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

In December the sole effective function of the rankings kicks in.

As I understand it the following are pre-qualified:

Argentina Australia England France

Ireland Italy New Zealand (Holders) Samoa

Scotland South Africa Tonga Wales

The point being that pots and pools are significant:

On top of the 6Ns, NH sides have S and A Internationals to play.

England:
SA x3 Away

AIs Home
Aus
SA
NZ
and (I think) Fiji

That's a tough gig for England in a (presumably) re-transitional phase under Lancaster. Could end up in Pool three...

What about your country?

Replace NZ with Argentina in those groups Portnoy and I think that would be an ideal group for NZ. A real pool of death. I'm not so sure the other teams would like it so much but what a great way to start the tournament right from the outset: NZ vs France and England vs Australia!

So England have the chance to win the 6N, a series against SA and a virtual 3N at home.
Youd have to be elated with the prospects!

Once they do all that they can gift the Fiji match.

Taylorman wrote:So England have the chance to win the 6N, a series against SA and a virtual 3N at home.
Youd have to be elated with the prospects!

Once they do all that they can gift the Fiji match.

Bugger all really isn't it Taylorman?

No problem then...

Portnoy wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So England have the chance to win the 6N, a series against SA and a virtual 3N at home.
Youd have to be elated with the prospects!

Once they do all that they can gift the Fiji match.

Bugger all really isn't it Taylorman?

No problem then...

No problem if you approach it the right way... As a coach and as a team surely you'd be sitting back looking at that list and asking what we really want this year?

Sure the next match is always the most important blah blah but every match is going to be the next match at some point. But you've also gotta look at the list in priority order and pick some key matches to target. Sure they wont win them all but neither will they lose them all.

Thats a start. Where in between do they want to end up? Whats poor, realistic or over the top (assuming nothing is!) for this years team?

From a fans point of view it'll mostly to be 6N winners or runners up at worst and perhaps a SH scalp or two to boost, perhaps hopefully an unlikely series win over a rebuilding Bok side.

For the team internally this is a schedule that can make or break them. The approach, commitment, discipline- mostly missing last year- can all be measurable this year and in one season english rugby can be redefined. Internally is where this team can make most of its improvements where clearly last year standards were missing in key areas, both individually and collectively.

Easy for me to say but as an English fan I reckon I'd be loving the prospects for this year. Get these guys straight back into accountability both on and off the field. Nothing better than to make them front up big time after letting fans down last year. Throw 'em to the Lions and make em' work for a change.

There are a few facts you guys aren't taking into consideration.

When a Tri Nations team plays against another Tri Nations team and their rankings are close the effect of a loss is much greater than a team who are further down the ranking.

Example if team A has an 85 point rating and team B has a 90 point ranking the following scenario occurs.

Example 1.
Match played at the home of team A

If Home win by 1-15 points swing is 1.200
If Home win by more than 15 ponits swing is 1.800
If result is a draw points swing is 0.200
If Away win by 1-15 points swing is 0.800
If Away win by more than 15 points swing is 1.200

Match played at the home of team B

If Home win by 1-15 points swing is 0.200
If Home win by more than 15 points swing is 0.300
If result is a draw points swing is 0.800
If Away win by 1-15 points swing is 1.800
If Away win by more than 15 points swing is 2.700

Compare that with a team C on 80 points and team D on 90 points

Eample 2.

Match played at the home of team C

If Home win by 1-15 points swing is 1.700
If Home win by more than 15 points swing 2.550
If result is a draw points swing 0.700
If Away win by 1-15 points swing is 0.300
If Away win by more than 15 points swing is 0.450

Match played at home of team D

If Home win by 1-15 points swing is 0.000
If Home win by more than 15 points swing is 0.000
If result is a draw points swing 1.000
If Away win by 1-15 points swing is 2.000
If Away win by more than 15 points swing 3.000

So comparing a team ranked 10 points behind vs a team ranked 5 points behind their opponent has nothing to lose away from home, but everything to gain, even if they just draw the match.

So team A can lose up to 1.200 rankings points by losing at home, where as team C can only lose only 0.450 rankings points.

When team A loses away from home they can lose up to 0.300 of a ranking point, where as team C will lose no ranking points away from home.

Winning a match as a much lower team is even more beneficial.

Team A wins at home, they get maxium 1.800 ranking points, where as team C wins at home they get maximum 2.550 ranking points.

Team A wins away from home, they get maximum points of 2.700, where as if team C wins away from home they can get a maximum of 3.000 points.

