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?

Looking at the fixtures, I reckon France will sneak it

LondonTiger wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Yeah and England were lucky to get out of their group.

Winning every match in the pool normally ensures you qualify.

Yeah, a clean sweep normally means you qualify. Wales, on the other hand, got out of the group because Samoa had about 10 minutes rest between games.

We were lucky to get the weakest Top seed though.

LondonTiger wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
True but I dont think anyone realisticaly expects a euro or argentina to win the next world cup do they? I mean england arguably only ever managed it because wayne barnes defeated new zealand in the semi finals for them.

Huh? How did Wayne Barnes defeate NZ in the 2003 semi final?

Perhaps he poisoned their soup? Same as he did in South Africa in 95. He also kidnapped the team in 99 and sent out a bunch of actors who were made to look like the team, but were paid to lose the semi against France.

Answering the original question if the world cup was tomorrow I'm sure NZ would be favourites. However, there is a long time between now and 2015 plenty for european teams to gain form and/or SANZAR teams to lose it. With my England hat on I'm not really too worried about the SANZAR teams once we get into the knockout stages. Our current record against them in the knockout matches is (I think) won 3 lost 4, if we are in good form and have home advantage we have no reason at all to assume a win is unrealistic.

One thing I think is interesting is that each of the countries are targetting Aus as their big game to win to get 4th. If Aus lost to all three would they then drop out of the top 4 assumeing that after the 4N they are all the same

Big wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
True but I dont think anyone realisticaly expects a euro or argentina to win the next world cup do they? I mean england arguably only ever managed it because wayne barnes defeated new zealand in the semi finals for them.

Huh? How did Wayne Barnes defeate NZ in the 2003 semi final?

Perhaps he poisoned their soup? Same as he did in South Africa in 95. He also kidnapped the team in 99 and sent out a bunch of actors who were made to look like the team, but were paid to lose the semi against France.

Answering the original question if the world cup was tomorrow I'm sure NZ would be favourites. However, there is a long time between now and 2015 plenty for european teams to gain form and/or SANZAR teams to lose it. With my England hat on I'm not really too worried about the SANZAR teams once we get into the knockout stages. Our current record against them in the knockout matches is (I think) won 3 lost 4, if we are in good form and have home advantage we have no reason at all to assume a win is unrealistic.

Sorry yes I got my years mixed up didnt I The point is England managed to avoid the best teams till the final and only had to beat one of the two strongest challengers.

sugarNspikes wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Yeah and England were lucky to get out of their group.

Winning every match in the pool normally ensures you qualify.

Yeah, a clean sweep normally means you qualify. Wales, on the other hand, got out of the group because Samoa had about 10 minutes rest between games.

Lets face it if Wales played on the Wednesday and Samoa had a full weeks rest that muppet would have been whinging on twitter that Wales had played more recently and as such had better match fitness.

sugarNspikes wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Yeah and England were lucky to get out of their group.

Winning every match in the pool normally ensures you qualify.

Yeah, a clean sweep normally means you qualify. Wales, on the other hand, got out of the group because Samoa had about 10 minutes rest between games.

.

Oh yeah, thay try fest of a group, where England got away with thugery on more than one occasion.

Anyway, you cannot argue with the rankings, we all know them and how they work(ish), but Wales did not do enough down under to stregnthen their world ranking, lets be hones we should have been aiming for a series win and could have now been in the top three but we aint good enough.

Big wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
True but I dont think anyone realisticaly expects a euro or argentina to win the next world cup do they? I mean england arguably only ever managed it because wayne barnes defeated new zealand in the semi finals for them.

Huh? How did Wayne Barnes defeate NZ in the 2003 semi final?

Perhaps he poisoned their soup? Same as he did in South Africa in 95. He also kidnapped the team in 99 and sent out a bunch of actors who were made to look like the team, but were paid to lose the semi against France.

Answering the original question if the world cup was tomorrow I'm sure NZ would be favourites. However, there is a long time between now and 2015 plenty for european teams to gain form and/or SANZAR teams to lose it. With my England hat on I'm not really too worried about the SANZAR teams once we get into the knockout stages. Our current record against them in the knockout matches is (I think) won 3 lost 4, if we are in good form and have home advantage we have no reason at all to assume a win is unrealistic.

We used actors in 1995, did you not see Invictus?

Matt Damon played Francois Pienaar, that was actual match footage.

biltongbek wrote:

Big wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
True but I dont think anyone realisticaly expects a euro or argentina to win the next world cup do they? I mean england arguably only ever managed it because wayne barnes defeated new zealand in the semi finals for them.

