World Rugby Rankings

First topic message reminder :

Current World Rankings

IRB Rankings at
http://www.worldrugby.org/rankings#mru

Fixtures according to http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/fixtures/_/league/180659/

Best odds for each result category from a range of bookies as at http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/six-nations

Code:



Saturday, March 18

Scotland v Italy 12:30 PM -- BT Murrayfield, Edinburgh

sco (on 82.18 points) at home -vs- ita (on 71.17 points)

If sco win by 1-15 points 0.000 82.18 71.17 No
If sco win by more than 15 0.000 82.18 71.17 No
If result is a draw 1.000 81.18 72.17 No
If ita win by 1-15 points 2.000 80.18 73.17 No
If ita win by more than 15 3.000 79.18 74.17 No

Scotland (1/16)
Draw (66/1)
Italy (15/1)

France v Wales 2:45 PM -- Stade de France, Saint-Denis

fra (on 81.21 points) at home -vs- wal (on 82.16 points)

If fra win by 1-15 points 0.795 82.00 81.36 Yes
If fra win by more than 15 1.193 82.40 80.97 Yes
If result is a draw 0.205 81.00 82.36 No
If wal win by 1-15 points 1.205 80.00 83.36 No
If wal win by more than 15 1.807 79.40 83.97 No

France (8/13)
14:45TV
 

France (8/13)
Draw (25/1)
Wales (13/8)

Ireland v England 5:00 PM -- Aviva Stadium, Dublin

ire (on 83.18 points) at home -vs- eng (on 91.02 points)

If ire win by 1-15 points 1.484 84.66 89.54 No
If ire win by more than 15 2.226 85.41 88.79 No
If result is a draw 0.484 83.66 90.54 No
If eng win by 1-15 points 0.516 82.66 91.54 No
If eng win by more than 15 0.774 82.41 91.79 No

Ireland (6/4)
Draw (25/1)
England (9/13)



Original thread:
https://www.606v2.com/t12724p950-irb-world-rankings-part-1


Sources:
Fixtures : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/fixtures/4776295.stm
IRB Rankings : http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/fixtures/international.html
Rankings explanation : http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html
Rankings archive : http://www.irb.com/rankings/archive/index.html
Fixtures : http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/current/match/scores/recent.html

Online calculator (Courtesy of Robbo277 (thanks)) : http://www.lassen.co.nz/pagmisc.php#hrh

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd say overall head to heads it's all about equal for England in 10 + years where we've been pretty rubbish. u20s are coming through now and we should start to see some real improvement in the next 2-3 years. Right now alot of the key players with potential are slightly raw.

England have always had good players. Between '03 and '10 England coaches insisted in picking players that were past it rather than picking the best guys for the job or the guys that were young and up and coming. The coaching standards were bad too.

Interestingly Irish players have won half of every 6 nations player of the tournament awards. 6 from 12. Does that mean Ireland produces the best players?

Depends if they're all different players I suppose. You've had 2 of the best in BOD and POC.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends if they're all different players I suppose. You've had 2 of the best in BOD and POC.

Fair enough BOD won it three times. Strangely though France have never won it and England only once and yet France have won 4 six nations titles.

Heres a question for you. What three teams have competed in the most 6/5/home nations championships (the three incarnations of the annual 6N tournament)?

Scotland
England
Wales

LordDowlais wrote:Scotland
England
Wales

2 right one wrong

Scotland
Wales
Ireland

LordDowlais wrote:Scotland
Wales
Ireland

Yeah England missed a couple. Was surprised that Ireland has competed in more than England.

GunsGerms wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Scotland
Wales
Ireland

Yeah England missed a couple. Was surprised that Ireland has competed in more than England.

I picked England and Scotland because of the Calcutta cup, that is what started off the 6N wasn't it ?

LordDowlais wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Scotland
Wales
Ireland

Yeah England missed a couple. Was surprised that Ireland has competed in more than England.