So looking at why the Tri Nation teams are consistently higher ranked than the Six Nation teams, is not really becuase of the fact that they gain points against each other, it is because the Six Nation teams as a collective lose more than 75% of their matches against SA, NZ and OZ.

Granted playing each other does keep their standard up.

Take Ireland going to NZ for an example, they are more than ten ranking points behind NZ, they can there for not lose any ranking points on their away tour to NZ even if they lose all three matches, and hence remain on 80.65.

But

Compare that to England who will be touring SA.

SA is currently on 84.34 points and England on 81.58

If Home win by 1-15 points swing 0.424 SA 84.76 England 81.16
If Home win by more than 15 points swing 0.636 SA 84.98 England 80.94

Assume England lose by 12

Next match.

If Home win by 1-15 points swing is 0.340 SA 85.10 Eng 80.82
If Home win by more than 15 points swing 0.510 SA 85.27 England 80.65

Assume England lose by 6.

Next match.

If Home win by 1-15 points swing is 0.272 SA 85.37 Eng 80.55
If Home win by more than 15 points swing 0.408 SA 85.51 Eng 80.41

So if England and Ireland both lose all three their matches, And England not by more than 15 points, they will fall below the ranking of Ireland, if England were to lose all three matches and some of them by more than 15 the resultant points lost will be even greater.

I can imagine England winning all those games and pushing SA down into pot 2, then drawing them for the world cup group anyway along with Wales form pot 3 and Samoa from 4. That would be just typical.

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

Really?

I'll say it again. Really..?

PS I know WHY it's happened. But come on. Really?

Yeah I'm surprised by that too KickandChase. I would´ve thought Samoa would've been in the top 10 after their win against Australia.

KickAndChase wrote: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

Really?

I'll say it again. Really..?

PS I know WHY it's happened. But come on. Really?

I cant beleive they are still behind Wales either but there you go.

The rankings throw up some interesting results which is why I never read much into them.

When a lowly rated has a one off win against a highly rated in a world cup, up they go.

France would have gone from 5th to 1st with a pool win over NZ purely because A- NZ were at home, B- world cup.

Would it have been justified? Certainly not- not in terms of beating NZ in NZ in a world cup match- I mean thats never happened so theres partial justification. But is it fair to leap from 4,3 and 2 on the back of a pool match that didnt seal anyones fate in anything?

Probably not.

In saying that. Its the best system around...

Taylorman, the idea is that the less expected (or to put it another way, the hardest to accomplish) is rewarded more. Two middle ranked sides meet in a one-off game, one wins by a small margin and "so what's new?" - the ranking points hardly move.

I'd say France beating the All Blacks in New Zealand in the biggest competition in World rugby is reason enough for France to get a points hike (based only on the formula - not on any emotional response from any human adjudicators). France would not have gone from 5th to 1st automatically but only because of the points accruing for that game would have been enough to put them in 1st.

There is no justification required. If NZ are top on specific points - and have earned those points, then it is logical that if another side exceeds that point tally, they go in front and have the right to be called No.1

Even hypothetically speaking about it sends chills down my spine.

I have no problem with a leap for rewarding beating someone above you. But like the volcano theory in my bedroom, it doesn't take long for things to return to their natural order after a notable eruption. You may get catapulted to the top but the rankings also reward consistency in the long term which cancels out the short term shuffling.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Even hypothetically speaking about it sends chills down my spine.

I have no problem with a leap for rewarding beating someone above you. But like the volcano theory in my bedroom, it doesn't take long for things to return to their natural order after a notable eruption. You may get catapulted to the top but the rankings also reward consistency in the long term which cancels out the short term shuffling.

Yes, yes..and yes again. Well, yes to it all Kia. But then that proves the point I always make when talking about the Rankings. It doesn't matter what emotion you (the debater) bring to the debate. The system will show none (emotion) and is Always right.

I for one carry very little importance for the rankings. When there are a number of teams with a margin of a few decimal points in it, does it really make such a difference to be one above a rival?

I don't think so.

Whichever way you spin it for right or wrong, the Rankings formula is in place and set in concrete at the IRB.

So come December, Rankings places will determine pot placings in the RWC 2015 draw. After that the pools in the qualifying stages will be determined three years out from the next finals.

After that the Rankings will return to its status of interesting/futile/contentious debate.

biltongbek wrote:I for one carry very little importance for the rankings. When there are a number of teams with a margin of a few decimal points in it, does it really make such a difference to be one above a rival?

