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

Morgannwg wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:If Argentina win some games in the 4N, they could do some real damage in the rankings to the top three. I think at home they might be tough to beat. Especially as none of the games is in Buenos Aires.

I remember a lot of Welsh supporters complaining about the rankings. As they seem to be climbing, the complaints seem quieter. I think they are being rewarded for their consistency and if they continue in that winning vein, then they will no doubt climb even more.

I think it was more to do with how Argentina can be up there so high whilst playing so few games and not beating many higher ranked teams.

Maybe it also had something to do with England fans using it as a whip to slag off Wales when the reality is that they are not a better team.

From the start of 2010 until the end of the Six Nations 2011, England were unarguably the better team. Since the end of the Six Nations 2011, Wales have arguably been playing the better stuff, but (ignoring Georgia, Romania, Fiji and Namibia, who would not have given either team a significant rankings boost) England have won 6 from 8 (1 of those matches being at home, 3 on neutral territory and 4 away from home), while Wales' record reads 6 from 11 (4 of those matches being at home, 5 on neutral territory and 2 away from home). England have won a higher percentage, won a higher percentage of World Cup games (which count double) and played (and won) more away games (which will move you up the rankings quicker). It is therefore no surprise that England are higher than Wales.

Are England a better team than Wales? I would say based on results (and not speculation on future results) then yes, England are narrowly ahead (which is what the rankings shows). However, if Wales beat England (in Twickenham as well) then I don't think you can argue that Wales aren't the better side, and that will be reflected in the rankings.

These rankings, they aren't all that bad!

robbo277 Wales were fourth in the rankings in October but went down the rankings because of the loss to Australia x2 a side that was ranked higher than Wales.
The rankings don't truly reflect on current form and teams can go up the rankings without actually playing a game.
If you believe that England are currently a better side than Wales thats fair enough but I certainly would not agree with you.

Cymroglan wrote:robbo277 Wales were fourth in the rankings in October but went down the rankings because of the loss to Australia x2 a side that was ranked higher than Wales.
The rankings don't truly reflect on current form and teams can go up the rankings without actually playing a game.
If you believe that England are currently a better side than Wales thats fair enough but I certainly would not agree with you.

The rankings never pretended to reflect form. They reflect results.

I'd agree that Wales are better than most of their competitors and so long as they perform successfully they will rise and rise. What else can the maths do?

Shouldn't it be "away overtake home"?

I agree with Portnoy, the rankings reflect results, it doesn't take in account, conditions, injuries, when in the season it is played etc.

As far as conditions go, two teams ranked only a few decimal points away from each other can both go to a ground to play the French for example, one plays in a mud bath and wins by 2 and the other plays in beautiful sunshine and wins by 20. due to the 15 points cut off for more ranking points, the one team can overtake the other purely becuase of the conditions.

And then of course not all teams play the same opposition every four year cycle.

Dontheman wrote:Shouldn't it be "away overtake home"?

Hmm. I'll re-think the phrasing of that - but your suggestion wouldn't work either.

But I think that everyone understands what is meant.

Cymroglan wrote:robbo277 Wales were fourth in the rankings in October but went down the rankings because of the loss to Australia x2 a side that was ranked higher than Wales.
The rankings don't truly reflect on current form and teams can go up the rankings without actually playing a game.
If you believe that England are currently a better side than Wales thats fair enough but I certainly would not agree with you.

Based on recent results (as the Rankings are) I can't see how anyone could come to a conclusion other than England are a better side than Wales. However Wales have been playing well and if Wales beat England at Twickenham there will be strong arguments that Wales are indeed the stronger side. But until Wales start consistently beating teams ranked around and above them, they're not going to go up the rankings.

Lest we forget, England are still Six Nations Champions and unbeaten so far in this year's tournament. We've lost 3 test matches since the start of 2011 (and none on home soil) - only New Zealand out of the top nations have lost less in the same time period.

Yes you are last years Six Nations Champions but there has been another major competition after that and we are two games into this years 6N.
As I said on the previous post I'm not knocking you for believing that England are currently better than Wales but I certainly do not agree with you..

personally i think wales are playing better rugby, they are not a better 'winning' side.

its how you apply the logic. however winning stats is something tangible, playing better rugby isnt.

therefore england are the better side at present.

however wales could be above them in the rankings if you lot beat us up at twickers. then and only then will you officially and logically be a better team than england!

