England are the 4th best team in the world - until November anyway

First topic message reminder :

It's obvious innit?

Wales lost. 82.27
England drew 83.09

Congrats England on getting the draw.

Just look at England and Wales' results over the last two years and it'll be pretty evident why England are 4th.

Have Wales ever done anything but lose to the SH teams away from home? I can barely remember their last home win...

The Ozzies were missing three of their key playmakers and their skipper. They still whitewashed Wales. Wales need to win games like that to be considered undisputedly better than England.

What the u20s have to do with it I'm not sure...? Didn't realise it had a bearing on the senior side. Over the last 4/5 years England have been the 2nd best in the world at u20 level and lost to the eventual champs this year with a weakened side.

4th or 5th who cares its like vultures scrapping for the last bits off the table and somewhat embarassing.

To suggest that beating other teams is an indicator of who is undisputedly better between 2 sides seems very strange, why not just compare results.

Since 2004 Wales have played England 12 times and won 6 a piece. They are at parity and certain English fans seem very uncomfortable with that because historically Wales have been regarded as being weaker. That is simply not the case.

Wales beat Aus in 2006 and 2008. England last beat Aus in 2010 and haven't beaten SA since 2006 and NZ since 2003. These solitary wins against SA and NZ are hardly relevant results.

Wales have their problems there is no doubt but England played a Bok team with at least 4 key players missing from its ranks and scraped a draw, if that is something to crow about by comparison to Wales whitewash you are welcome to it.

These "my ding is longer than your dong" is totally fruitless.

Wales has beaten all the teams in the six nations, which makes them better than England at the moment.

The rankings like I said many times before is just that a ranking, it means squat, it is based a certain data that is put into a fu=ormula and kicks out an answer.

Is england on the up, yes they are, playing with 160 caps between them they may have lost the series 2-0, but in each of those tests they manned up with all that inexperience, can they overtake Wales in the near future?

Yes, I believe it is possible, purely from the reason that they still have a lot of room to improve on, where as I don't beleive Wales can improve that much more. The reason is simple, Wales showed a big upward curve over the last 2 years, and like with anything else, it reaches a plato.

England are definitely better than Wales currently, just look at the rankings.

biltongbek wrote:These "my ding is longer than your dong" is totally fruitless.

Wales has beaten all the teams in the six nations, which makes them better than England at the moment.

The rankings like I said many times before is just that a ranking, it means squat, it is based a certain data that is put into a fu=ormula and kicks out an answer.

Is england on the up, yes they are, playing with 160 caps between them they may have lost the series 2-0, but in each of those tests they manned up with all that inexperience, can they overtake Wales in the near future?

Yes, I believe it is possible, purely from the reason that they still have a lot of room to improve on, where as I don't beleive Wales can improve that much more. The reason is simple, Wales showed a big upward curve over the last 2 years, and like with anything else, it reaches a plato.

Clearly England are on the up, after RWC there was only one way to go. I think they made real progress and are building a solid foundation however I think there is a very long road ahead for them until they have consistent selection and solve their issues at centre particularly.

To suggest Wales are on a curve is inaccurate, it is more of a sine wave and that is why I think that they can improve further. There is no plateau yet though I think there is some inertia in the sense that they need to address less tangible issues than fitness, skills etc and start to address leadership and mentality.

There is no limit to what they can achieve anymore than there is for any of the top teams. However that comes with the caveat that a lot of the hubris needs to go, they need to become even more self critical. I don't want to know Howley is proud, that is all very nice but what I really want to know is he is disappointed by failure and wants to do what it takes to win ugly.

England, whilst not having as good a side as Wales imo, still manage wins over Oz home and away, and a plucky draw away in SA. Although our recent 6 nations performances haven't been blistering, these fixtures outside of it are what really help England keep that 4th position.

Can see them having a great Autumn if a few changes are made.

biltongbek wrote:

Wales has beaten all the teams in the six nations, which makes them better than England at the moment.

Thats a rather arbitrary cut off point and ignores their latest games. Why dont we take a 12 month or a 2 year period where Wales' record is worse than Englands? Or even a 1 month period where again its worse? Englands record against the sanzars, and the non sanzars has been better, people have a really hard time with that because it doesnt chime with the incessant hype around plucky wales.

The rankings show that despite all the hype Wales dont actually back it up with results. Yes they raise their game for England (cough) but to suggest a one off win is proof positive they are the better side would be to suggest that England are better than Aus...and therefore better than Wales because Aus won their last head to head only Wales are better than England because they won their last head to head....
The fact that matters is that the only objective system we have for measuring sides ability shows England have done better than Wales over the short medium and long term despite being led by a school teacher. Wales have had the glory rides, but punctuated that with repeated failures.


