward as to why, in my logic, the ratings dont hold weight.

Its because im welsh and i hate the english, that better?? Because, its not as if any welshman could ever objectively look at a ratings system and disagree with it whilst Wales are below England (as they have been most of my life) without it being national bias.

Maybe if I speak through videos of interpretive dance people will understand this isnt a "my dads bigger than your dad" argument.

Wheres that facepalm picture gone.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Sides down in 8th generally do tend to think the rankings suck. Only human nature, I guess.

Still, look on the bright side, you're unlikely to drop any further in the near future unless you lose to Italy/Scotland in the 6Ns.

Well said Safe.

As per the below link, despite coming 4th at the RWC, Wales find themselves slipping to 8th in the world.

Surely this cant be right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15442324.stm

I think the question you should ask is "does anyone actually care or pay any attention to the rankings"?

I dont...

England rugby fan wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Point one...that couldnt happen. You cant lose points for losing to teams ranked above you. If England went to NZ and got beaten by 50 points in every game and Wales stayed home then their relative rankings wouldnt change....unless England had previously been ranked above NZ in which case they rightly would have lost points from one of those games.

Point one. Sorry Peter but you are wrong, you can lose points if you lose to a team ranked above you.

To anyone thinking that Wales should be higher in the rankings, you are wrong. Losing two games in a row means you lose ranking points. If Wales lose to Australia in their next game the will lose even more ranking points, but could go above England if they win.

The official IRB rankings shows where everyone is currently ranked.

sorry you are right i was having a brain fart, apologies to all

I see your point, but it does strike me as grossly unfair and nonsensical...