The last time the two sides met Wales won Wales got further in the World Cup and Wales are currently top of the Six nations table.
In my book that means Wales are the better side at present.

wales lost to the same team as england in the world cup- You lost a group game in the world cup, england didnt. there havent beaten as many top sides as england have recently, england have only lost 2(or is it 3) games and won 13 in the last year and a bit, the last competitive game you played against england you lost- you beat england in a series of two games in which we also won one and there were practise games!

sorry- beat england next week and get above england in the rankings and you can have the tag- no dramas, but untill them .no your not the better 'winning' team. as i said previously you are playing better rugby, and you possibly will beat england- but just wait abit, have patience

mystiroakey wrote:wales minus 1 lost to the same team as england in the world cup- You lost a group game in the world cup, england didnt. there havent beaten as many top sides as england have recently, england have only lost 2(or is it 3) games and won 13 in the last year and a bit, the last competitive game you played against england you lost- you beat england in a series of two games in which we also won one and there were practise games!

sorry- beat england next week and get above england in the rankings and you can have the tag- no dramas, but untill them .no your not the better 'winning' team. as i said previously you are playing better rugby, and you possibly will beat england- but just wait abit, have patience

Corrected.

ok i will allow that

Cymroglan wrote: The last time the two sides met Wales won Wales got further in the World Cup and Wales are currently top of the Six nations table.
In my book that means Wales are the better side at present.

Wales are maybe ready for a fall. Dont ever believe in your own hype. Im sure the players wont. If they do...
Been watching the 5-N/6-N for 40 years now. Seen it all before.

Beware the Fall.

P.S. I would back Wales to win the Championship right now. Best side to watch for me. Best Home-Nations side in it. But. Not enough to beat France for the SLAM in Paris.
England, will be waiting 1st though.

Wales are a far better side than England at the moment but at Twickenham it remains a 50/50 game

Wales have France in Cardiff and will destroy them as they did in 2008.

Anyone who thinks England are currently better than Wales is insane - All the english pundits would agree, all the results would suggest the same but if it makes a few anglos feel better then continue the delusion. If you want a dose of reality then read some of your balanced english posters

RubyGuby wrote:Wales are a far better side than England at the moment but at Twickenham it remains a 50/50 game

Wales have France in Cardiff and will destroy them as they did in 2008.

Anyone who thinks England are currently better than Wales is insane - All the english pundits would agree, all the results would suggest the same but if it makes a few anglos feel better then continue the delusion. If you want a dose of reality then read some of your balanced english posters

Would I be insane to believe that Wales are better than England if there is a home win at HQ a week on Saturday?

Certainly Wales may still be easier on the eye to watch, but as I keep on saying that there are no points for style - only the scoreboard counts..

For what it's worth I think subjectively that Wales are a better side. But I also think that the EvW game is a close call.

Ive never seen Subjectively play so I couldn't comment on their performance - Why do you lot have difficulty with Wales being the better side - that wreaks volumes - They are the better side, that does not mean its a guaranteed win of course but as every english pundit wil tell you Wales are the better team. Sorry if its difficult to swallow

RubyGuby wrote:Wales are a far better side than England at the moment but at Twickenham it remains a 50/50 game

Far better?

Based on what?

England may not look pretty, and may not be playing expansive rugby, but their win record over the last 12 months are better than Wales.

RubyGuby wrote:Wales are a far better side than England at the moment

We haven't played this England side yet so there's no way of knowing. Beat them at Twickenham, we'll be the better team; lose, and they'll be the better team.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Wales are a far better side than England at the moment

We haven't played this England side yet so there's no way of knowing. Beat them at Twickenham, we'll be the better team; lose, and they'll be the better team.

I'm not happy with that summary either , Luckless.

The whole point is not whether A beats B (home/away) on a one match basis - it's about the whole alphabet soup of contending countries performing over a period of time.

Any team can under/over perform on an individual day. But it's a matter of consistency over a period that counts to rises and falls. Wales (and England (or any 6Ns country for that matter) will be tested much more thoroughly in the S&A Is where the points exchanges and therefore bragging rights will be placed much more into sharp relief.

I understand that, Portnoy. I wasn't talking about it from a rankings / statistical viewpoint, only from mine.

i think based on a statiscal view point wales will be the better side- because any win will put them above england in the rankings

mystiroakey wrote:i think based on a statiscal view point wales will be the better side- because any win will put them above england in the rankings

Say England won ugly on penalties alone say 18-15 to three wonderfully created and inspirational but unconverted tries from Wales, would you still agree?