I picked England and Scotland because of the Calcutta cup, that is what started off the 6N wasn't it ?

Not sure. Sounds right.

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:I like the fact that even when England have been in the doldrums they've still been pretty much on a par with the other 6 Nations sides while they were enjoying their 'Golden Years'.

There, I've said it!

On par really? I recall England getting hammered by Ireland a few times in the last ten years. There is no such thing as golden years. Between 2010 and 2013 there was a lot of hype around Ireland's golden generation coming to an end.

Back to back six nations in 2014 and 2015 suggests there was no golden generation but rather a steady growth of talent and rugby infrastructure/governance over the last 20 years in Ireland.  

The only hammering I can recall is the Croke Park game. The only other comfortable victory for Ireland was in 2011 (followed by two comprehensive England victories ) Not forgetting the Cipriani show.

Honours are fairly even between the sides in the 6Ns (though very much in England's favour in recent years). During the 6 Nations era it's largely been England handing out the pastings to Ireland with the majority of Irish wins being close calls.

I'd say Wales did a lot more with their 'Golden Generation' than Ireland have (and we all know what England did with theirs ).

I think it's fair to say that England's peaks are higher and their dips shallower. You're not doing badly for a nation where rugby is the 75th most popular sport though

GunsGerms wrote:Interestingly Irish players have won half of every 6 nations player of the tournament awards. 6 from 12. Does that mean Ireland produces the best players?

No.

Harinorduquy was robbed IMO in 2010. It was farcical that Bowe won.

Sometimes the best player does not win the player of the tournament. Also it can be very difficult comparing a back to a forward in terms of performance.

Cyril wrote:
I think it's fair to say that England's peaks are higher and their dips shallower. You're not doing badly for a nation where rugby is the 75th most popular sport though

And you're doing fine for a Nation of 53 million

That was our Bronze Generation.....

rather like the Ospreys in their heyday.....

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:
I think it's fair to say that England's peaks are higher and their dips shallower. You're not doing badly for a nation where rugby is the 75th most popular sport though

And you're doing fine for a Nation of 53 million

Thanks

It's a shame China aren't punching their weight. Lazy beggars.

SecretFly wrote:That was our Bronze Generation.....

rather like the Ospreys in their heyday.....

Ireland do remind me quite a bit of Ospreys back in the "Hairsprays" days. Lots of shouting and bluster but never do it on the largest stage. Heaslip would have fitted right in that Ospreys team too. Perfect attitude

...the Largest Stage is just being built over there in Englandervile as we speak.  De future ain't happened yet Cyril.

Wouldn't it be a larrf later on if we were to remember this wordful swordfight when watching ol' He's a Lip lift the Web Ellis.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that, eh? Lord above!

beshocked wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Interestingly Irish players have won half of every 6 nations player of the tournament awards. 6 from 12. Does that mean Ireland produces the best players?

No.

Harinorduquy was robbed IMO in 2010. It was farcical that Bowe won.

Sometimes the best player does not win the player of the tournament. Also it can be very difficult comparing a back to a forward in terms of performance.

Yes true and yeah maybe Bowe was not the best player but he was joint top try scored and did have a pretty good campaign.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:I like the fact that even when England have been in the doldrums they've still been pretty much on a par with the other 6 Nations sides while they were enjoying their 'Golden Years'.

There, I've said it!

On par really? I recall England getting hammered by Ireland a few times in the last ten years. There is no such thing as golden years. Between 2010 and 2013 there was a lot of hype around Ireland's golden generation coming to an end.

Back to back six nations in 2014 and 2015 suggests there was no golden generation but rather a steady growth of talent and rugby infrastructure/governance over the last 20 years in Ireland.  

The only hammering I can recall is the Croke Park game. The only other comfortable victory for Ireland was in 2011 (followed by two comprehensive England victories ) Not forgetting the Cipriani show.