The real point here though is that its very good for winding up those who obsess over being better than england and really swallowed all the patronising media hype about Wales. The level of anger and disbelief that once again Wales could fall short is rather chucklesome, so we totally over exaggerate the meaning of the rankings and the gap between wales and england just to watch the exploding tomatoes pop off.

First the RWC, then the Summer Tours... now the Autumn Internationals. It never ends.

The only reason they are 4th is because Australia beat Wales - who are a better team than England as well.

In the ranking they are but if you go from previous encounters(which many are), England are better than Austrailia.

If England played the SH teams as often as Aus do in the 3N we'd also be ahead of them in the rankings.

Hardly Sgt Pooly. Previous encounters shows Australia are 30% in front. Check the records.

England are better than Australia. Can you explain why?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

Wales has beaten all the teams in the six nations, which makes them better than England at the moment.

Thats a rather arbitrary cut off point and ignores their latest games. Why dont we take a 12 month or a 2 year period where Wales' record is worse than Englands? Or even a 1 month period where again its worse? Englands record against the sanzars, and the non sanzars has been better, people have a really hard time with that because it doesnt chime with the incessant hype around plucky wales.

The rankings show that despite all the hype Wales dont actually back it up with results. Yes they raise their game for England (cough) but to suggest a one off win is proof positive they are the better side would be to suggest that England are better than Aus...and therefore better than Wales because Aus won their last head to head only Wales are better than England because they won their last head to head....
The fact that matters is that the only objective system we have for measuring sides ability shows England have done better than Wales over the short medium and long term despite being led by a school teacher. Wales have had the glory rides, but punctuated that with repeated failures.


The real point here though is that its very good for winding up those who obsess over being better than england and really swallowed all the patronising media hype about Wales. The level of anger and disbelief that once again Wales could fall short is rather chucklesome, so we totally over exaggerate the meaning of the rankings and the gap between wales and england just to watch the exploding tomatoes pop off.

I tell you what, bring me the team sheet of an england team of two years ago, then bring me a team sheet of Wales of two years ago, then let us compare them with last weekend's team sheet.

After that you can justify to me my we need to work back two years.

There are stats for who is historically better over 100, 5, 20, 10 etc years.

The current situation of each team has little to do with 2 years ago.

OK lets go back to the last game, Wales lost england drew. That was my point.
You were the one that was bringing up abitrary cut off points as absolute evidence that wales are better yet ignoring more recent games

mowgli wrote:England are better than Australia. Can you explain why?

They arent. But they have beaten them the last two times they played.

Its possible to beats sides that are better than you, especially if you are strong in the areas they find hardest to deal with.

Wales played a different team, if SA loses against NZ and Argentina beats OZ are they then better then SA?

That logic astounds me.

Head to head, the last time Wales met England they were better, cause they won.

If you read the rest of my post in context you would have noticed that I said england can catch up to wales as with their squad they have much more room for improvement, and wales doesn't.

How does that not make sense?

biltongbek wrote:Wales played a different team, if SA loses against NZ and Argentina beats OZ are they then better then SA?

That logic astounds me.

Head to head, the last time Wales met England they were better, cause they won.

If you read the rest of my post in context you would have noticed that I said england can catch up to wales as with their squad they have much more room for improvement, and wales doesn't.

How does that not make sense?

No not at all.

You stated that Wales were better than England because they beat the 6 nations. They havent beaten Wales either, they cant play them. So you arent comparing like with like either.
And again I am bringing up these examples to show how ridiculous your approach is, not to say its absolute proof.

And yes you are right Wales were playinga different team, one that England and Scotland seem able to beat.

I dont really know where else to go with this other than to say again ...England get better results when they play rugby matches than Wales do, whether is australia or triffle united. I tend to use that as the yardstick for success and measuring how good a side is.

Besides England are better because they are English (except the kiwis and american and saffers and samoan) and not Welsh. Thats what really counts.

And yes you are right Wales were playinga different team, one that England and Scotland seem able to beat.

OK, I'll entertain this for a liittle while longer.

The CURRENT England team didn't beat Australia.

Besides England are better because they are English (except the kiwis and american and saffers and samoan) and not Welsh. Thats what really counts

That comment probably makes the most sense.

biltongbek wrote:

And yes you are right Wales were playinga different team, one that England and Scotland seem able to beat.

OK, I'll entertain this for a liittle while longer.

The CURRENT England team didn't beat Australia.

Neither did the welsh one.

Theyve lost 4 times since the world cup, england 3 times (albeit in one less game).
In games against the same opposition they have the same record.

