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

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

I dont...

You should as they decide the seedings for a RWC.

England rugby fan wrote:

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

I dont...

You should as they decide the seedings for a RWC.

that should only make a difference if you move from 4th to 5th, or 8th to 9th.

anyone in the top 8 shouldnt worry at all in fairness.

The issue I have is that whichever side loses in the semi and then loses in the 3rd/4th play off is going to be lower down the rankings in terms of points than the side they beat in the quarter final. Also, in terms of the rankings you are better off finishing 3rd than losing in the final as you win your last game. The side that has finished runner up in the 3 world cups since the rankings began have always been ranked below the 3rd placed team. I don't know what they can do but I think adjustments need to be made. Perhaps all the results need to be taken into account in one go rather than in match order. Don't ask me how they do this but it seems a fairer system.

Eclipse wrote:The issue I have is that whichever side loses in the semi and then loses in the 3rd/4th play off is going to be lower down the rankings in terms of points than the side they beat in the quarter final. Also, in terms of the rankings you are better off finishing 3rd than losing in the final as you win your last game. The side that has finished runner up in the 3 world cups since the rankings began have always been ranked below the 3rd placed team. I don't know what they can do but I think adjustments need to be made. Perhaps all the results need to be taken into account in one go rather than in match order. Don't ask me how they do this but it seems a fairer system.

Getting rid of double points for RWC matches would probably go close, and actually simplify the system slightly.

Eclipse wrote:The issue I have is that whichever side loses in the semi and then loses in the 3rd/4th play off is going to be lower down the rankings in terms of points than the side they beat in the quarter final. Also, in terms of the rankings you are better off finishing 3rd than losing in the final as you win your last game. The side that has finished runner up in the 3 world cups since the rankings began have always been ranked below the 3rd placed team. I don't know what they can do but I think adjustments need to be made. Perhaps all the results need to be taken into account in one go rather than in match order. Don't ask me how they do this but it seems a fairer system.

To answer in order:
Not all the time. It depends on the relative rating gaps between the sides involved.
Not all the time. It depends on the relative rating gaps between the sides involved.
Thats chance.
Fair on who? Are you saying that England shouldnt have lost so many ranking points for losing to France who have a higher rating now than when they beat England?

SA and Argentina got knocked out in the quarters by good sides. Wales beat a weaker side to progress. Would it be fair that they got more points just for that progression? No.

The "at the end" argument has some valaidity though. It could be applied to all tournaments/tours, although would it be fair that France got very few ranking points for beating a Wales side that was playing well above its pre tournament ranking, or that England got more ranking points becasue Frances ranking hadnt yet ben pulled down for them being beaten by Tonga or that Wales didnt get so many points for beating and Ireland side whos ranking had shot up for beating Australia?
Id be interested to see if Wales' end rating was any higher under this system.

My points have nothing to do with any individual countries. A points system that is so dramatically influenced by a teams latest result especially at world cups where points are doubled is flawed. In the last 4 a team that loses and then wins gains more than the team that wins and then loses. In essence whoever reaches the final and loses is worse off than a team that loses a semi and wins the play off. That can't be right.

Eclipse wrote:My points have nothing to do with any individual countries. A points system that is so dramatically influenced by a teams latest result especially at world cups where points are doubled is flawed. In the last 4 a team that loses and then wins gains more than the team that wins and then loses. In essence whoever reaches the final and loses is worse off than a team that loses a semi and wins the play off. That can't be right.

Thats not always true though, and wouldnt change by doing away with double points.

Are France worse off than Aus though? No, although they are behind in the rankings their relative rating points and position in the ranking table have improved dramiticaly whereas Aus has lost position and rating points.
Is it wrong that France are ranked behind Aus? No, they havent been playing as good rugby as Australia and arent as good a side, the rankings are not a list of who finsihed where in the world cup ( although they are often critisized for being this because of the double points).

It may not be to do with individual countries but it seems that quite often the argument made in one way to cite why the ranking are wrong often proves the opposite case.

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

Biltong,

I have started reprocessing the the results.

Alas it might not come to fruition here as I'm in dispute with 606v2 leaders regarding GG.

I suspect that I'll be banned to for requesting openness in discussion.

Portnoy, why are you bothering to pursue the GG thing? Obviously he did something that breached the rules (possibly on more than one occasion?) and has been banned? Will you also be pursuing the case of others who have been departed from these boards? (Welsh John, the Nottins brothers, etc.) Why should their be openness on a privately run board?

Portnoy wrote:

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

Biltong,

I have started reprocessing the the results.

Alas it might not come to fruition here as I'm in dispute with 606v2 leaders regarding GG.

