The IRB rankings are a crock of you know what! ;o)

by Huwball Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:44 am

Wales win the grand slam - beat everyone in front of them, yet England beat Ireland by a large score (well done on that by the way) and are above us Shocked

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

I realise that most people don't pay much attention to them, but surely there is something fundamentally wrong when you are lower in the rankings than a team you beat? Doh

Are England better? Me thinks not! Rolling Eyes

by Guest Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:46 am

Another chap that doesn't understand rankings.

by Huwball Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:48 am

I understand them milk, I just think that they are crap! Whistle

by **Biltong** Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:50 am

Huwball, could you please amend your title a little, swearing in any form is not acceptable. thanks mate.

by Guest Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:52 am

Huwball wrote:I understand them milk, I just think that they are crap!

You clearly don't chief.

by BigTrevsbigmac Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:56 am

Huwball wrote:I understand them milk, I just think that they are crap!

Not like your fellow countrymen when Wales briefly overtook England then Very Happy

by **Biltong** Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:57 am

Thanks mate. thumbsup

by Guest Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:01 am

Big ranking point gains are available by beating NZ, Aus or SA home or away. England have done that, Wales have not.

by Huwball Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:04 am

Trevs

the rankings are a statisticians idea of a joke surely? Double points for a world cup? Is this there to give them a bit of excitement? Wales get to the semi final and end up going down to 8th(?) as they lost to Oz in the playoffs.

It just seems overly complicated and don't necessarily represent what actually goes on (the tri-nations teams are excluded usually as not many teams can beat them).

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:11 am

Spoiler:

by Guest Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:15 am

Huwball wrote:Trevs

the rankings are a statisticians idea of a joke surely? Double points for a world cup? Is this there to give them a bit of excitement? Wales get to the semi final and end up going down to 8th(?) as they lost to Oz in the playoffs.

It just seems overly complicated and don't necessarily represent what actually goes on (the tri-nations teams are excluded usually as not many teams can beat them).

It really isn't. Currently Wales just can't beat the Southern Hemisphere sides home or away. Therein lie the big points.

by Morgannwg Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:19 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:Big ranking point gains are available by beating NZ, Aus or SA home or away. England have done that, Wales have not.

England have beaten NZ/SA home and away lately have they?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:21 am

can we not merge this on to the 15 page rankings thread thats stickied at the top so people can read through these same tired old arguments over and over?

by Guest Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:21 am

Morgannwg wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Big ranking point gains are available by beating NZ, Aus or SA home or away. England have done that, Wales have not.

England have beaten NZ/SA home and away lately have they?

Nope, but Aus gave us plenty! Come on, Gareth!

by SecretFly Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:23 am

Huwball, if you don't like the complexity (and ironically the simplicity) of the rankings then take another long look at the Six Nations table - that should keep you happy for another few minutes until the pangs of doubt creep up on you again and you need to look at it again.

You simply want the rankings to reflect what you want to see so that your enemies can also see. You don't want Rankings at all - just a platform and a loudspeaker to announce to the world "We is better than Engerland!!! We is better than Engerland!"

by Woodstock Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:25 am

When coaches current and past as well as players NEVER check these silly stats you know they are pants.

I would not worry about them, as I have already posted to have england drawn as 1st tier and Wales 2nd tier in the world cup only favours one team WALES, beaten them home and away on the trot now. You will see the silly ones telling us that the TESTs before the WC were friendlys...FRIENDLY TESTs yeah right.

I would just sit back and let the english fester in knowing they are 2nd best in the NH, it will gall them for 12 months hahaha

by Huwball Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:27 am

I'll see if there's a spare spot in Hyde Park shall I? Erm

by Morgannwg Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:27 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Morgannwg wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Big ranking point gains are available by beating NZ, Aus or SA home or away. England have done that, Wales have not.

England have beaten NZ/SA home and away lately have they?
Nope, but Aus gave us plenty! Come on, Gareth!

Who's Gareth, Cyril? Whistle

Nah it is just you had the nerve to mention NZ/SA in the same sentence and you haven't beaten them. Also, if Wales haven't beaten the SH lately neither have England. Not the best time to tour Aus given how good they currently are, but still hopeful of a win. Series win might be too much to ask for.

by Taylorman Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:28 am

Sometimes its a bit odd...

In our pool match vs France last year if France had have beaten us and all other results the same...they would still have qualified second in our pool...

yet...gone to the no.1 ranked position from 5, leapfrogging I think England, Oz, SA and NZ.

In one match...not sure thats good either.

NH teams will suffer a bit next world cup should they get beaten at home by anyone ranked lower.

by HammerofThunor Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:40 am

Taylorman wrote:Sometimes its a bit odd...