Huh? How did Wayne Barnes defeate NZ in the 2003 semi final?

Perhaps he poisoned their soup? Same as he did in South Africa in 95. He also kidnapped the team in 99 and sent out a bunch of actors who were made to look like the team, but were paid to lose the semi against France.

Answering the original question if the world cup was tomorrow I'm sure NZ would be favourites. However, there is a long time between now and 2015 plenty for european teams to gain form and/or SANZAR teams to lose it. With my England hat on I'm not really too worried about the SANZAR teams once we get into the knockout stages. Our current record against them in the knockout matches is (I think) won 3 lost 4, if we are in good form and have home advantage we have no reason at all to assume a win is unrealistic.

We used actors in 1995, did you not see Invictus?

Matt Damon played Francois Pienaar, that was actual match footage.

With his shorts pulled all the way up.

It appears a very conclusive vote so far in favour of England.

I haven't seen much of the French tour to Argentina, just highlights on rugby dump.com

They had a very mixed start to St. Andres' tenure. Though we all rated their chances of a six nations win prior to the tournament. They have the players to compete wirh the guys at the top for sure, they are the only northern hemisphere team to beat NZ in the last decade.

England much improved in the last SA test. Still have plenty of positional issues, though Flood looks great at ten, Care authoritive at nine, Tuilagi abrasive at centre and Dan cole has excelled even his own reputation.

Wales biggest hurdle is their SH big three hoodoo. If they can over come that when others can't they could make it.

I would like to think that England will be 3rd or possible even 2nd come december.

But i am a realist i beleive that their wont be any changes in December to be honest.


England will still be infont of Wales come the start of the 6ns. imo anyway.

Wales are playing Samoa too are they not?

England don't have a chance. No way are going to beat the All Blacks and they're the last game. Even IF we win one of the other games, any ranking points we gain will only mean we'll lose more when we lose to the kiwis. About the only chance we have is if everyone loses. But since we're higher up now we'll lose points.

Wales have Australia last and will probably be 4th if they win that. Not sure about the French order but if they win all the games they'll be sorted

So glad it isn't the AB's first again like last time. Need to build momentum.

The fixtures are:

England v Fiji
England v Australia
England v South Africa
England v New Zealand

Wales v Argentina
Wales v Samoa
Wales v New Zealand
Wales v Australia

France v Australia
France v Argentina
France v Samoa

Expect England to win 1 maybe 2, (Fiji and Aus or SA) Wales 2 maybe 3 (Argentina and Samoa....maybe Aus at home though 5/5 wallabies would disagree) and France all 3.

Those syopsis would make for a very bad tour for the Aussies, possibly moving them out of the top four.

Most people who have posted suggest both France and England and possibly Wales will beat the Aussies.

Couple that with England possibly beating the Boks the SH teams are not going to come out the AIs in a favourable position at all.

This permiatations might lead to two positions in the top four being held by six nations sides...!

What is the altitude in Glyncorrwg?

mowgli wrote:What is the altitude in Glyncorrwg?

Are you counting the moral high ground, the high horse and the soapbox?

Stating the obvious in theory the 8 tier one sides shoiuld progress from there groups.However the seedings fall .IF the NH make a clean sweep of ALL the SH sides the seedings would be a seismic shockwave.Since there is only about 3 Points between 5 of the top 6 nations only I SH side could end up seeded.
IF Argentina are unbeaten in the 4Ns they could end up number one seeds.
It is irrelevant anyway to win the thing you have to beat every side you meet anyway.

France look most likely to regain 4th spot.

Wales will be lucky to win 2 of those 3... I can see Australia beating them again.
England have the toughest task by far. They might scrape a win but it seems unlikely at this stage.

I think that the aus will only lose one game. If they lose two, deans could be in trouble.

Wales should win the first two games but all that means is they loose all the points they gained to NZ and Aus if they loose them so loose more as closer to the big two.

Same goes with england. of the four games they are more likely to win the first two and loose the second two thus handing over points.

France on the other hand will only lose points in the first game if they loose.

But Wales could win their last game and Aus could end up outside the top four as could SA when Ireland beat them

In reality the ranks are designed not to loose to people close to you and only france have a good fixture list for that as if the loose the move closer to the Argies so will get more points from them.

Ireland are the least likely if the possible teams in contention to get results, but they certainly have the ability to help cause problems for others.

Should Ireland win all their AIs and either Australia,England, France or Wales pick up wins over top three ranked sides then the top four could definitely be very different come December.