I suspect that I'll be banned to for requesting openness in discussion.

Portnoy, I feel the same about GG, I don't know what he did wrong, and if Management doesn't want to tell you, rather just let it be. They might fine you for a mouthguard, encroaching the All Blacks whilst doing their haka, or even worse, send Bruce Lawrence to you.

so please bud focus on the important stuff.

I miss GG, genuinely.

England rugby fan wrote:

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

I dont...

You should as they decide the seedings for a RWC.

Perhaps pay attention for one year out of every four then.

It's because it's the only time the smaller nations have all their players together for extended period of time. The rest of the time they just get together for the odd week. How good are Samoa? When they play during the world cup with a decent amount of training and game time? Or when they have 2 days of training before the odd AI that gets thrown them. I don't have any issue with it. It would be interesting to see the differences if it wasn't double points.

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(6) IRELAND 80.65
7(7) ARGENTINA 80.28
8(8) WALES 80.18
9(9) TONGA 76.63
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.20

Very little movement possible from the Wales v Aus match.

No matter what result, it appears that Australia will remain in 2nd place as unable to gain enough points to overtake NZ, nor lose enough to fall below France.

Any movement will come from Wales. A win of any size would see them rise to 5th. They cannot drop below their current 8th spot.

I dunno if Wales going above England could be seen as "very little movement" , I garuntee itll lead to an avalanche of wumming from the 'steag and co.

Doesnt seem unreaonable though. Australia beating wales ( again) proves nothing and shouldnt noticebaly affect their rating. Wales beating Aus would be a big scalp, and should move them up to being rated as one of the more succesful NH sides.

For me though this game does show why its important to weight some more than others. This is really only an exhibition game. Wales will be trying out a few youngsters and trying to give some of their legends a send off. Australia are just here for the money. You wont see two absolute fiorst choice fully prepaered sides going all out at each other, its barely anything more real than the Barbarians game was. A game to enjoy, but not a fully test in the way the WC games were.

its a friendly and why its rated as such- test matches are friendlies

mystiroakey wrote:its a friendly and why its rated as such- test matches are friendlies

So youre saying the test caps they handed out for the world cup final prove it was just a friendly then?

A friendldy is a pointless non compeition fixture, like the current Aus Wales game. Its in the calender as a money spinner, not as a genuine competitive test bewteen the two countries. Like the Baabaas games I dont think this really is in the same cataogory of serious and intesity as a competition test match whwere theres something other than pride to play for.

i mean a standard test match which this is- not a world cup or 6nations or tri nations game.

Ok what you meant was that friendlies are test matches. Which is fine.
What Im saying is that its quite understandable that such low key test matches not played between full strength sides at full intensity arent counted equally toward the rankings as WC ones are.
Maybe they should also weight tri/6n and Pisland cup games 1.5 times too, but I suspect theres a reluctance to draw even more attention to whata joke many of these tour tests are. Theres also an argument that this would distort the rankings even more for those not regualalry involved din such competitions.

Possible Outcome /Rating Point Exchange /New 'home' Rating /New 'away' Rating / Will 'home overtake 'away'?

If wal win by 1-15 points 1.424 81.60 86.00 No
If wal win by more than 15 2.136 82.32 85.28 No
If result is a draw 0.424 80.60 87.00 No
If aus win by 1-15 points 0.576 79.60 88.00 No
If aus win by more than 15 0.864 79.32 88.28 No

So slot the possible results into the table:

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(6) IRELAND 80.65
7(7) ARGENTINA 80.28
8(8) WALES 80.18
9(9) TONGA 76.63
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.20

And you will notice that if Wales win they will leap to fifth but Oz are nailed on to stay second whatever.

Even though there's only 1.4 points difference between 5th and 8th... it still doesn't seem right to see Wales in 8th. The double points for the RWC disadvantaged them the most I feel.

When I look at the ranking points I tend to band they in spreads of a couple of points. If any side could over take another from one game then I consider them to be about the same.

So England, Ireland, Argentina and Wales all grouped together.

Remember even though they performed well in most of their World cup games the only team that Wales beat who they weren't 'expected' to beat was Ireland. The Samoan game was expected to be difficult and was.

The biggest thing for Wales was the apparant ability to put in 80 mins performances for the first time I've seen. That doesn't simply relate to a better team if you can't use it to win games. If they carry on and progress they will soon be were they 'belong'

There are no style points in the calculations. Just the application of a rigid arithmetic formula.

As Thunor states, when you look at the Welsh results in the cold light of day, Wales did not accrue telling rankings points because their big wins were mainly against sides which were well below them and the other wins were of relatively minimal effect because the points exchanges were not maximised.

