The elusive 4th place in the IRB rankings come December.

First topic message reminder :

4(5)  ENGLAND 83.09
5(7)  FRANCE 83.03
6(4) WALES 82.26


0.83 point separate the three teams currently in contention.
There is very little in it.

The autumn fixtures are:-

England vs New Zealand
England vs Australia
England vs South Africa

Wales vs Argentina
Wales vs New Zealand
Wales vs Australia

France v Australia
France v Argentina
France v Samoa


Who will come out on top?

mowgli wrote:

It's all about the decision making and leadership, i think Priestland looks ponderous whenever he gets the ball because he is weak in contact an dprone to losing possession.

More so than many other flyhalfs?

I think most due criticism has been aimed at his errant kicking rather than tackling or being tackled.

There is a lot t be said for this regime trying to impose a strict regime on their choice flyhalfs. Wales often. Look at their most fluent with a new comer, rather than a stifled old head.

Same applied to Hook, great when lacking the chastity of coaching and tactical manipulation, not so good when given a song sheet and told to lead the choir.

maestegmafia wrote:If, as suggested above, that like Argentina, might, be within 15 point loses in matches then they would climb.

We all understand how the rankings work. You are rewarded for a narrow loss.

Incorrect.

PJHolybloke wrote: OK, I gotcha.

I think sometimes people presume teams aren't that good because the team they're playing against make them over-work for their wins.

A couple of decisions taken differently could have seen Wales come home with a 2-1 series victory. but as my gran used to say, if ifs and buts were fruit and nuts we'd all have full bellies.

Interesting hearing that quote PJ, My Irish gran had a similar one, if ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers! Not sure how pc it is nowadays mind

Beaker wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote: OK, I gotcha.

I think sometimes people presume teams aren't that good because the team they're playing against make them over-work for their wins.

A couple of decisions taken differently could have seen Wales come home with a 2-1 series victory. but as my gran used to say, if ifs and buts were fruit and nuts we'd all have full bellies.

Interesting hearing that quote PJ, My Irish gran had a similar one, if ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers! Not sure how pc it is nowadays mind

Tinkers we're tinsmiths. They made your pots and pans. Nothing Politically incorrect there, they have disappeared though so there must be too many ifs and ands.

maestegmafia wrote:

mowgli wrote:

It's all about the decision making and leadership, i think Priestland looks ponderous whenever he gets the ball because he is weak in contact an dprone to losing possession.

More so than many other flyhalfs?

I think most due criticism has been aimed at his errant kicking rather than tackling or being tackled.

There is a lot t be said for this regime trying to impose a strict regime on their choice flyhalfs. Wales often. Look at their most fluent with a new comer, rather than a stifled old head.

Same applied to Hook, great when lacking the chastity of coaching and tactical manipulation, not so good when given a song sheet and told to lead the choir.

'The chastity of coaching and tactical manipulation' ....you an S and M fan measteg?!!!!!

Yes i think RP lacks pace and does look fragile in contact. Even Wellies used to break the line occasionally, usually by stepping inside the 10 channel but I don't think I have ever seen RP do it. They are sticking with him though that is quite clear.

Hook is too high risk at 10 for a Wales side looking to change its approach to the game from heads up to the strict regime you have alluded to, but i still think there is a regular place for him in the centres or on the bench.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:But then when Argentina came and played and lost in the AIs they would be "giving away" more rating points than they currently do.

The ratings and relative ranking positions work themselves out over time. The only way to significantly improve your rating is to be a better team. Rankings do fluctuate between the 4-9 group because those teams tend to be very close in rating ...as they also do for the next tier of teams.

If Wales/France/Ireland were top 4 teams then they would be better than they cuirerently are and wins/narrow losses would be even rarer for italy.
How often do they get narrow losses against the current top 3, even given the majority of their games are at home?

wwww.letmegooglethatforyou.com/IRB Rankings Explanation wrote:Q. Do sides earn credit for losing narrowly to higher rated opponents?

No they don't. In this system, you can't win points for losing, or lose points for winning. While it may be attractive to award points for heroic defeats, it is less appealing to deduct points from a team that has won. If the close match was an indication of a genuine shift in relative strength, this would be reflected in other results.