I don't think so.

Are you Welsh suddenly

Its something thats been consistently said through this thread. The ranking points difference tells you more than the actual rankings positions about the relative success of the teams.

We are now into the peeriod where the ranking positions do count for something, they do matter even if you dont beleive in the system. Its perhaps though of less interest to the Tri nations who can be pretty safe in assuming that the world isnt going to implode and that they will all stroll into pot one. The 6 nations however have a lot to play for in avoiding a group like Wales had last time. With the Pacific nations lurking around pots 3 and 4 though theres never a garauntee of an easy group unless you have a genuinly good side that absolutley derserved a top pot draw.

PSW I agree with you on most of your points, however there is one fundamental flaw with the rankings.

If every team played the exact same matches gainst every other opponent over the period determining the rankings (and the world cup in my opinion must be excluded from the rankings) then it would give an accurate reflection.

However because of the tours that aren't regulated on an even basis by the IRB the rankings will always be flawed.

Just as devil's advocate.

If we take 4 years between world cups we usually play roughly 40-45 test in the time.

If you were to take the top 12 nations, they should play each other twice at home and twice away.

That is 44 test matches. Then the ranking determination will be totally accurate.

Problem is money has once again contrived that 6 nation/ Rugby champonship carries too much importance and thus it will never work.

biltongbek wrote:Problem is money has once again contrived that 6 nation/ Rugby champonship carries too much importance and thus it will never work.

Thats the bit I struggle with.

Surely its the AIs/Summer tours that are the money spinners (benefit matches for the Tri nations).
The 6Ns is a legitimate and historical tournament.

The 6Ns games are important in their own right, and dont tend to cause "undeserved" wild fluctuations in the rankings unlike say Tinga beating France in the world cup.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Surely its the AIs/Summer tours that are the money spinners.

Well if you are correct, then al the more reason for countries to tour one another.

Let's take the title "IRB World Rankings". Now let's think of them as they are. Some say they do a job without recourse to human intervention, some say they are deeply flawed, some say they are pointless, some say that having a 'point' it not their role, but merely to scientifically evaluate position.

Now, instantly, we see that there are so many attitudes to one set of figures.

So.... the solution? We change the system. We make it more..........................well, what? How do we change the system? Award more points to certain teams in certain circumstances? Make this adjustment? Make that adjustment? Tweak this and that?

And when all that's done - what are you left with? You're left with a new scientific evaluation tool that will have the title "IRB World Rankings".

It doesn't matter how you tweak the system, it will remain a system - and it has to be a system or otherwise you have panels of humanbeings deciding rankings ________ NO, to that idea from me! And that new system might be liked by the majority for a few months, but, inevitably, grumbling will be heard and in no time at all the new rectified system will be seen as flawed.

The system will always be flawed (because humans, being what they are, will never fully agree on placings) but it will always be accurate when operating under the matematical guidelines given to it. You restructure it to lessen the erratic jumps in positions and in time (guaranteed) that restructure will cause its own issues.

I feel that your general argument is a bit exclusive Biltong. For starters it builds on a premise of a 'top twelve' which is irrational in the fluid albeit viscous balance of World rugby.

That is a mentality imbued in the mentality of franchises and the mental construct that promotion/relegation is invalid/ignorable.

I'm surprised with you.

Portnoy, I am only using the top twelve as an example. The point is that if you want a system to work accurately, everyone has to play everyone else the same amount of times.

No use one team plays another only at home for 8 years and never away. Point in case Ireland vs SA.

biltong, only so much rugby an International side can play in a year. Six Nations/Tri Nations commitments; Super 15/HC committments; repair and holiday!!! committments. I don't think it would be workable to have a top 10 or 12 playing each other home and away every single year.

Plus - that's when you might think the Rankings might be a fairer reflection of the 'truth' (whatever the truth actually is, as if it is'nt numbers then it's highly subjective opinion). Anyway, all hell would then break lose amongst the other sides who obviously wouldn't be getting to play the top 10 or 12 every year in a home and away pattern. Their ranking points would sink into oblivion....and the talk would be that the 'BIG' sides want to keep a closed shop.

SecretFly wrote:biltong, only so much rugby an International side can play in a year. Six Nations/Tri Nations commitments; Super 15/HC committments; repair and holiday!!! committments. I don't think it would be workable to have a top 10 or 12 playing each other home and away every single year.