Look at it this way ...if france lose to aus they wont lose many ranking points, but will gain more than they wouldve done against argentina and samoa ( assuming they win those)

England have two winnable fixtures upfront, one of which will give them no ranking points. If the do manage to beat aus ( 50/50) they then go up against SA with a pretty similar rating , and will probably loose. They then play NZ and loose again. From a rating gain point of view you want the winnable fixtures last.

Similar for Wales, but they have a winnable ( yes i said it!) 50/50 against aus last up.

Assuming noone pulls off a shock result (nz losing, samoa or argentina winning ) it really comes down to those aus games. The difference being that if noone beats a sanzar France probably finish "top" despite being behind at the moment,

I may be underestimating Argentina of course. The 4ns will tell the truth about them,

I figure it's way too early to make predictions on this.

I don't think Ireland can be in the mix largely because points gained at home against even SA won't get them into the 83 points bracket which is the minimum required to in the running for the 4th spot.

First there's the 4 Nations. NZ are sitting pretty with a big lead. Australia have second spot to themselves. SA are in with the lowbrows in 3rd/4th/5th spots.
Wales on their own in 6th. And the also rans Ireland, Scot and Arg in 7th, 8th and 9th.

Argentina have a lot to gain and little to lose. They have more games to play. Losing home or away to aus or NZ won't affect them much as their ranking difference is so big. Getting a win would be a big boost.

If things stay largely as they are in current order, then the AIs could get interesting for 3rd and 4th spot with England, SA, France and Wales in the mix.

The significant games, in my view, will then be:

France v Aus for France
Irl v SA for SA
Fra v Arg for France
Eng v Aus for England (Although if Aus have already lost to Fra...)
Sco v SA for SA
Eng v SA for both
Eng v NZ for Eng
Wales v Aus for Wal

In reality, there's still too may games to be played in advance of AIs to make this exercise more than educated guesswork.

Pot Hale wrote: In reality, there's still too may games to be played in advance of AIs to make this exercise more than educated guesswork.

Yes.

It also gives the Autumn Internationals a little more meaning, and with Argentina now in the Rugby Championship the SH games in August have some interest to the NH teams.

If the argues can manage draws or wins they will move up the table.

Ireland should aim to fall out of the second tier and make third tier interesting. Then if England get fourth seed spot, the possibility of a NH pool of say England, France, Ireland and Samoa would be a cracker.

Am I wrong in thinking the RWC host country gets an automatic pool spot?

if the argies lose by less then 15 in all their games could that see them move up as all the teams are well ahead that a loss is a win for the rankings, so can they challange for a spot ie. be within 2-4 points of 82 come the AIs we know that the 3 NH are not going to change

I know this is off subject but if points are taken from one team and given to anther if you add all the ranking points together is it an average for 50pts per team or is it more complicated

LondonTiger wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
True but I dont think anyone realisticaly expects a euro or argentina to win the next world cup do they? I mean england arguably only ever managed it because wayne barnes defeated new zealand in the semi finals for them.

Huh? How did Wayne Barnes defeate NZ in the 2003 semi final?

He's talking about the 2007 quarter final that would have seen NZ play England if they had progressed. Our botching of fullbacks as centres and the flamboyance of Spencer rather than the reliability of Merths undid NZ in 2003. Both exits were our own undoing of course and I´m not sure which hurt more to be honest. 2003 because of stupid selections or 2007 because of our inability to score 3 points ourselves and not rely on a penalty to do so.

Brendan wrote:if the argies lose by less then 15 in all their games could that see them move up as all the teams are well ahead that a loss is a win for the rankings, so can they challange for a spot ie. be within 2-4 points of 82 come the AIs we know that the 3 NH are not going to change

I know this is off subject but if points are taken from one team and given to anther if you add all the ranking points together is it an average for 50pts per team or is it more complicated

I think you are correct.

I wonder if the same would happen to Italy in the IRB rankings if say four of the top six nations teams were ranked 1-5 rather than 4-9. And played home and away fixtures as well?

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.

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.

Well I'd say you're heavily punished for a big loss rather than rewarded for a narrow loss. You lose points regardless (and you lose points if you draw with a lower ranked team)

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.

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.

Check out the recent changes through June in the IRB rankings and you'll get the gist.

maestegmafia wrote:Check out the recent changes through June in the IRB rankings and you'll get the gist.

Right but you cant gain significant placings, and that relied on england also losing. As it is italy are for the most part playing against teams they are capable of knicking odd results against that are rated far above them. The only way they can noticeably improve their ranking place is to WIN. If they lose narrowly they dont always lose rating points, but long term that makes no difference to their ranking.
If they were playing top 3 sides they would be less likely to win games, and therefor less likely to gain rating points.
You can only gain places over people on losing games (as wales did over england) when they lose as well and were already rated very close to you.