Honours are fairly even between the sides in the 6Ns (though very much in England's favour in recent years). During the 6 Nations era it's largely been England handing out the pastings to Ireland with the majority of Irish wins being close calls.

I'd say Wales did a lot more with their 'Golden Generation' than Ireland have (and we all know what England did with theirs ).

I think it's fair to say that England's peaks are higher and their dips shallower. You're not doing badly for a nation where rugby is the 75th most popular sport though

2011 was a hammering. Thompson's try was a consolation score and made the final 24–8 look mildly respectable for England even if it wasnt at all. Id say Ireland's 10 point win this year was fairly comfortable too albeit not a hammering.

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Interestingly Irish players have won half of every 6 nations player of the tournament awards. 6 from 12. Does that mean Ireland produces the best players?

No.

Harinorduquy was robbed IMO in 2010. It was farcical that Bowe won.

Sometimes the best player does not win the player of the tournament. Also it can be very difficult comparing a back to a forward in terms of performance.

Yes true and yeah maybe Bowe was not the best player but he was joint top try scored and did have a pretty good campaign.

Gunsgerms joint try scorer with 3 other players..... that shows he didn't excel. 3 tries in 5 games is good but not player of the tournament good IMO.

Bowe is a good player and quite clearly had a good tournament but IMO a Frenchman should have won the award that year.

Yeah maybe.

beshocked wrote:Perhaps secretfly but they haven't. England don't employ the best coaches so it's not surprising.

Lancaster is ironically like his England team - consistent, pretty good but not going to be the best in the world any time soon. He does some good things but also some baffling things which cost England opportunities to win silverware like putting flankers on at no 8, FBs on the wing, starting a youngster vs France away for his first cap, taking off his best players, poor bench selections.

Marshes yes you are right - bigger and smaller pools have their advantages but it's a weakness for England because it's tougher to identify who to give the international caps to. Smaller player pool means less depth but means more experience and allows that talent to be nurtured and improve.

I feel like England should be picking a very talented player like Itoje for the England warm up games but because he's English he's not given the opportunity - if he was Welsh or Scottish he would stroll into their 31 squad. They wouldn't squander talent like him. It's a failure of the coaching and the system itself.

As for mentioning England's record vs Ireland - it was because Gunsgerms was puffing out his chest and saying how good Ireland are against England which isn't true.

Ireland deserve to be higher ranked because you've been the better side over the last 2 years in terms of wins against all sides.

Munchkin I guess you could say I am frustated that England aren't better than they are - credit where's credit is due though Ireland have used their advantages well and deserve to be highly ranked and higher than England.

Running a country down is an odd way to give credit. Not sure what advantages we have over England? I would think England are well placed above us in terms of advantage. As for world rugby ranking? Not really fussed about it personally. It has certain entertainment value for me, watching the reaction of various media and other fans, but not much more than that. Well, maybe a smidgen of smugness

Munchkin how am I running a country down?

Advantages that Ireland have:

A superior head coach - Schmidt is far better than Lancaster. Ireland and Schmidt tactically outfought the flat footed Lancaster in Dublin for example.

A smaller more compact player base - big and small player bases both have their advantages. It's how you utilise them which Ireland have done well.

IRFU's greater control -Wrapping key players in cotton wool - limiting their gametime which means they are fresher and less likely to be injured.

Only 4 teams to pick from which means more player familiarity as players are used to playing with each other.

More international experience.

Partnerships have been tried and tested and are far more secure.

Ireland have done well.


England do have strengths but don't utilise their own advantages well.

E.g. poor selection of players and coaches. Running key players into the ground or making their best players play worse. Poor utilising players they have. E.g. making it seem as if no winger can tackle (perhaps they can't but Lancaster has made it worse) or that no hooker can throw properly.

It's funny when a winger like Ashton can tear through Irish opposition in the ERCC but when picked by Lancaster he becomes ineffective.

England have a lot of improving they can do.

A smidgen of Smugness
Is just enough,
To give your kids a treat.