In a closed tournament like the 6Ns, I prefer to judge on the final table.

It's not a beauty contest. But still, I agree that Wales currently look like by the better side - certainly to watch. They remind me of the class of 2005.

Portnoy we are in a very enviable positon because more than likely even if england beat wales in the next game- yet do finish lower than them in the 6n's(engand would then have to loose the last two games) wlaes would be in all probabilty be above england in the rankings after the final standings- by beating france and italy!

People get/got frustrated with the ranking system because wales dropped to 8th or whatever- however the only reason they dropped to 8th was because the difference in ranking points between 4 or 5 teams was so close.

the rankings as they stand are fine- no dramas at all!

of course world cups need to be weighted when it comes to giving out ranking points- the whole point of rankings is to pick the next seeds!! therefore the previous world cup must have some president!

however people need to look at the diference in points between teams rather than the actual positioning.

at the end of the world cup 4 or 5 teams were within 1 or 2 points of each other- might as well just call them all joint 4th, england were 4th , wlaes were 8th(dont quote me exactly) there wasnt a massive gulf in the sides at all, its just that there were 4 teams so close to each other, a couple of points doesnt really make much difference. however its quite obvious to all concerned that the rankings are quite true,the top 4 are the top 4, the top 8 are the top 8!! no point getting worked up with the system because teams are so close to each other

RubyGuby wrote:Wales are a far better side than England at the moment but at Twickenham it remains a 50/50 game

Wales have France in Cardiff and will destroy them as they did in 2008.

Anyone who thinks England are currently better than Wales is insane - All the english pundits would agree, all the results would suggest the same but if it makes a few anglos feel better then continue the delusion. If you want a dose of reality then read some of your balanced english posters

England have had better results than Wales over the past 18 months. That's a fact. I've already been through the numbers. As I said, only New Zealand have lost less game than England since the start of 2011.

Wales are playing better than England. That's an opinion. A generally held opinion, but an opinion none the less.

I actually agree with you that the match is about 50/50 and definitely wouldn't fancy a trip to Cardiff in 10 days time. But whatever recent time period you may pick, England have had better results than Wales (last 5 matches, last 10 matches, last 15 matches, last 6 months, last 12 months, last 18 months). Run the numbers.

England:
Last 5 matches - W4 [Italy (A), Scotland (A), Scotland (WC), Romania (WC)] L1 [France (WC)]
Last 10 matches - W8 [Georgia (WC), Argentina (WC), Ireland (A), Wales (H)] L2 [Wales (A)]
Last 15 matches - W12 [Scotland (H), France (H), Italy (H), Wales (A)] L3 [Ireland (A)]

Wales:
Last 5 matches - W2 [Scotland (H), Ireland (A)] L3 [Australia (H), Australia (WC), France (WC)]
Last 10 matches - W6 [Ireland (WC), Fiji (WC), Namibia (WC), Samoa (WC)] L4 [South Africa (WC)]
Last 15 matches W9 [Argentina (H), England (H), Ireland (H)] L6 [England (A), France (A)]

et cetera.

Yeah, Wales have been articifically vaulted to 6th after picking up easy points from Scotland and Ireland (particularly) who robbed points from understrength Australia in the doubled-valued RWC game, who in turn had taken points from NZ by beating their weak rotated pre-RWC side.

It will all normal out when England smash Wales next weekend and take their rightful points back (and then invariably lose to NZ later in the year, sorry to say).

miteyironpaw wrote:Yeah, Wales have been articifically vaulted to 6th after picking up easy points from Scotland and Ireland (particularly) who robbed points from understrength Australia in the doubled-valued RWC game, who in turn had taken points from NZ by beating their weak rotated pre-RWC side.

It will all normal out when England smash Wales next weekend and take their rightful points back (and then invariably lose to NZ later in the year, sorry to say).

Lay of the A&D son, seems as if the induced psychosis is having a terrible affect upon you.

miteyironpaw wrote:Ireland (particularly) who robbed points from understrength Australia in the doubled-valued RWC game

Understrength Australia? - my heart goes out to them poor lads that were laughing it up right until the very day of the game. They didn't think they were understrength when they were joshing and sneering about the level of threat they were going to meet from Ireland. They didn't seem too concerned then - poor boys.

