IRB rankings and next week's games

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 92.91
2(2) SOUTH AFRICA 86.94
3(3) AUSTRALIA 86.31
4(4) FRANCE 85.07
5(5) ENGLAND 81.07
6(7) IRELAND 80.22
7(8) WALES 78.95
8(9) SAMOA 78.71
9(6) ARGENTINA 78.71
10(11) ITALY 76.24
11 TONGA
12 SCOTLAND

These are the latest standings from the IRB website. I've tried to work out how these standings are computed but found my brain being frazzled, but according to today's papers the only remaining uncertainty is whether Wales or Argentina end up as no. 8 and get a Tier 2 ranking for the world cup. Today's Irish Times says Wales have to beat Australia or else they will drop to no. 9 and into Tier 3 with Argentina moving up. Don't think anybody would have thought at start of season that Wales would be struggling to stay in top 8.

In that case we would be left with NZ, SA, Oz and France in top tier, England, Ireland, Samoa and Argentina in second tier and Wales, Italy, Tonga and Scotland in third tier. Don't think anybody in Tier 1 or 2 would fancy Wales (or Argentina for that matter) in their group.

Fantastic to see Samoa up there at no. 7 and fully deserved, but it's a sad indication that Scotland are now at no. 12, down 2 places. Still after seeing highlights of their game against Tonga hard to argue

Basically only Wales and Australia can move position - NZ are guaranteed first and England 5th regardless.

I posted the below on another thread earlier

If England beat NZ by 16+ points they will go up to 80.86 points on the rankings, not enough to pass France. If they lose by 16+ they drop to 81.76 points, not enough to drop below Ireland. So they're guaranteed to finish the year in 5th.

A Wales win by 16+ will leave them on 81.10, while a win by 1-15 will given them 80.39. So a win for them will boost them past Ireland into 6th.

Any loss for Wales will drop them below Samoa and Argentina into 9th, and the 3rd tier pot for the RWC draw (Samoa and Arg are both on 78.71, a 1-15 loss drops Wales to 78.39).

Just an addendum, any loss for Australia will drop them to 4th behind France, a 16+ win will push them past SA into second.

The assumption seems to be (when discussing these rankings, tiers and pools) that some sides are the front runners (going for the cup) and other sides are there to put spanners in the works if they can.

And so Brennomac, you suggest that none of the top two tiers would like to have Wales if they get demoted to tier 3.

Yes, - but neither would Wales look forward to facing Argentina and France or SA and Ireland etc. They (Wales) be going to the WC to win it, not to upset the big boys of tier 1 and 2. And with that in mind, they'll be feeling frustrated that New Zealand and Argentina are standing in their way.

Or maybe the point is moreso that Wales wouldn't care who they meet by the time that the real WC comes around as today's tier 3 side (on merit) might be much further up than that on ability by the time the WC comes around.

I wanted Ireland to win all their AI games because naturally I support them and want them to win - I didn't care about the rankings. Tier 1, 2 or 3 means little now. What means most is that you have a quality side ready willing and able by the time the WC starts, and then all tier bets are off if your side is so prepared. If you want to win the WC, you have to believe you can beat the best; and if you can knock one of them out in the pool stages, all the better.

SecretFly wrote:The assumption seems to be (when discussing these rankings, tiers and pools) that some sides are the front runners (going for the cup) and other sides are there to put spanners in the works if they can.

And so Brennomac, you suggest that none of the top two tiers would like to have Wales if they get demoted to tier 3.

Yes, - but neither would Wales look forward to facing Argentina and France or SA and Ireland etc. They (Wales) be going to the WC to win it, not to upset the big boys of tier 1 and 2. And with that in mind, they'll be feeling frustrated that New Zealand and Argentina are standing in their way.

Or maybe the point is moreso that Wales wouldn't care who they meet by the time that the real WC comes around as today's tier 3 side (on merit) might be much further up than that on ability by the time the WC comes around.

I wanted Ireland to win all their AI games because naturally I support them and want them to win - I didn't care about the rankings. Tier 1, 2 or 3 means little now. What means most is that you have a quality side ready willing and able by the time the WC starts, and then all tier bets are off if your side is so prepared. If you want to win the WC, you have to believe you can beat the best; and if you can knock one of them out in the pool stages, all the better.