A smidgen of Smugness
Is just enough,
Until it's time to eat.

It's full of smarmy goodness,
And sarcasm and conceit.

A smidgen of Smugness
Works perfect until
Your team wot does get beat!

beshocked wrote:Munchkin how am I running a country down?

Advantages that Ireland have:

A superior head coach - Schmidt is far better than Lancaster. Ireland and Schmidt tactically outfought the flat footed Lancaster in Dublin for example.

A smaller more compact player base - big and small player bases both have their advantages. It's how you utilise them which Ireland have done well.

IRFU's greater control -Wrapping key players in cotton wool - limiting their gametime which means they are fresher and less likely to be injured.

Only 4 teams to pick from which means more player familiarity as players are used to playing with each other.

More international experience.

Partnerships have been tried and tested and are far more secure.

Ireland have done well.

All true points except for the cotton wool point. We've had a terrible injury record for a number of seasons now.

(1)

beshocked wrote:Munchkin how am I running a country down?

Advantages that Ireland have:

(2) A superior head coach - Schmidt is far better than Lancaster. Ireland and Schmidt tactically outfought the flat footed Lancaster in Dublin for example.

(3) A smaller more compact player base - big and small player bases both have their advantages. It's how you utilise them which Ireland have done well.

(4) IRFU's greater control -Wrapping key players in cotton wool - limiting their gametime which means they are fresher and less likely to be injured.

(5) Only 4 teams to pick from which means more player familiarity as players are used to playing with each other.

(6) More international experience.

(7) Partnerships have been tried and tested and are far more secure.

(8) Ireland have done well.


England do have strengths but don't utilise their own advantages well.

E.g. poor selection of players and coaches. Running key players into the ground or making their best players play worse. Poor utilising players they have. E.g. making it seem as if no winger can tackle (perhaps they can't but Lancaster has made it worse) or that no hooker can throw properly.

(9) It's funny when a winger like Ashton can tear through Irish opposition in the ERCC but when picked by Lancaster he becomes ineffective.

England have a lot of improving they can do.

(1) I would say your comment, "You play those sports but it's not as if you're actually very good except at golf", is more running a country down than it is giving a country credit.

(2) Well it's one game each for Schmidt and Lancaster. Ireland beat England this 6N's, but then Ireland lost to Wales who lost to England on their home turf. So is Lancaster a better coach than Gatland and Gatland a better coach than Schmidt? Under Lancaster England managed to beat the All Blacks. Ireland failed. Fans are fickle. Had England beat France in their last game the fans would more than likely be praising him. Should England beat Ireland in a weeks time the media will probably be hailing him the man to lead England to RWC glory. He might be....
Is Schmidt a better coach than Lancaster? I think he is, but not by as much as is being suggested. Schmidt isn't winning games on his own though. The players deserve as much credit. We have a good, if limited in size, pool to pick from with a few world class players.

(3) So you think a smaller player base is the way to go? I can't believe you're citing that as an advantage to Ireland. If we lose a couple of key players, such as Ross, Murray or Sexton, we could really struggle.

(4) So as a Sarries fan are you saying that you want the RFU to have more control of your players? You can't have it both ways, beshocked.
The 'wrapping up in cotton wool' claim is a bit of a myth. The points have been well argued on these forums.

(5) Again you're citing the smaller pool of players to choose from as an advantage, although I do take your point on familiarity. Actually, I'm not convinced by the argument on familiarity. POC and Toner? Murray and Sexton? Payne and Hendshaw? Nope, not convinced.

(6) Having more international experience isn't an advantage Ireland have over England. England could equally field a team packed with international experience.

(7) You're repeating yourself really (see '5'). Those partnerships are tried and tested at international level.

(8) Yes, Ireland have done well, but we do need to progress beyond the QF stage of the RWC and that is far from guaranteed.

(9) It would be funny if it were true

SecretFly wrote:A smidgen of Smugness
Is just enough,
To give your kids a treat.