England, however played more games (and won) against teams that were within the points exchange margin.

If any team was 'disadvantaged', then it would New Zealand who played all of their games on home soil whereas every other side were playing on neutral territory. A fact that will be reflected in rankings points exchanges in the next RWC where countries like Wales who get home games (MS) despite the hosts being England.

I could argue that RWC qualification games and tournament games like 6Ns and 4Ns (i.e. non 'friendly', multi-team tournaments) get a bonus rankings points multiplier like the RWC finals applied.

Yes, NZ were the most 'disadvantaged' (in the rankings) given the fact they were No.1 and won all of their matches but also had the 'advantage' of playing at home.

Rankings...

Linebreaker wrote:
Rankings...

Sort of.

But they are used for RWC seeding when it comes down to the draw.

It's just a method differentiation.

I take a mild interest because like to. Plus it does create a benchmark for debate. As it says on the tin in the OP.

Portnoy wrote:Possible Outcome /Rating Point Exchange /New 'home' Rating /New 'away' Rating / Will 'home overtake 'away'?

If wal win by 1-15 points 1.424 81.60 86.00 No
If wal win by more than 15 2.136 82.32 85.28 No
If result is a draw 0.424 80.60 87.00 No
If aus win by 1-15 points 0.576 79.60 88.00 No
If aus win by more than 15 0.864 79.32 88.28 No

So slot the possible results into the table:

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 91.43
2(2) AUSTRALIA (87.42) 88.00
3(3) FRANCE 84.70
4(4) SOUTH AFRICA 84.34
5(5) ENGLAND 81.58
6(6) IRELAND 80.65
7(7) ARGENTINA 80.28
8(8) WALES (80.18) 79.60
9(9) TONGA 76.63
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.20

Software calculations for results emboldened

IRB World Rankings - 05 December 2
1(1) NEW ZEALAND 91.43
2(2) AUSTRALIA 87.99
3(3) FRANCE 84.70
4(4) SOUTH AFRICA 84.34
5(5) ENGLAND 81.58
6(6) IRELAND 80.65
7(7) ARGENTINA 80.28
8(8) WALES 79.61
9(9) TONGA 76.63
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.20



Shows that Robbo277's link to the software is pretty good (but not infallible)

I will accept 99.989% accuracy.

That was an ironic call LT. Seems to me that the only problem is to do with the moron who punches the numbers in. GIGO.

Yes, but WYSIWYG

Can we have some confidence intervals or at least t-stats?

As my step ladder collapsed yesterday (me culpa) and I landed on my coccyx I find myself able to speculate on the rankings for the 6Ns round 1.

So far as I can find there are no T2 nations international matches to interfere with the rankings, it's worth a punt. (but obviously I'll recalculate at the time).

6Ns round 1

Saturday, 4 FebruaryFrance v Italy, 14:30
Scotland v England, 17:00

Sunday, 5 February 2012Ireland v Wales, 15:00

Current standings

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 91.43
2(2) AUSTRALIA 87.99
3(3) FRANCE 84.70
4(4) SOUTH AFRICA 84.34
5(5) ENGLAND 81.58
6(6) IRELAND 80.65
7(7) ARGENTINA 80.28
8(8) WALES 79.61
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) RUSSIA 60.54
21(21) URUGUAY 60.47

Possible outcomes:

fra (on 84.70 points) at home -vs- ita (on 73.99 points)
Poss Outcome /Rating Point Exchange /New 'home' Rating /New 'away' Rating / Will 'home overtake 'away'?

If fra win by 1-15 points 0.000 84.70 73.99 No
If fra win by more than 15 0.000 84.70 73.99 No
If result is a draw 1.000 83.70 74.99 No
If ita win by 1-15 points 2.000 82.70 75.99 No
If ita win by more than 15 3.000 81.70 76.99 No

sco (on 76.20 points) at home -vs- eng (on 81.58 points)
Poss Outcome /Rating Point Exchange /New 'home' Rating /New 'away' Rating / Will 'home overtake 'away'?

If sco win by 1-15 points 1.238 77.44 80.34 No
If sco win by more than 15 1.857 78.06 79.72 No
If result is a draw 0.238 76.44 81.34 No
If eng win by 1-15 points 0.762 75.44 82.34 No
If eng win by more than 15 1.143 75.06 82.72 No

ire (on 80.65 points) at home -vs- wal (on 79.61 points)
Poss Outcome /Rating Point Exchange /New 'home' Rating /New 'away' Rating / Will 'home overtake 'away'?