What you cant do is significantly long term increase significantly increase your ranking without increasing your rating. You can only do that by winning. And you are more likely to win if you play games against sides that are vaguely within your division.
the system is designed to avoid freak wins having too great an effect on a teams ranking.

And as I pointed out previously were they to jump up their rating without having improved as a team they would simply give those points back when playing the mid ranked sides.


This is why teams in the mid rankings fluctuate a bit , because they are of a similar level going through phases of form but rarely jump into the top 3 even if they get a good win against a sanzar.
For Italy to jump into the top 10 they would need to become a better side. For Argentina to be a top 4 side they would have to be better than they have been for the last 4 years ( as they were in 2007 when funnilty enough they became a top 4 side.)

It is not just a case of playing the top 3 every day. The rating and ranking system is specifically designed to ensure that.

Why would you want 4th place? The 5th spot is what its all about! Just look at eng then France in the last world cups.

yappysnap wrote:Why would you want 4th place? The 5th spot is what its all about! Just look at eng then France in the last world cups.

That's is a valid thought.

It's way too early to be making any sort of educated guess, how well South Africa and Argentina do in the Championship will have the biggest influence on the points to be picked up during the AI's.

If Argentina have a stormer it's probably advantage Wales, if South Africa have a stormer it could well be advantage England.

I'll make my mind up at the beginning of November.

PJHolybloke wrote:It's way too early to be making any sort of educated guess, how well South Africa and Argentina do in the Championship will have the biggest influence on the points to be picked up during the AI's.

If Argentina have a stormer it's probably advantage Wales, if South Africa have a stormer it could well be advantage England.

I'll make my mind up at the beginning of November.

It seems that many people believe Australia are the weakest of the SH big three PJ.

New Zealand and South Africa will tank Australia and Argentina throughout the 4Ns by at least 15 point margins , with New Zealand beating South Africa enough so that Scotland beating NZ up first hugely pumps them up the rankings. Then SA will win whatever AIs they play first in a way that when Scotland also tank them and then Tonga, they hit no.4 in the rankings.

They'll get drawn with Ireland and Fiji in the WC and somehow lose both matches anyway and never pose a threat to anyone else forevermore.

End of.

maestegmafia wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:It's way too early to be making any sort of educated guess, how well South Africa and Argentina do in the Championship will have the biggest influence on the points to be picked up during the AI's.

If Argentina have a stormer it's probably advantage Wales, if South Africa have a stormer it could well be advantage England.

I'll make my mind up at the beginning of November.

It seems that many people believe Australia are the weakest of the SH big three PJ.

Really?

Well they handled the pressure Wales put them under... I'd say right now that SA are the team that are there for the taking in the Championship, if they play well, they'll be a hell of a force to contend with in the Autumn, if they don't do so well, I'd say they would be the primary target for ranking points.

Australia are looking pretty formidable to me at the moment.

KickAndChase wrote:New Zealand and South Africa will tank Australia and Argentina throughout the 4Ns by at least 15 point margins , with New Zealand beating South Africa enough so that Scotland beating NZ up first hugely pumps them up the rankings. Then SA will win whatever AIs they play first in a way that when Scotland also tank them and then Tonga, they hit no.4 in the rankings.

They'll get drawn with Ireland and Fiji in the WC and somehow lose both matches anyway and never pose a threat to anyone else forevermore.

End of.

Ha ha ha...!

The prophecy has been fore told...!

PJHolybloke wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:It's way too early to be making any sort of educated guess, how well South Africa and Argentina do in the Championship will have the biggest influence on the points to be picked up during the AI's.

If Argentina have a stormer it's probably advantage Wales, if South Africa have a stormer it could well be advantage England.

I'll make my mind up at the beginning of November.

It seems that many people believe Australia are the weakest of the SH big three PJ.

Really?

Well they handled the pressure Wales put them under... I'd say right now that SA are the team that are there for the taking in the Championship, if they play well, they'll be a hell of a force to contend with in the Autumn, if they don't do so well, I'd say they would be the primary target for ranking points.

Australia are looking pretty formidable to me at the moment.

Not all of us think the Aussies are weak. I thought they looked very good, especially in the first half of the test... THey looked really good then... Took us a long time to get in to the game.

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.

We will see all in a few weeks, the inaugural Rugby Championship is almost upon us.

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.

What if you don't like fruit but only nuts?

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.