A smidgen of Smugness
Is just enough,
Until it's time to eat.

It's full of smarmy goodness,
And sarcasm and conceit.

A smidgen of Smugness
Works perfect until
Your team wot does get beat!

A witty ditty from the fabulous Fly, and correct in its caution

That's one of the reasons I don't pay much heed to the world rankings. The wheels could fall of rather quickly by the end of the RWC.

It's true that in previous eras Ireland have leaned a lot on provincial combinations that knew each others game inside out, like in the glory days of the Munster Tight 5 and the Leinster centres. But pretty much every single unit in the last two Six Nations has been made up of a combination of players from different teams with just one major exception. Seriously, go look at the teams. Leinsters D'Arcy and BOD played together in the centres for 4 games in 2014 but other than that we've really mixed.

1) Fair point. I am sorry you're right. That was uncalled for.

2) We are looking at now. Things change but as of now Schmidt and Ireland are leading the way for the NH sides. Perhaps optimism might go up if England win their final warm up game vs Ireland.

3) Not saying it's necessarily the way to go but it can be an advantage if utilised properly.

4) No I didn't say that. I said it's an advantage that the Irish side have, doesn't necessarily mean it should be replicated in England.

5) So you're saying that Murray and Sexton haven't played much together? It's still familiarity. Also O Brien and Heaslip have never played together?

6) Well they won't - Ashton isn't picked, Hartley and Manu are banned etc

7) I say this as a direct contrast to England.

8) I agree.

9) Which bit do you disagree with?

Ashton has scored 3 tries in two matches vs Ulster, 2 vs Munster in their last encounter. Think 3 tries in two games vs Connacht.

That's 8 tries in 5 games.

(1) No worries, beshocked. Heat of the moment and all that

(2) It's the fans/media reaction to the now that I was getting at. We as fans can be a fickle lot with attitudes changing on the result of one game. My own point of view is that these are warm up games, and I wouldn't read too much into the results. So close to the RWC, coaches are not going to want to reveal certain strengths/game plans.
As much as I still want Ireland to beat Wales and England, I still wouldn't view a loss as a real indicator of where we are come the world cup.

(3) I can't see how it can be an advantage. Surely if Ireland were to have a larger player base than England it would be to our advantage? Whatever way you look at it, Ireland have no choice in the matter. England do, and so not an advantage to Ireland.

(4) I know you didn't say it. I was just pointing out the pros and cons. If it were true that Ireland wrap their players in cotton wool then the downside is that the Provinces miss out. In turn, if Ireland wrapping players in cotton wool adversely effects the Provinces, doing so will also have an adverse effect on the IRFU. We are a different model to that of the RFU, and have to work with what we have. We don't have the luxury of choice because we have limited resources when compared to England.

(5) It is a familiarity but one gained from their time together at international level. Not, as you were claiming, an advantage gained from their time together at Provincial level.

(6) Ashton not being picked is neither here nor there. It is the fact that England could choose these more experienced players that matters, as far as this argument goes.

(7) But then the likes of Payne and Henshaw are new partnerships for Ireland. As Notch points out, BOD and Darcy had been a permanent fixture for Ireland up until a couple of seasons ago, but that only worked as long as both were an good paring. There's a strong argument that new players should have been blooded at centre long before Marshall was introduced at 12. A counter to that is that we don't have a big enough player base to pick from...

(8) At least we agree on something!

(9) It was a bit tongue in cheek, beshocked, although Ashton tearing through an Ulster defence is a bit OTT. He is a great pantomime villain though

In summary: What you perceive to be Ireland's advantages are in reality good decisions made, or forced, within our limitations (limitation of choice due to a much smaller player base). These are not advantages that Ireland have over England, certainly not unfair advantages, as England have the luxury of making those same decisions as Ireland, for the most part, should they so wish.