In our pool match vs France last year if France had have beaten us and all other results the same...they would still have qualified second in our pool...

yet...gone to the no.1 ranked position from 5, leapfrogging I think England, Oz, SA and NZ.

In one match...not sure thats good either.

NH teams will suffer a bit next world cup should they get beaten at home by anyone ranked lower.

The point of the rankings is that if you don't deserve to be somewhere you won't last long. If France had beaten New Zealand they would have gone up but then come back down again if they hadn't backed it up. If they did back it up then should they not be up there?

by SecretFly Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:44 am

Taylorman wrote:Sometimes its a bit odd...

In our pool match vs France last year if France had have beaten us and all other results the same...they would still have qualified second in our pool...

yet...gone to the no.1 ranked position from 5, leapfrogging I think England, Oz, SA and NZ.

In one match...not sure thats good either.

NH teams will suffer a bit next world cup should they get beaten at home by anyone ranked lower.

I can't see how you can see that as odd? If New Zealand are what they are (Numero Uno), and I'm sure believe they are numero uno on merit rather than the science of the rankings putting them there, then you shouldn't feel it's weird that if a side beats you on your own turf, that is considered a tough act and so hefty points are given to the side to prove how tough it's been. I wouldn't be surprised that France would have jumped to number one, given the occasion, the location and the points being given-to and taken-from in a game between France and the ABs in New Zealand at a WC.

by blackcanelion Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:28 am

I don't think there is that much wrong with them. NZ out in front, Australia followed by SA (due to there recent record against each other), England and Wales on a par (Wales 2012 6 nations record is slightly better, Englands recent record is better when looked at over a slightly longer term), then France, Argentina and Ireland (the European teams slipping on recent form), followed by Tonga, Samoa, Italy and Scotland. For me Tonga are the ones out of place. Their victory over France giving them a status they probably don't deserve.

by Looseheaded Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:33 am

I personally think that after every world cup the top few teams should be ranked appropriate to their finish, so in this case we'd have post WC rankings of NZ, France, Oz, Wales and so on...

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:38 am

SecretFly wrote:
Taylorman wrote:Sometimes its a bit odd...

In our pool match vs France last year if France had have beaten us and all other results the same...they would still have qualified second in our pool...

yet...gone to the no.1 ranked position from 5, leapfrogging I think England, Oz, SA and NZ.

In one match...not sure thats good either.

NH teams will suffer a bit next world cup should they get beaten at home by anyone ranked lower.

I can't see how you can see that as odd? If New Zealand are what they are (Numero Uno), and I'm sure believe they are numero uno on merit rather than the science of the rankings putting them there, then you shouldn't feel it's weird that if a side beats you on your own turf, that is considered a tough act and so hefty points are given to the side to prove how tough it's been. I wouldn't be surprised that France would have jumped to number one, given the occasion, the location and the points being given-to and taken-from in a game between France and the ABs in New Zealand at a WC.

Taylor what youre forgetting is that had those results gone as they did France would no longer have been ranked above NZ as the Tonga result wouldve flumped them right back to earth. They wouldnt have gone through the group ranked ahead of NZ.
The world cup can chuck up some oddities, but if anyone is deservedly in their ranking spot they will get adjusted down quickly enough.

by blackcanelion Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:38 am

Looseheaded wrote:I personally think that after every world cup the top few teams should be ranked appropriate to their finish, so in this case we'd have post WC rankings of NZ, France, Oz, Wales and so on...

I'm not sure. I'd like normal points. Take England and Wales, both lost to France. Does it really make any difference to rankings whether it was in the quarters or semis?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:40 am

Looseheaded wrote:I personally think that after every world cup the top few teams should be ranked appropriate to their finish, so in this case we'd have post WC rankings of NZ, France, Oz, Wales and so on...

I think Frances results and performances over the last 12 months show what a crock that ranking system would be.

by aucklandlaurie Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:44 am

Dont think Biltong would think much of it either.

by Taylorman Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:41 am

Personally I wouldnt have cared if France had jumped to 1 that way. I just thought it odd they could given some teams fight tooth and nail to go up one measly spot after winning so many matches such has Wales have done.

I realise its just a combination of numbers with weightings thrown in to spice it up. I was just pointing out another scenario the current rules throw up.

Overall I think it works well. Just dont hang anything on it. Matches, tournaments are what we remember and celebrate but we were no.1. for years while not winning the world cup but that hasnt been validated until we won it last year. Choking, sore losers etc labels weve had for years. All that seems to have dulled since winning the cup.