Would Italy have a higher rating if they were playing home and away against top 3 sides all the time instead of 4-9 ranked sides?
No because theyd never win a game.

You're so wise Peter. Who else could state the obvious with such gravitas!

mowgli wrote:
Yes i think RP lacks pace and does look fragile in contact. Even Wellies used to break the line occasionally, usually by stepping inside the 10 channel but I don't think I have ever seen RP do it. They are sticking with him though that is quite clear.

Hook is too high risk at 10 for a Wales side looking to change its approach to the game from heads up to the strict regime you have alluded to, but i still think there is a regular place for him in the centres or on the bench.

Rhys is very fast. Makes great line breaks. It's just bar the game vs Saints at franklins gardens and the RWC, he's had a poor season. Remember was voted best flyhalf at the RWC by a few newspapers xv's of the tournament.

A bit of rest and recuperation will get him back to his best I'm sure.

Hook seems to have been far more conservative this year in France. Improved his goal kicking, positive, created less, negative.

Be interesting to see how Tovey and Biggar go in the new season.

So almost on the Eve of the big battle to get in to the top four the rankings stand at:-

2. Australia 86.37
3. S. Africa 84.69
4. England 83.09
5. France 83.03
6. Wales 82.26

I am guessing the ABs are guaranteed a top four spot, 4 points separate five teams.

Below that:

7. Ireland 79.85
8. Argentina 78.63
9. Scotland 77.97
10. Samoa 76.23
11. Italy 76.03
12. Tonga 74.79

Ireland and argentina are likely to break in to the top five or six, but it would take some interesting form to see either make the top four. Not impossible though.

Key games in the fight for the TOp 4 Spot in the IRB rankings are in bold.

England v Fiji, 14:30
France v Australia, 20:00
Ireland v South Africa, 17:30
Italy v Tonga, 15:00
Wales v Argentina, 14:30
Scotland v New Zealand, 14:30

Wales v Samoa, 19:30
England v Australia, 14:30
France v Argentina, 20:00
Ireland A v Fiji, 17:30
Italy v New Zealand, 14:00
Scotland v South Africa, 14:30

England v South Africa, 14:30
France v Samoa, 17:00
Ireland v Argentina, 14:00
Italy v Australia, 18:00
Scotland v Tonga, 15:00
Wales v New Zealand, 17:15

England v New Zealand, 14:30
Wales v Australia, 14:30

Or ABs avoiding France in France.

I would think that a lot is riding on the AIs for Scotland and Argentina (and possibly Ireland if things go pear shaped), as they are battling for 8th place spot, which puts them in an easier position to get into the knockout stages too.

As an Irish person, I couldn't honestly and really care less about needing to win for ranking places.

We need to win simply because it's why games exist. Winning is enough inducment to want to win and ranking for the WC isn't important enough to care about if we lose against SA and Argentina. We'll be in a bad place in the present and that'll be worrying enough, without crying about the future.

At a WC, if you have any pretentions of winning the thing, you shouldn't be worrying about who you might meet in the pools. What will be will be, and come WC time, the top seeded sides might be already worrying about the lesser seeded sides anyway... time travels and form changes with it.

Are Ireland fully out of the running Fly?

I think France will get it

Me too.

France; but not at Australia's expense. They should beat Argentina and Samoa.

Then you could toss a coin for either England or Wales possibly upsetting the pomegranate cart, knocking over some flimsily put together guillotines, avoiding all the rocks being thrown at them and then storming the Bastille and grabbing the No. 4 Croissant (Replica) Trophy.

I wouldn't mind Wales actually. It's been too quiet on here lately except for all the noise on the Irish threads.

It doern't matter I tell Ya, but ya doern't wants ta believe me.

Biltong wrote:It doern't matter I tell Ya, but ya doern't wants ta believe me.

Seems to matter to the teams and coaches Bill.

The added pressure is a great thing in my opinion, whether real or not. I feel Wales really need to get used to playing international rugby outside of the Six Nations with the same intensity that we put on ourselves during.

Some Welsh posters on another site think that they will be in 2nd spot by the end of 2013!

Whats peoples thoughts on that here?