Plus - that's when you might think the Rankings might be a fairer reflection of the 'truth' (whatever the truth actually is, as if it is'nt numbers then it's highly subjective opinion). Anyway, all hell would then break lose amongst the other sides who obviously wouldn't be getting to play the top 10 or 12 every year in a home and away pattern. Their ranking points would sink into oblivion....and the talk would be that the 'BIG' sides want to keep a closed shop.

Fly, not every year, every four year cycle. There are numerous ways where relegation and promotion can be dealt with. But we have discussed that into oblivion already in the past.

The only point i was making (my apologies for putting a number of teams in the argument) is that rankings are flawed if everyone does not play the same opposition home and way.

biltongbek wrote:Portnoy, I am only using the top twelve as an example. The point is that if you want a system to work accurately, everyone has to play everyone else the same amount of times.

No use one team plays another only at home for 8 years and never away. Point in case Ireland vs SA.

Ah but then you get into the " but we were rubbish that year" " we werent trying that year" "it wasnta world cup year" arguments.

The rankings are what they are. The only objective measure of how teams have performed we have. In the absence of a continuous gglobal league system ( Presumably excluding Samoa and Tango but icluding Scothland and Italy?) it will do.

Similar to the cricket rankings although there is no test cricket World Cup?

Sadly revenue would be the main obstacle to getting that. The reason why Wales and England often get to play the SH teams almost every year is their full stadiums provide a lot of revenue for both the home and visiting teams. I don't particularly like these one-off games in November but it seems a necessary evil in order to try to break even, at least in NZ's case.

PSW, true, but for the sake of my argument the starting point would be to have everyone play the same opposition.

It is the same bug bear I have with the Super XV, not everyone plays everyone else. Hence

Get my drift?

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:biltong, only so much rugby an International side can play in a year. Six Nations/Tri Nations commitments; Super 15/HC committments; repair and holiday!!! committments. I don't think it would be workable to have a top 10 or 12 playing each other home and away every single year.

Plus - that's when you might think the Rankings might be a fairer reflection of the 'truth' (whatever the truth actually is, as if it is'nt numbers then it's highly subjective opinion). Anyway, all hell would then break lose amongst the other sides who obviously wouldn't be getting to play the top 10 or 12 every year in a home and away pattern. Their ranking points would sink into oblivion....and the talk would be that the 'BIG' sides want to keep a closed shop.

Fly, not every year, every four year cycle. There are numerous ways where relegation and promotion can be dealt with. But we have discussed that into oblivion already in the past.

The only point i was making (my apologies for putting a number of teams in the argument) is that rankings are flawed if everyone does not play the same opposition home and way.

I wasn't having a go and I understand you point. It just shows you though - Rankings will always be a minefield of complexity. Nobody is going to happy with them 100% of the time.

True, it will always be flawed. But that is the reason I have no value for the rankings. Absolutely moot and useless in my opinion.

Unless you're at number one and you can look down over all of rugbydom. You have tasted that experience before Biltong. You know of the joys I speak. 2009 makes 11. SA were ranked one in the middle of the year and we were ranked 1 at the end of the year after a better tour. We all knew SA were the better side having won all their games against NZ and making the House of Pain painful for the ABs. The rankings didn't reflect the true significance of those losses for SA. We would've swapped the Grand Slam and the number one ranking at the end of the year for those wins against SA.

Yet in the end, there was some consolation ending the year on number 1 and the way 2010 turned out, it may well have proved to be a powerful psychological weapon in forgetting about a forgettable year. SA may well have rightly thought they were better than the ABs in 2009 because they most assuredly were. But the losses in the autumn tour undid their good work earlier in the year. Should consistency not be rewarded though? Should a number 1 team be allowed to lose to teams ranked much lower than them? I think the rankings encourage the mentality of winning each game and removing the maths side of things.

Kia, I certainly have no problem with people who value ranking systems.

For me as a bit of a stats freak and numbers obsessed guy, I like to look at rankings and stats for what they are supposed to portray.

Accuracy.

Sadly the rankings don't.

I'm with Biltong, rankings are largely meaningless in just about every facet of the game; I doubt the players really ever pay any attention to them before, during or after the game, and that says it all to me.

Whats up, PJ.

Yeah, I don't need rankings to tell me who is better than us.

Just out of interest, who is better than you in your opinion Biltong? France isn't a bogey team for you and you never seem to have the problem we do with them. You've had England's measure for a while and have had upsets to Ireland and Scotland but I don't think anyone would say they're better than you. Australia is a difficult one as they've managed to beat you quite a lot in OZ and have recently started to win more on SA soil.