So the no.1 ranking isnt all its cracked up to be if you arent world champion. All it does is suggests you should be. And last year...finally it was proved correct.

by **Biltong** Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:55 am

Taylorman, I hold no value for the Rankings, it is the same principal as this years Super XV, you aren't playing all the teams and some twice.

The rankings take no account for that, it also doesn't take note of the quality of the team put up to meet you. The conditions are not taken into account.

It is a system to work out seedings for the next RWC and nothing else, even then it is done a completely the wrong time of the cycle.

Total bollix.

by Taylorman Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:21 am

Yeah i just look at it out of interest if anything in how others view it. If it wasnt there everyone would be screaming out for it.

The thing Ive found about the sxv and its local derbys is i hate seeing kiwi teams losing more often! I prefer the challenge of playing away etc.

Id like to think our 3rd team could be better than say oz or SAs second but with this format by default thats impossible, even if they might be being kept out by better nz teams rather than overseas teams.

Greedy?

Naaaah!

by **Biltong** Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:13 pm

Taylorman wrote:Id like to think our 3rd team could be better than say oz or SAs second but with this format by default thats impossible, even if they might be being kept out by better nz teams rather than overseas teams.

Greedy?

Naaaah!

Well you did manage to have 3 teams in the semi final in 2009, alas it didn't help much though, the Bulls still won the title. Whistle

by doctor_grey Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:15 pm

mornin/evenin gents,
The funny thing is you are both right.

biltongbek wrote:Taylorman, I hold no value for the Rankings.........Total bollix.

Taylorman wrote:Yeah i just look at it out of interest if anything in how others view it. If it wasnt there everyone would be screaming out for it. ........

Used for seedings the next RWC, but, as you said, completely the wrong time to do so. But there needs to be a seeding system, and this is not so bad for that, eh?
Also used to generate fan interest, as in "my team is 0.32 points better than yours!" Not realising, of course, statistically these would be the same.

In general, I don't like ratings either. But they are here.........

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:23 pm

Huw, not being funny, but surely you get that it depends on where you were in the rankings at the start of the tournament?

by tomhughesnice Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:26 pm

Rankings calculations should not be made during a tournament, they should be calculated once at the finish.

The only reason England are above Wales in the rankings is that we beat France first, and it was an away match. As France were fourth in the ranking, and England reaped the rewards and took their place. By the time Wales came to play France they were above them already, and you gain little rankings points for beating a team below you.

So there is a big flaw, but as an England fan this really helps our world cup seedings

by Equo Troiano Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:33 pm

Huwball wrote:Wales win the grand slam - beat everyone in front of them, yet England beat Ireland by a large score (well done on that by the way) and are above us

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

I realise that most people don't pay much attention to them, but surely there is something fundamentally wrong when you are lower in the rankings than a team you beat?

Are England better? Me thinks not!

By your rationale, both Fiji and Italy should be above Wales in the rankings then.

by Woodstock Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:34 pm

Why do they ned to take the positions after just 12 months? They could do it 2 or 3 years in and then make the draw! There would be hardly no logistical problems with this!! Gives a few other teams a bit of a chance to move up as well i,e, Scotland. Also where is the fairness in this if teams such as Samoa, Fiji etc do not get a fair crack home and away to make bigger progress up the rankings?? Totally weighted in favour ofthe big boys I'd say.

by Woodstock Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:35 pm

Equo Troiano wrote:
Huwball wrote:Wales win the grand slam - beat everyone in front of them, yet England beat Ireland by a large score (well done on that by the way) and are above us

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

I realise that most people don't pay much attention to them, but surely there is something fundamentally wrong when you are lower in the rankings than a team you beat?

Are England better? Me thinks not!

By your rationale, both Fiji and Italy should be above Wales in the rankings then.

by mckay1402 Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:42 pm

Personally I don't care about the rankings. All I care about it the score on
the board at the end of the match.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:46 pm

Woodstock wrote:Why do they ned to take the positions after just 12 months? They could do it 2 or 3 years in and then make the draw! There would be hardly no logistical problems with this!! Gives a few other teams a bit of a chance to move up as well i,e, Scotland. Also where is the fairness in this if teams such as Samoa, Fiji etc do not get a fair crack home and away to make bigger progress up the rankings?? Totally weighted in favour ofthe big boys I'd say.

Because they have logistical problems with the small unions Doh

Also the likes of fiji and Samoa have a fair crack to move up, its just you dont have a clue how the rankings work. The reason they dont is that the only top 10 team they ever beat is Wales and they cant even manage that any more. The points they would gain with the 1 in 10 games they can win against top level opposition get sucked back up when they keep losing. The same as the points any of the 6Ns get for the once in a blue moon wins over Sanzars, long term they stay ranked below them...because they arent as good. If anything playing very occassional games gives you a better chance of a freak result overanking you for a long period...look at Tonga.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:46 pm

mckay1402 wrote:Personally I don't care about the rankings. All I care about it the score on
the board at the end of the match.