As I have mine

maestegmafia wrote:

Biltong wrote:It doern't matter I tell Ya, but ya doern't wants ta believe me.

Seems to matter to the teams and coaches Bill.

The added pressure is a great thing in my opinion, whether real or not. I feel Wales really need to get used to playing international rugby outside of the Six Nations with the same intensity that we put on ourselves during.

Maes, to me the rankings are just the result of the things done on the pitch.

If the teams focus on performing and winning the results and therefor the ranking takes care of itself.

But, the way I see it is simple.

You end up in a pool with 4 other teams.

Yo need to win or come second in your pool, otherwise you are out.

Teams know before hand where the RWC takes place, and which teams they play in the pool. there for, similar to what Jake white did in 2007 (he started focusing on england in 2005 allready.) He knew we would play england and therefor focused a plan on beating england to win the pool.

Kitch Christie did the same thing in 1995. He knew we had to beat the then world champions australia to win our pool. so his focus was on how to beat them.

The same applies no matter who is in your pool. The coach must focus on how to beat whoever is in their pool, then only can he worry about ho will be next.

Some people beleive you must avoid the all Blacks in the pool rounds.

Yeah right, it worked out fine for France.

HERSH wrote:Some Welsh posters on another site think that they will be in 2nd spot by the end of 2013!

Whats peoples thoughts on that here?

As I have mine

Are you going to put this on every thread now?

But it is relevant to all these topics Bil.

Relevant yes, but no need to mock others wishes and hopes and beliefs for their team.

I'm not mocking anyone on here, most Welsh fans here (606v2) are realistic, so what's the problem?

It would require both AUS and SA to have a very poor tour... AUS may have injuries but in their last game they drew and almost beat NZ.. a match NZ really wanted to win.

Has anyone else done that recently... matched NZ pound for pound???

I think most people thinking AUS will simply roll over on this forthcoming tour are a little foolish.... they are a very good squad and their pack didn't look all at sea against NZ & SA.

HERSH wrote:I'm not mocking anyone on here, most Welsh fans here (606v2) are realistic, so what's the problem?

Err, what do you call that then. Smiling silently in your man cave where nobody sees you?

That's merely using a random selection of smiley's which are on offer on 606v2 Bil.

Who gets upset about a few Smiley's?

I tell you what, I am just going to hang around here and talk nonsense with the animals walking past.

That sounds like fun can I join you

Bill,

Has anyone calculated the permutations of these AIs...?

Could not one of England, France and Wales reach the 2nd spot if SA and Australia have a bad run of results over the next 12 months and certain results favour one of those three teams. 4 points separate 2nd to 6th.

Certainly if the 2013 season was added and one of England, France or Wales flourished they could be in 2nd spot.

With some of the posts by antipodeans on the current injury issues of Australia and SA, England, france or Wales being 2nd in the IRB rankings come the end of 2013 is actually quite a reasonable claim.

Maes, I am sure the permutations can change the rankings a lot if Australia and SA lose more than one match.

It isn't impossible at all.

But hence my thoughts on the rankings, play the best you can every game, and what will be will be.

Que Sera, Sera, Whatever will be ....

boom boom shake shake the room

Calm it with the smileys please chaps, one of my half-witted managers might notice I'm on a forum & not working.

Will do buddy

Biltong wrote:Maes, I am sure the permutations can change the rankings a lot if Australia and SA lose more than one match.

It isn't impossible at all.

But hence my thoughts on the rankings, play the best you can every game, and what will be will be.

Aye, playing well is all we all hope of any of our teams. And the odd result going our way in other fixtures...!!!

Cheers Hersh, one smiley a line is unnoticeably acceptable.

Looking at the IRB ranking system:
IRB Rankings Explanation

And the current table

with the +3 points home advantage, Oz, SA, Eng, Fra and Wal are all within about a point of each other, so each win is +1 point for the victor, each loss -1 point for the loser.

A loss to NZ would be about 0.5 pt, a win about 1.5. There's little to nothing to be gained from winning against Argentina, Fiji or Samoa, but a lot to lose.

So it's pretty close. Eng could win 2 and still drop down the rankings if Fra or Wal win against Oz (and don't lose to Argentina or Samoa).