Current Rank

Rank Change Team Points
1 Steady New Zealand 92.89
2 Steady Australia 86.67
3 Increase1 South Africa 85.15
4 Increase2 England 85.04
5 Steady Wales 84.63
6 Decrease2 Ireland 84.40
7 Steady France 81.12
8 Steady Argentina 78.39
9 Steady Fiji 77.04
10 Steady Scotland 75.88
11 Steady Tonga 75.69
12 Steady Samoa 75.14
13 Increase1 Japan 72.06
14 Increase1 Italy 70.53
15 Increase1 United States 70.36
16 Decrease3 Georgia 69.36
17 Steady Romania 66.28
18 Steady Canada 65.17
19 Steady Uruguay 62.11
20 Steady Namibia 61.85

how does Japan's win rock the rankings?

1. Japan (by popular Twitter demand....for a week anyway)
2. New Zealand
3. Australia

You see??? The Rankings never lie.

I think Japan will gain 4 points, and go to 10th above Scotland. South Africa drop to 7th. Although they mean nothing during the World Cup as it all changes too quickly.

Rankings out
1 New Zealand 92.89
2 Australia 86.67
3 England 85.04
4 Wales 84.63
5 Ireland 84.44
6 South Africa 81.15
7 France 81.12
8 Argentina 78.39
9 Fiji 77.14
10 Samoa 76.18
11 Japan 76.06
12 Scotland 75.88
13 Georgia 72.62
14 Tonga 72.43
15 Italy 70.53
16 USA 69.32
17 Romania 66.28
18 Uruguay 62.11
19 Namibia 61.85
20 Spain 61.54

Apologies for not submitting last week. Domestics got in the way.

New OP.

Wales up to their highest ever ranking of second

wales606 wrote:Wales up to their highest ever ranking of second

Nice. Does that mean they will beat Australia?

GunsGerms wrote:

wales606 wrote:Wales up to their highest ever ranking of second

Nice. Does that mean they will beat Australia?

Definitely

Haha. According to the NZ Herald Scotland and Argentina are better than Wales, SA and England. They also reckon Ireland are the 2nd best team in the world and not Wales.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11520527

GunsGerms wrote:Haha. According to the NZ Herald Scotland and Argentina are better than Wales, SA and England. They also reckon Ireland are the 2nd best team in the world and not Wales.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11520527

Hardly a surprise given that the NZ Herald is owned by Independent News & Media. That rag is basically an Irish mouthpiece when it wants to be 

GunsGerms wrote:Haha. According to the NZ Herald Scotland and Argentina are better than Wales, SA and England. They also reckon Ireland are the 2nd best team in the world and not Wales.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11520527

What a load of rollocks...

Scotland above Wales and England.. of course, they beat Japan.. Not really had anything else to show.. and as for Ireland. They have been slipping since the warm-up game in Dublin. Don't get me wrong, I think Ireland are a good side, but they aren't showing any form that made them 6 Nation champions and unless they step up a gear are likely to go out in the quarters.

As for England, and this isn't easy for me to say being Welsh.. But I feel for them. One of the "big" 3 was going out, it could have easily been Wales or Australia, its just unlucky it was the hosts.

And for Wales... Surely, the comments this ar$e of a journo made, justify Wales a higher position than he gave them. 3 tough opponents, not 1 as per other pools, and an injury list that would give storylines for Casualty for months.. To get through that, justifies a top 5 spot in the rankings. I will admit though, ranked no 2 does seem pretty high, as we have beaten 1 top 10 side below us and 1 above so far. Now if we beat the Wallabies as well, then maybe the ranking of 2nd isn't that far out.

You're back to 3.

But to get back to this line:
"As for England, and this isn't easy for me to say being Welsh.. But I feel for them. One of the "big" 3 was going out, it could have easily been Wales or Australia, its just unlucky it was the hosts."

Why didn't yis just let them win then? I mean, you almost let them win and then changed your minds. Cruel.