Meanwhile, you call Ireland carrying a dead-shouldered O'Driscoll through the WC campaign full stength? Having to rely on a guy who needed surgery much more than yet one more game was being at full-strength? Ireland took the points, they didn't rob anyone.

Ok, let me rephrase.

Due to a happy turn of circumstance, Ireland acquired points from Australia that they might not otherwise have obtained, had Australia not been missing a raft of front line players notably Pocock and Ioane. Their finisher and fetcher.

Australia, themselves had gained more points than they may otherwise have had by vritue of defeating a virtual second-string NZ side in the final 3N game prior to the RWC as NZ rested their stocks for the upcoming world cup.

Games in the RWC are worth double points in the IRB ranking system, by this path, Ireland had more points than they might have, which were acquired by Wales when they defeated them in the opening week of the 6N thanks to a poor refereeing call in the last minute of the game.

For this reason, Wales are probably ranked ahead of where they might naturally be on strength of their win/loss record in recent times, which is not particularly flash. Particularly in comparison with England.

Mitey, don't bother rephrasing. It's just wastes energy, particularly when it turns out you say the very same thing second time round .

A raft of players? Pocock and Ioane?
So 2nd best side in the world rankings (then and now) happens to be a two player side? A little negligent of them being so lax in the strength-in-depth department, don't you think?

Who were we missing? Let me see? Little Ireland, that Australia sneered about during interviews, were missing Fitzgerald (our most elusive back) and our best fetcher who was sadly injured in the warm up game against England, David Wallace. Turns out then we didn't have any natural fetchers on tour at all. (Now there's a negligent handicap right there!)

But by all means continue with your innocent and purely technical points about rankings _____ less the poorly disguised swipes please. Thanks.

Did you see how Pocock virtually single-handedly beat South Africa at the breakdown?

Are you aware that Ioane was Australia's no#1 tackler, line breaker and ball carrier?

We already saw against Samoa earlier that Australia have issues with strength in depth. Take McCaw/Carter away from NZ and they start to look ordinary. Take two key players out of any team and they become beatable.

Look what happened to Wales when they lost Warburton and Priestland.

miteyironpaw wrote:Did you see how Pocock virtually single-handedly beat South Africa at the breakdown?

Are you aware that Ioane was Australia's no#1 tackler, line breaker and ball carrier?

We already saw against Samoa earlier that Australia have issues with strength in depth. Take McCaw/Carter away from NZ and they start to look ordinary. Take two key players out of any team and they become beatable.

Look what happened to Wales when they lost Warburton and Priestland.

mitey, is this your way of admitting that Wales are up there with NZ and Australia? Fair play to you, son

miteyironpaw wrote:Did you see how Pocock virtually single-handedly beat South Africa at the breakdown?

Yeah it would have been singlehandedly if Australia didn't sign up Bruce as their 4th back rower.

Tapping lightly on the T1 doors:

ENC 25 FEB 2012 Belgium Netherlands
ENC 25 FEB 2012 Georgia Portugal
ENC 25 FEB 2012 Russia Romania
ENC 25 FEB 2012 Ukraine Spain

Scotland and Italy at least would be well advised to keep a weather eye out.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:Did you see how Pocock virtually single-handedly beat South Africa at the breakdown?

Are you aware that Ioane was Australia's no#1 tackler, line breaker and ball carrier?

We already saw against Samoa earlier that Australia have issues with strength in depth. Take McCaw/Carter away from NZ and they start to look ordinary. Take two key players out of any team and they become beatable.

Look what happened to Wales when they lost Warburton and Priestland.

mitey, is this your way of admitting that Wales are up there with NZ and Australia? Fair play to you, son

You certainly have a world class sense of humour.

Look the way the ratings are currently set if Wales win they get put above England, if England win they stay above Wales.

How that equates to the rankings sucking I dont know.


Actually perhaps its a little unfair that England only stand to gain a tiny amount of rating points if they thrash the "4th best side in the world"

i think it shows that the rankings are spot on at present

If rus win by 1-15 points 0.952 62.64 63.26 No
If rus win by more than 15 1.428 63.12 62.78 Yes
If result is a draw 0.048 61.64 64.26 No
If rom win by 1-15 points 1.048 60.64 65.26 No
If rom win by more than 15 1.572 60.12 65.78 No

If geo win by 1-15 points 0.000 69.32 57.91 No
If geo win by more than 15 0.000 69.32 57.91 No
If result is a draw 1.000 68.32 58.91 No
If por win by 1-15 points 2.000 67.32 59.91 No
If por win by more than 15 3.000 66.32 60.91 No

Just shows how greasy the pole is

Georgia can't gain anything if they beat the surprise team of 2007 by a billion points.