If ire win by 1-15 points 0.596 81.25 79.01 No
If ire win by more than 15 0.894 81.54 78.72 No
If result is a draw 0.404 80.25 80.01 No
If wal win by 1-15 points 1.404 79.25 81.01 Yes
If wal win by more than 15 2.106 78.54 81.72 Yes

P1ss-poor rewards compared with the RWC finals changes!

This is beginning to support my emergent view that multinational tournaments (including RWC qualifiers) should be weighted more heavily than bilateral one-off/tour series.

Yep Portnoy I think we should be looking at a 1.5 rating weighting for the WC and major torunaments ( 6Ns, Pisland cup, 4ns)

Makes a change that England Wales isnt the opening fixture

For all the criticism of the rankings I still think they are more or less on the money. I agree that a World Cup throws a spanner in the works with the double points system but we won´t have another RWC untl 2015 so plenty of time to smooth out those four year anomalies.

We have the 6N and the inaugural 4N (I refuse to call it the Rugby Tournament and plaster whichever sponsor´s name before it. It´ll always be Lancaster Park to me!!) to smooth out the rankings and Wales and Ireland have a chance to go up the rankings with a 3 match series and we have autumn internationals once again at the end of the year. I think you´ll find by the end of 2012 there won´t be much to quibble about.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:For all the criticism of the rankings I still think they are more or less on the money. I agree that a World Cup throws a spanner in the works with the double points system but we won´t have another RWC untl 2015 so plenty of time to smooth out those four year anomalies.

We have the 6N and the inaugural 4N (I refuse to call it the Rugby Tournament and plaster whichever sponsor´s name before it. It´ll always be Lancaster Park to me!!) to smooth out the rankings and Wales and Ireland have a chance to go up the rankings with a 3 match series and we have autumn internationals once again at the end of the year. I think you´ll find by the end of 2012 there won´t be much to quibble about.

My point is that it is only RWC finals that are weighted. I argue as to whether RWC qualifiers and multilateral tournaments should be recognised with a bonus points exchange.

But generally I agree - although tournament weightings would make quick, temporary movements between close teams, the overall table looks pretty reasonable. So long as it remains the dead hand of the scoreboard that is the sole arbiter of fact.

World Cup is the only one with double points because its the only one where ALL teams are together for at least a month before hand with warm up games. Teams like the PI and Argentina consistently perform better in WC than when they have limited training between. The double points means these periods of extended training are more heavily weighted. Seems fair to me.

France, Ireland, England and Wales always seem to yo-yo between about 79 and about 84, and can never stay above any of the Tri-nations sides for long.

I think France might maintain a place in the top 2 or 3 under St. Andre. He seems like far less of a lunatic than Mad Marc or Laporte.

England, Wales and Ireland will remain close to each other and any claims to be the highest ranked team between them will, as always, be temporary.

France, Ireland, England and Wales can't seem to stay above tri-nation sides simply because they don't play the tri-nations sides as often as the tri-nation sides play each other.

In order to compete in the Tri-nations, the three sides are tied into a eternal battle where standards must constantly rise in order to 'get one over' on the opponent. They push each others standards up, they have more exposure to each other and therefore know about inherant weakness etc...and most importantly, when you are talking about ranking, they help each other out on accumulating meaningful points. When South Africa pulls the win off on New Zealand, they've beaten the top ranked side and accumulate. When Ireland beats France, they have beaten a 4th or 5th placed side and the points accumulated won't be so impressive.

In short, if a NH side managed to gain and hold No 1 position for any length of time, the rest of the Northern Hemisphere sides would rise too, simply by playing the No 1 more often and thus improving the odds on beating Number 1... or at least beating a side that has just beaten No 1.

SecretFly wrote:France, Ireland, England and Wales can't seem to stay above tri-nation sides simply because they don't play the tri-nations sides as often as the tri-nation sides play each other.

No its because they almost always lose to them. In the space of two years Wales played 8 games against them and lost them all. Had they played 12 they porbably wouldve lost 12. Even one win wouldnt put them ranked above any of the Tri Nations sides.
If anything its a bit odd that France have managed to get ranked above SA based on wins against teams ranked below them. They havent beaten any of the current top 4 since 2009. If France genuinly were a top 3 side then they would be beating the 6Ns sides as often as SA do, almost every time they play them.

Peter, Australia and South Africa are where they are habitually, if not at present, because they play against New Zealand more regularly. I say that not only improves their skill levels, and HAS improved their skill levels over the decades, it also helps out in the science of sheer numbers given for games played. South Africa will get more points for beating a side that has beaten the No 1 ranked side than it will get for beating Wales, or France.