So apart from the RWC anomaly where France is just above SA, you seem to be in the right rankings spot in terms of who is better than you and who is not.

PJHolybloke wrote:I'm with Biltong, rankings are largely meaningless in just about every facet of the game; I doubt the players really ever pay any attention to them before, during or after the game, and that says it all to me.

Which I imagine is exatly why Stuart Lancaster said he wants England ranked in the top 2 by the next world cup.

Probably an even dafter statement than Andrews' 80% win traget or whatever it was. They swept that one under the rug anyway.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Just out of interest, who is better than you in your opinion Biltong? France isn't a bogey team for you and you never seem to have the problem we do with them. You've had England's measure for a while and have had upsets to Ireland and Scotland but I don't think anyone would say they're better than you. Australia is a difficult one as they've managed to beat you quite a lot in OZ and have recently started to win more on SA soil.

So apart from the RWC anomaly where France is just above SA, you seem to be in the right rankings spot in terms of who is better than you and who is not.

Kia, at the moment NZ is consistently better than us against most oppoenents, we have had our most competitive 4 years before the previous world cup against the All Blacks since our re-admission.

I don't rate Oz better than us for various reasons, however the fact is they have been more successfulagainst us in the past four years than the All Blacks.

Apart from that, nobody I deem better.

Yeah had a feeling that's what you´d say mate.

2009 was the peak of that 4 year cycle and you can't do any better than a whitewash. Certainly it's been a while since we suffered a whitewash against Australia. I know I said during the RWC that I preferred facing Australia to SA but I think now that was more motivated by fear of losing to them again and getting stick from my Aussie mates again for four years!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Yeah had a feeling that's what you´d say mate.

2009 was the peak of that 4 year cycle and you can't do any better than a whitewash. Certainly it's been a while since we suffered a whitewash against Australia. I know I said during the RWC that I preferred facing Australia to SA but I think now that was more motivated by fear of losing to them again and getting stick from my Aussie mates again for four years!

+1. Losing to the Saffers is one of those things that happens for or 5 times out of 10 - we're not really surprised, and odds are they'll have fought tooth and nail to earn the win. Losing to the Aussies just hurts.

You see, I am still upset, I duplicated my heartbreak.

biltongbek wrote:You guys should have told me this when I was still upset ( not over it totally yet) during the world cup, sadly now it is just empty words, meaningless, too late, .........................................

There there

Just like the rankings for you then mate!

Don't worry. I've heard Santa's arriving late to SA this year. I hear he's got a new coach in his slay. That'll see you break out a smile.

A few points,for me IRB ratings or at least that the AllBlacks remain world Number one.Means far more to me
than. Whoever holds the little gold pot and title World Champions,though currently they are THE most successful side in RWCs [on games won/loss and equal on RWCs won]
Boks can point out they won two from two,BUT there is no reason to think they would have 1987 or 1991[unless as many here do it was just a case of the Boks turning up.
IRB ratings are just a set of stastics true,but give a fair image of the overall strength in World Rugby.[EXCEPT in RWC years]
Double points for RWCs skewed it badly,also it cannot take into account the strength of the sides.
Tier 2 sides seldom meet Tier 1 sides at full strength outside of RWCs ,and in them they prioritize them.
To beat or try to teams they think can let them get out of the groups ,or qualify automatcally for the next one.
HOW valid were the IRB ratings when the All Blacks and Boks played weak teams in the 3Ns?or the Boks in 2007.
It is ONLY when they are used to seed teams for the RWC it comes to grief,because NZ 2011 and England 2015 failed to met the Semi -Finals.
A problem arose,the easy way to seed would be previous RWC 1,2,3 plus the Host nation is seeded.
As to NH getting the raw end of the stick,July Internationals they catch the SH cold.
In 2011 SH sides had the S15`s running into the 3N`s with the inevitable injuries.
3Ns finished 14 days before the RWC ,NZ won with a 4thchoice FH,several key players including FB,and Wings were injured.
First choice SH pulled a groin muscle during Pre-Match warmup in final,IF Cowan had shown any form Piri would have been replaced there and then.

Hi ya Allan,
For me there's gotta be rankings as it provides an ongoing guide to where teams are at rather than waiting every 4 years to find a champion.

You'll certainly be in the minority for preferring a ranking of 1 over a WCup title. Only twice has the team paraded through thousands of fans down Queen street and neither was when we became or regained the number one spot.