11(11) SCOTLAND 75.30
12(12) ITALY 73.53
13(13) CANADA 72.92

There you go! Wales are now officially better than England.

er. well. unofficially officially better than England.

To be confirmed tomorrow.

I take it all back, the Welsh are wonderful graceful winners.

No hint of an insufferable self-aggrandising festival of smugness being kicked off by a close win courtesy of a TMO error and a referee forgetting he was playing advantage at all.

mitey, your sour grapes make me so happy.

Wales are better than England, rankings and form confirms this. Now what will you say? Hahahahahaha

Thanks for the game anyway to Wales and England. It's a good one when even the 'neutrals' (if such a thing can exist when we're all involved) can be shouting at the screen as much as they were doing for their own game a few hours before!

Morgannwg wrote:mitey, your sour grapes make me so happy.

Wales are better than England, rankings and form confirms this. Now what will you say? Hahahahahaha

I've been making this point regularly in the past few hours, but I'll make it again.

"Sour grapes" is an expression that is used when someone claims to not want something that they can't have. I would be exhibiting "sour grapes" if I said "England didn't want to win that game anyway." It of course derives from the fable about the Fox and the Grapes.

I'm not saying that, there are no sour grapes here. I'm merely implying that leaping into the IRB Rankings forum 30 seconds after a win and gloating about temporarily over-taking a team you've been far behind for most of a decade is not a particularly pleasant way to behave in victory.

Did any New Zealanders jump into the forum and go "Woot! We're better than England. TWO world cups" 30 seconds after they won the RWC? No they didn't. And they have a lot more to boast about. So keep your feet on the ground and learn to exhibit some humility, or don't complain next time we're laughing at you because you got knocked out of the RWC in the pool stage.

mitey -surely we/you can appreaciate that these days we use the term sour grapes in relation to being a sore loser- not what its original usage is/was- english moves on as you know- for right or wrong!! why be so picky?

mitey, don't insult New Zealand rugby. They have far higher ambitions than being above England, seeing as they always are above England anyway. I find it funny that you're bitter and still trying to point the finger at Wales fans. Come on just suck it up, Wales are better fact. Now what you going to say, World Cup 2003?

mystiroakey wrote:mitey -surely we/you can appreaciate that these days we use the term sour grapes in relation to being a sore loser- not what its original usage is/was- english moves on as you know- for right or wrong!! why be so picky?

Claiming the 6N is devalued due to rebuilding and hence that winning is not the most important thing IS "sour grapes". But claiming that rightful victory was robbed of us by careless or possibly deliberately biased refereeing is an example of something else.

The language should be free to evolve I agree, but devolution into a munge of mixed meaning robs us all of the ability to express ourselves lucidly.

they are calling you a sore loser thats all!- which would equate to both your scenarios- as i said sour grapes has evolved and is more broad these days

i dont now if your one or not- however it was painfully obvious what they mean.

personally i think there are welsh posters on here that are very bad winners an all!! plenty that are gracious an all though so fair enough..

Morgannwg wrote:mitey, don't insult New Zealand rugby. They have far higher ambitions than being above England, seeing as they always are above England anyway. I find it funny that you're bitter and still trying to point the finger at Wales fans. Come on just suck it up, Wales are better fact. Now what you going to say, World Cup 2003?

You won on the day Morgannwg, congratulations. I've said that many times. Well played for a deserved win.

Unfortunately the thread that I first said that on, immediately following the game after being summoned directly in the topic header to appear and pay homage to Wales has now been pulled by the moderators for some reason. I expect it kicked off after I went to bed.

Does that mean that Welsh rugby is stronger than English at the moment? I'm not sure. It does give you 6N fixture bragging rights for a year though, so enjoy that. (You haven't won the 6N yet though! England may still clinch the 6N or finish ahead of Wales)

I fail to see, however, the purpose of any further discussion if all we are allowed to do is continually bow down the overmasters of rugby in Wales? Surely now having accepted the result on paper we should be free to discuss the nuances of the game; unfortunately yet again we seem to have a bunch of poor refereeing decisions that happened to fall in Wales' favour. I say let's park the result and discuss...