By your own logic, England are better

Anyway the England team "now" is as different as to the 6 nations one as the 6 nations one was to the world cup one. So if you insist onm this like for like lets stick to the last game. England are better by one point. Thats pretty damn conclusive in my eyes.

So the win of wales over England in the Six nations doesn't come into picture?

That is after all the real measure is it not?

biltongbek wrote:So the win of wales over England in the Six nations doesn't come into picture?

That is after all the real measure is it not?

No because they werent facing the same opposition.

Over as I said earlier if youre basing your opinion solely on that then England are as good as SA and thefore worse than Wales who are infact the third best side in the world, except hang on scotland beat Aus so they must be the second best in the world.

The Biltong ranking system:
NZ
Scotland
Wales
Eng/SA

Sorry I dont buy it. One off game, since which England have improved and wales regressed. I apply the same standard to judging England vs Aus ( they arenht as good) and Eng vs SA ( they arent as good). I try and base my opinion on what the ranking table says when it suits the point I want to make

Completely understandable.. You must be very good at creative accounting.

..if you base your judgement that Wales are better than England on one game..ie wales vs england in 6n..then you must also conclude that england are equal to SA because they drew their last game.....clearly not true...

OK, let me spell this out.

SA and England played a three test series.

Wales and England played the same opponents in the Six Nations, both teams won all their matches against the other opponents, so the deicder was Wales vs England.

It doesn't really matter whether we go around in circles with this,

I stand by my original post.

Wales are currently better than England.

England has the most pootential to improve and can catch Wales.

Simples, it is my opinion..

When we were kids and we were going to play a game of rugby we chose captains. Then they in turn would choose their team. Whoever went first picked the biggest and most athletic kid. Then the other would choose the next best option. Then choices would be made until you got to the fat, wheezy kid with a note from home, the sci-fi weedy guy who put his arm like a tea pot handle and the other one looking at his nails so as not to get picked.

Now the rankings are similar. You always have your automatic picks. I'll have NZ. Ok I'll have South Africa. I'll have Australia, OK I'll have France. Ok I'll have England, Ok I'll have Wales. Really up to now everyone's pretty happy with their picks. It doesn't make much of a difference. It's when you get down to the lesser of many evils picks that you notice the difference.

All the girls and glory went to the top ranked sides. The others fought for the scraps with varying degrees of success. These are bitter truths you just had to swallow when you were ranked lower down. All you could hope for was growth spurts or trying to attract girls with words and not muscles.

Nice analogy Kia.

You want to play pick the team?

I choose first.

FINE.

biltongbek wrote:FINE.

If I were you I'd insist on having 2nd and 3rd pick

Whether you choose to draw the line is arbitary. Suggesting that where YOU choose to draw it is the right place is rather arrogant isn't it?

Any chance we could get you play for England (I hoping that the IRB will change the eligibility criteria).



That 'picking school teams' thing doesn't work. I was always 3rd pick for football (1st if the two best players were captains) and I was Poopie.

NZ.

good idea kiwi, did you read that KIa, you pick first so you get one, then I pick two, then you pick tow then I pick one.

OZ and SA

Changing the rules again on me mate!

France and Wales!

NOOOOOOOOO!

I am not playing anymore, I can't use the Englis forwards and neither their Backs, I wanted wales for their Backs.


Game over you cheat.

You started it! It's my ball. I'm not playing with you anymore.

I am gonna tell my mommy.

Look all the 6 nations proved is that on their day Wales can beat anyone outside the top 3

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Look all the 6 nations proved is that on their day Wales canwill beat anyone outside the top 3

Fixed.

biltongbek wrote: I am gonna tell my mommy.

Do I need to sort you two out??

RDW_Scotland wrote:

biltongbek wrote: I am gonna tell my mommy.

Do I need to sort you two out??

That must be your favourite emoticon, eh RDW?

Can say the same for you and the laughing guy! Nah - this is my favourite!
SERIOUS MACHINE GUN

So do you think England will dish out some stick come November, Biltong?

This is my favourite one.

biltongbek wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Look all the 6 nations proved is that on their day Wales canwill might beat anyone outside the top 3

Fixed.

Of course it helps if Waynes Barnes gets intimidated by the welsh media and bottling the red card on Davies then binning ferris for being on the wrong team.

The England game I conceed they were better on, bit who knows if england had had the chance to play england maybe they wouldve won by more and wales could easily have lost to themselves on that performance.

I don't know LB, even hough we had a 3 test series against them, I still don't know where they are or even us for that matter. The same applies for the Ozzies,

None of these three teams played convincingly for 80 minutes in any of their matches.

That was more of a cue for you to use the "stick bashing" emoticom. That's my favourite.

(Don't really care about SA and Oz against them. We'll rub their lovely white shirts into their hallowed home turf no doubt.)