Its a guide and should only be used as such. Anyone who hangs their hat on them in terms of who is better than who is kidding themselves- in the same way anyone who says the world champion is the best team is as well.

The rankings provide a formula and therefore a guide, the RWC provides the champion where all countries have a chance of winning it, and therefore the title of world champion.

Anything else is opinion and conjecture. You could say that NZ is ranked no.1 and is the world champion so are automatically he best team- But its still only opinion and not necessarily 'correct' in some eyes- there's just a better case for it, but if someone else believes Oz, SA England etc are the best they'll have their reasons and are perfectly welcome to them.

But it does provide a good basis for commentary on these forums.

Hi,Taylorman,Biltong and all,to me IRB number one means just that,THE best head to head.
World Champions is a term bandied about and is justly earned at the RWC,ALL have been worthy Champions going on to win unbeaten in the Tournament.For me there is no such thing as Friendlies,it is either a Test Match or Not and should be treated as such.
To me a World Champion in any Sport is that only until he is beaten,the title moving to first person?team to beat him.
Post RWCs up until 2003,Senior players past there best came North or to Japan
to finish up with a pension fund.These were realistically non International s from then on.
Post 2003 England lost nearly there whole team,Nz and SA large numbers,it took NZ a year to get back up to speed.
2004 being a Boks 3Ns year,NZ winning there Home games.losing away before winning 3Ns 2005,/6/7/8.
England went into decline,for 4 years had a revival 2007 RWC,then slumped again.
I wonder if England had made the Final or won 2011,there would have been the blood lettng and abuse of players and Coaches.
Nz lost the best part of a squad,and many great players 2008 but still won the 3Ns.Irony IRB worlds best team 2008 the BOKS.
Presumeably that was on the strength of the 2007RWC.
England post Ashton,appointed a man of great Personal calibre as a Player,but no Managerial or Coaching qualifications.
It was very much a Media Band wagon at the time,England 2010 had two wins versus Australia,plus a very good 2011 6Ns.Winning in style,NO ONE considered Aldridge,Wells,Smith in competent then .
Martin Johnson got no support from the suits of the RFU,and the so called shake up there seems all smoke and mirrors.Nor from the Teflon kid,Englands record for extra match Hi -jinks was no worse than those of Nz,OZ or France.
The difference being THOSE teams performed on the field afterwards.
JW failure to come to grips with the New Match Balls cost England Dear,there Group was in many ways the hardest.
AS all 3 of Argentina,England,And Scotland were of roughly equal strength,and difficult to Breakdown.
With the 6Ns nigh the gaunlet is thrown down again,hopefully the All Blacks will emulate Fitzy`s side an d go for a long period un beaten.

Alan, my point is. You don't need a world ranking to tell anyone who has ever watched rugby, that the All Blacks are number 1.

Anyone doubting they are number 1 team in the world for the past decade, irrespective of World Cup wins are biased.

There was a time when Tiger Woods was No1 - even when at times he technically wasn't. I mean, he was always box office - he had the game that was sexy and every fan knew who to shout for if they wanted to pretend knowledge of the game. Rather like people acclaiming the Beatles when in truth not one Beatle album is in their collection. In order to be in-the-know in music circles you have to mention the Beatles.........dude. It's law.

Anyway, that might be the best proof that we need a formal ranking system, biltong. Going on style and history and beauty and sexy image and yes - results too - people just by instinct know All Blacks are No1.

But...when that becomes technically wrong, when another side slides past them on points, well then that becomes the truth. And in order to fight off the sentimentalists, you kinda need something official to be able to say, "Well, actually I know the ALL Blacks are the best evah!!! But unfortunately, on this day, at this moment in time, the board says they ain't."

Not on this day nor at this moment in time SecretFly.

But I take your point. To use your golfing analogy, normally golfers are described in terms of worth by the number of Grand Slams they have. In rugby, you only have 3N titles (well did until they were renamed in the most absurdly boring and condescending way), 6N titles and the World Cups that are more or less the equivalent of Grand Slams. And people normally cite the World Cups as the real yardstick of where your team is at.

But that only defines a very small number of teams so at least the rankings is all inclusive and gives you a global image of where the game is at rather than concentrating only on the summit.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: And people normally cite the World Cups as the real yardstick of where your team is at.

I just stop and ponder for a while and into my head and heart comes the anwer - All Blacks are No1. But you see, that's what I mean. I don't need any stats and it's people like me the Rankings have to stand up to!!!

And yes - why didn't they just call it the 4Nations?