Pity youre a scotland fan then Run

by Woodstock Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:50 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Woodstock wrote:Why do they ned to take the positions after just 12 months? They could do it 2 or 3 years in and then make the draw! There would be hardly no logistical problems with this!! Gives a few other teams a bit of a chance to move up as well i,e, Scotland. Also where is the fairness in this if teams such as Samoa, Fiji etc do not get a fair crack home and away to make bigger progress up the rankings?? Totally weighted in favour ofthe big boys I'd say.

Because they have logistical problems with the small unions

Also the likes of fiji and Samoa have a fair crack to move up, its just you dont have a clue how the rankings work. The reason they dont is that the only top 10 team they ever beat is Wales and they cant even manage that any more. The points they would gain with the 1 in 10 games they can win against top level opposition get sucked back up when they keep losing. The same as the points any of the 6Ns get for the once in a blue moon wins over Sanzars, long term they stay ranked below them...because they arent as good. If anything playing very occassional games gives you a better chance of a freak result overanking you for a long period...look at Tonga.

I am quite sure that has england played Samoain the WC 2011 they would have certainly lost. They still do NOT get the opportunties the big boys get and if you think they do kindly list all the games played in Fiji, Samoa and the othe PI nationsover the last ,,,,, oh 10 years,

by RubyGuby Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:51 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Huw, not being funny, but surely you get that it depends on where you were in the rankings at the start of the tournament?

Not that simple I'm afraid - If we had dplayed France before England then Wales would be ranked 4th - It's a flawed system but one that attempts to bring some order to proceedings. Too many getting hysterical about RWC seedings - the key is just to avoid Samoa. From what the SH coaches have recently saiud they would prefer Wales to be ranked 4th in the RWC, they may have their wish at the end of the year.
Nuff said

thumbsup

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:55 pm

Woodstock wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Woodstock wrote:Why do they ned to take the positions after just 12 months? They could do it 2 or 3 years in and then make the draw! There would be hardly no logistical problems with this!! Gives a few other teams a bit of a chance to move up as well i,e, Scotland. Also where is the fairness in this if teams such as Samoa, Fiji etc do not get a fair crack home and away to make bigger progress up the rankings?? Totally weighted in favour ofthe big boys I'd say.

Because they have logistical problems with the small unions

Also the likes of fiji and Samoa have a fair crack to move up, its just you dont have a clue how the rankings work. The reason they dont is that the only top 10 team they ever beat is Wales and they cant even manage that any more. The points they would gain with the 1 in 10 games they can win against top level opposition get sucked back up when they keep losing. The same as the points any of the 6Ns get for the once in a blue moon wins over Sanzars, long term they stay ranked below them...because they arent as good. If anything playing very occassional games gives you a better chance of a freak result overanking you for a long period...look at Tonga.

I am quite sure that has england played Samoain the WC 2011 they would have certainly lost. They still do NOT get the opportunties the big boys get and if you think they do kindly list all the games played in Fiji, Samoa and the othe PI nationsover the last ,,,,, oh 10 years,

You didnt read anything I wrote did you? Stop being so angry all the time and start trying to learn something rather than just reacting with WAAAALLLLLLLEEEESSSSS to everything.

by geoff998rugby Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:56 pm

Wales are below England for the simple reason they have a poorer record against the the SH teams and lost 3 of their 4 games against senior teams in the World Cup - SA, France and Australia, only winning 1 against Ireland.

The rankings reflect this. They are not a reflection just of the last 6N.

It really is very simple

by Cardiff Taffy Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:00 pm

We can't argue with where we are as the points system isn't biased towards the Welsh it's just the way the cards fell.

Had we not played Oz in Cardiff in November we would be fourth. Still it's good experience and who cares?

by HERSH Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:01 pm

Maybe Wales should stop playing negative rugby and try and throw the ball around more.

by Equo Troiano Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:24 pm

HERSH wrote:Maybe Wales should stop playing negative rugby and try and throw the ball around more.

Or maybe they've peaked.... they don't do things by half, I wouldn't be suprised if they finished 4th next year. Its not like it hasn't happened before.

by HERSH Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:32 pm

That's true, but be careful you're not allowed to speak bad words about the Welsh on 606v2Cymru

by **Biltong** Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:39 pm

Well the secret to the world rankings is really not to lose, eh?

by Effervescing Elephant Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:45 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Spoiler:

Like a boss! thumbsup

by Sponsored content