I know what you are saying, in that the NH is simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH to be high in the rankings; but the cold-numbers truth is that being in the NH, where the No 1 ranked side isn't and not regularly playing sides that play against the No 1 side...that plays a role in NH sides not going up and staying up. Given that England find it 'easyish' to beat Australia, if England played Australia as often as Australia plays New Zealand then it would be in with as much of a shout at 3rd ranking as South Africa. It's the frequency of playing sides that can and do beat sides above them in rankings that drag you up the graph.

The rankings aren't based on emotion just cold hard facts and numbers ascribed to such facts.

SecretFly you´d need more than one team in the NH at the top to lift the NH numbers up. England were top in 2003 but finished behind France and Ireland in the 2004 6N and 4th in 2005. So their top ranking quickly went. The other teams may have got the lift but if you want to be at the top for long and bring the rest of the teams in the 6N up, they also need to be beating teams in the SH. That just hasn´t happened so far.

It´s true that the selectness of the 3N helps that. But if Argentina can win a few and there is a Pacific Island team or two in the future, then the spread might become a little more even because there will be further to fall in points.

Wales might well be right in thinking they have the measure of Argentina or other teams might quibble about the side directly above them. But as a measuring stick, I think they are a good indicator of where your team stands in the pecking order more or less. The rankings also count for World Cup selection which makes each match meaningful and that should be commended. We don´t do friendly in rugby. (At least on the field. We´re free to kiss whoever we want or toss whoever we want after the match!)

Well lets see hwat happenes with Wales. By this time next year they will have played 7 out of 12 tests agaisnt Tri Nations sides. I suspect they wont be in the top 3 by the end of that run ( even though France are offering a nice juicy point gain at the moment as well), but lets see.
Sure if you give them enough chances they have to win one sooner or later, but the interveening losses would keep you below them.

Yes Kia, ...I did say that the NH side would need to be top for a sustained period for it to begin to have the effects it has had on the SH ... no argument from me on that one, and better still no argument from the ranking system. And again, yes, without question a NH side on top needs to keep beating SH sides to stay there, but in essence it just needs to keep winning full stop, regardless of NH or SH to keep top.

I like the rankings because they are not an approximation, they are not passionate fans chatting, they don't do speeches to journalists or have any bias. They are what they are - numbers designed scientifically. That it gives positions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on means nothing to the ranking system, it just carries on regardless, telling it like it is... and listens to no protestations from hurt fans.

Secret,

I agree on that point. Its an objective not subjective measurement. Most importnatly peopel shoudl be looking at the ratings gaps rather than the places, Wales' 8th is really a joint 5th.

My reasons for liking them are much simpler: we´re number one.

But seriously, it´s going to be interesting though to see how we react to winning the World Cup. Normally we´re used to losing RWCs and then taking out our frustrations on all the teams. Now it´s not only the motivation of beating the ABs but also the world champions.

Starting with a 3 match series against Ireland who have never beaten the ABs. If you can´t get motivated for that series (from both sides) your blood pressure needs checking or you´re no longer with us. Wales also have a great chance to climb the rankings and England play Australia, SA and NZ consecutively so are in a win-win situation for ranking points there.

Indeed I predict quite a shake-up next year of the rankings including quite possibly the top ranking.

Ireland: First win: Hey!!!! Hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look where we are on the rankings!!!!!

Ireland: Second Loss: Hmmm, back to square one

Ireland: Third Loss: Dear Lord, back under the Welsh!

Strangely I agree and think Ireland has a great chance at picking up that first win in the first match. If Ireland can put in a performance like they did against Australia, they have a great shot. NZ are notorious slow starters to the international year. If Ireland can score first blood then the series really becomes alive. Being 2-0 down and winning the last will be just as satisfying no doubt for fans but a series win really should be the target. Winning once will be a big enough party but imagine a series win in NZ party. That might lift Ireland out the crisis!

Series win would have all the ex-pats back home to get a taste of the party....trillions of extra dollars (American or Australian or New Zealand, whichever) into the economy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...and....the little island sinks under the burden of the hundred million yanks who would claim even a pin-drop of Irish blood. Ah well, I'll take the three seconds of fun and the drowning then.

We'd have to be better than we were against Australia to beat New Zealand. Our backs were not good enough at the World Cup. Our pack won that game.

Unfortunately, we actually don't have a backs coach at the moment.

Feckless Rogue wrote:We'd have to be better than we were against Australia to beat New Zealand. Our backs were not good enough at the World Cup. Our pack won that game.

Unfortunately, we actually don't have a backs coach at the moment.

Jeez imagine what its like for England then