IRB rankings come the end of 2012

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Biltong wrote:What does it mean to morally beat another team?

To end up losing by a far slimmer margin than the thrashing that was widely expected.
A game that while being a loss shows a team a chink of light that the underdog isn't really that far behind the favourite.


But to be honest, morally beat = loss.
And a good loser = LOSER!

Biltong wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Biltong wrote:What does it mean to morally beat another team?

To end up losing by a far slimmer margin than the thrashing that was widely expected.
A game that while being a loss shows a team a chink of light that the underdog isn't really that far behind the favourite.


But to be honest, morally beat = loss.
And a good loser = LOSER!

Cheers, but a moral victory then really only means something for the losing team doesn't it.

The winning team most likely isn't going to see it as a moral loss?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Biltong wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Biltong wrote:What does it mean to morally beat another team?

To end up losing by a far slimmer margin than the thrashing that was widely expected.
A game that while being a loss shows a team a chink of light that the underdog isn't really that far behind the favourite.


But to be honest, morally beat = loss.
And a good loser = LOSER!

Cheers, but a moral victory then really only means something for the losing team doesn't it.

The winning team most likely isn't going to see it as a moral loss?

It means youre 4th best side in the world no matter what the rankings say


Look it was a jokey comment as was Englands "equal points victory", but wales have shown they can live with SA and Aus on a regular basis home and away. At this point Argentina have shown they can draw at home once ever. If we are going to read into that one game that Argentina are now going to walk all over the best of Europe in their own backyards then Id question our reading abilities.

They have to improve more yet, and get more results, to be anything more than outsiders for that 4th spot.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:PSW I think though you have to take recent results for Argentina and put them into the context of how few tests they play and where the majority of their test players play.

To me they're a team similar to Samoa, Tonga or Fiji. Their players are scattered far and wide, they have no domestic league to speak of and don't play in any tier one competition. At least they have experience in the Pacific Cup whereas Argentina haven't had any meaningful structured games. The games where they have suitable preparation time to form only seem to be in the World Cup. Their other games seem almost like a Barbarians team coming together for a few games. It's difficult to judge them in international terms because they have played so few games (6 tests last year! That's just the 2010 Tri Nations!) and haven't played regular meaningful competition.

I expect the comparisons with Italy will stop when Argentina start to pick up results like last weekend, not to mention wins, and start to learn how to play better away from home. It's great to have them in the 4N and I think there will be a rapid learning curve for them.

You're right to think Argentina are behind the eight ball at the moment with respect to the teams you mention and their results but the gap is not that big. Much like all the teams ranked four to eight. They're all capable of beating one another. Just some more than others.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: The draw against Sa as historic as it was is nothing that the NH sides havent shown themselves capable of (or better) in recent years too.
The sinmple fact of the matter is that Argentinas play, results, and ranking over the past few years and the last 12 months has been similar to that of Scotlands, and not as good as that of France, England or Wales all of whom are currently ranked ahead of them. So unless theres a further noticeable improvement I would suggest its unlikely they will come up in the autumn and win 2 from 3 games.
.

gowales wrote:Maes do you think we can beat Aus without our French based players? I can't.

gowales wrote:I'm still not sure how Williams or Webb would do, i still think Phillips is important even if he's on the bench, and we could do with Charteris in the lineout!

Knackeredknees wrote:Didn't think games outside the international window count?

Knackeredknees wrote:Didn't think games outside the international window count?

Biltong wrote:I agree with Tigertattie, you can't base any other international fixtures based on the result of a team playing another opponent.

There are far too many variables from one test to the next. Injuries, selections, home advantage, form, different opponent, conditions etc.

maestegmafia wrote:

Biltong wrote:I agree with Tigertattie, you can't base any other international fixtures based on the result of a team playing another opponent.

There are far too many variables from one test to the next. Injuries, selections, home advantage, form, different opponent, conditions etc.

If you can't judge a team on their event performance, then how can you judge them?

Injuries and so forth just tell you more about the nations strength and depth.

tigertattie wrote:
France may have lost to Argentina in summer tours, but the french go on holiday and take a while to wake up again.