Thanks Fly.. thought Aus would have overtaken us after the weekend (how England did by losing I don't know), but I forgot to check.. As it happens, was on this thread to check but got side-lined by that stupid article and then forgot..

Still 4th is unbelievable, but if we beat Aus on Sat, then back to second is probably just..

As for letting England beat us.. C'mon, we gave the 3 injuries plus a 65 min head start... I think that was more than fair of us

New rankings out:

Rank Change* Team Points
1 New Zealand 92.89
2 Australia 90.93
3 Ireland 85.74
4 Wales 85.71
5 South Africa 84.58
6 Argentina 80.49
7 France 79.77
8 England 79.77
9 Scotland 77.94
10 Japan 77.05
11 Fiji 76.96
12 Italy 72.74
13 Tonga 71.60
14 Georgia 71.45
15 Samoa 70.36
16 United States 68.66
17 Romania 66.59
18 Canada 62.65
19 Uruguay 62.11
20 Namibia 61.75

NZ vs France

NZ (on 92.89 points) at a Neutral venue -vs- Fra (on 79.77 points) in a RWC match.
If NZ win by 1-15 points 0.000 92.89 79.77 No
If NZ win by more than 15 0.000 92.89 79.77 No
If result is a draw 2.000 90.89 81.77 No
If Fra win by 1-15 points 4.000 88.89 83.77 No
If Fra win by more than 15 6.000 86.89 85.77 No

Ire (on 85.74 points) at a Neutral venue -vs- Arg (on 80.49 points) in a RWC match.
If Ire win by 1-15 points 0.950 86.69 79.54 No
If Ire win by more than 15 1.425 87.16 79.06 No
If result is a draw 1.050 84.69 81.54 No
If Arg win by 1-15 points 3.050 82.69 83.54 Yes
If Arg win by more than 15 4.575 81.16 85.06 Yes

SA v Wal

SA (on 84.58 points) at a Neutral venue -vs- Wal (on 85.71 points) in a RWC match.
If SA win by 1-15 points 2.226 86.81 83.48 Yes
If SA win by more than 15 3.339 87.92 82.37 Yes
If result is a draw 0.226 84.81 85.48 No
If Wal win by 1-15 points 1.774 82.81 87.48 No
If Wal win by more than 15 2.661 81.92 88.37 No

Aus v Sco
Aus (on 90.93 points) at a Neutral venue -vs- Sco (on 77.94 points) in a RWC match.
If Aus win by 1-15 points 0.000 90.93 77.94 No
If Aus win by more than 15 0.000 90.93 77.94 No
If result is a draw 2.000 88.93 79.94 No
If Sco win by 1-15 points 4.000 86.93 81.94 No
If Sco win by more than 15 6.000 84.93 83.94 No

Some thoughts Japans victory over South Africa is the biggest upset, in terms of ranking points difference, since the system was instituted. If France beat NZ they will overtake Japan as the tournaments greatest upset...

NZ should stay No 1, but could drop as low as No 4. It is possible that Australia, South Africa, Wales or Ireland could actually end up the no 1 ranked side after next weekend. The best England can hope for is to move into 7th= if France get thrashed...

I think the rankings after today are:

Rank Team After QF1
1 New Zealand 92.89
2 Australia 90.93
5 South Africa 86.81
3 Ireland 85.74
4 Wales 83.48
6 Argentina 80.49
7 France 79.77
8 England 79.77
9 Scotland 77.94
10 Japan 77.05

Ah... so you are back to first again, mate?

The Loaded Dog wrote:Ah... so you are back to first again, mate?

Something like that. Rules around world cup means that whoever wins the shebang will probably be no 1.

Actually feel sorry for England...

86. Faroe Is
87. Estonia
88. Saudi Arabia
89. Mauritania
90. Honduras
91. Armenia
92. Antarctica
93. Galapagos Is.
94. Mordor
95. Narnia
96. England
97. Winterfell
98. Oompa Loompa Land
99. Zamunda