Well said.

I hope NZ draws whichever of Argentina/Wales winds up in tier 3 - because getting out of a tough pool prepares you better for the knockout phases IMO

It's a bit silly that the seedings are set in stone so long before the actual tournament.

Presumably a draw for Wales would gain them points and keep them in 7th?

If Wales are winning in their game against Australia at half time, Kidney has a contingency plan to drag back Argentina from their holidays to play a quick 40 minute half game against them to knock up our points

Of course, consistency being our strongest point, we'll proceed to lose by a landslide and fall down below Fiji

If Wales are good enough to progress in the 2015 then I don't really see what the fuss is about the RWC/Rankings - If your good enough then your good enough. NZ aside at the moment I see no reason why we can't beat the rest. Too much emphasis here on the RWC and rankings for me.

The biggest difference between Tiers 2 and 3 last time was the sheduling of matches. The lower ranked teams definately got the short end of that with shorter recovery times.

I think there were discussions held after the last RWC to address that inequality but I don't know if a satisfactory agreement was reached.

It'll be interesting to see how Samoa do with better scheduling. Fantastic achievement to get into the top 8.

Crazy that Wales could end up between 9th and 5th. Shows how grouped everything is.

But as Fly says, the rankings on only relevant if you just want to get as far as you can and don't expect to win.

The lower tier should give you a scheduling advantage next world cup. The irony is that if samoa end up ahead of Wales and in the same pool they could once again end up hamstrung by a short turn around between games.

Yeah, I'm not too worried as a welsh fan. Apart from the slight embarrassment of having slipped off so quickly, and the possible short end of the scheduling stick (or not, blackcanelion?), the teams bunched around tier 2 and 3 are all capable of beating each other.

Wales could end up in tier 2 but get NZ (1) and Samoa/Argentina (3) in a group. Or, we could end up as 3 tier qualifiers with France (1) and Ireland (2). Both ways are tough, but personally I would be more worried by the 1st scenario as a welsh fan even though that is when we're 'better' seeds.

Wales dropping like they have in form since last year rugby world cup. Has realy done my 6ns bet for next year.

Every year i have a bet on England and a work friend has a bet on Wales.
Because of how Wales have played in this Ais. she is refusing to have a bet next year now.

Well done Wales. Well done.

She's a mug Maj - What odds you want - I'd be happy to have £50 with you

RubyGuby wrote:If Wales are good enough to progress in the 2015 then I don't really see what the fuss is about the RWC/Rankings - If your good enough then your good enough. NZ aside at the moment I see no reason why we can't beat the rest. Too much emphasis here on the RWC and rankings for me.

Ruby, a good point. But I would expand that to most teams. Thge way NZ are playing now, it would seems that to win the RWC in 2015 that anyone would have to go through the All Blacks. So I agree the exact pool and seeding wouldn't matter so much. Just play who is in front of you, eh?

Yeah, just play what's infront of you. What I'm saying Grey is that from 2-9 anyone of those teams can beat each other - The Blacks may be peaking at the wrong time but they will always be the team to beat - People seem to get too caught up IMO on rankings and the RWC -

If the Pool Allocation Draw was to happen today (26 November), the bands would be as follows:

Band 1: New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, France
Band 2: England, Ireland, Wales, Samoa
Band 3: Argentina, Italy, Tonga, Scotland
Band 4: Oceania 1, Europe 1, Asia 1, Americas 1
Band 5: Africa 1, Europe 2, Americas 2, Repechage winner

Only four automatically qualified teams are in action this weekend. Below is a table of exactly how this weekend's results could affect the automatically qualified teams' ratings points.

England v New Zealand, Twickenham
Current rating: England 81.07; New Zealand 92.91
If home team wins by more than 15 points: Eng 83.90; NZ 90.08
If home team wins by 15 points or less: Eng 82.95; NZ 91.03
If away team wins by 15 points or less: Eng 80.95; NZ 93.03
If away team wins by more than 15 points: Eng 80.90; NZ 93.08
If it's a tie: Eng 81.95; NZ 92.03

Wales v Australia, Cardiff
Current rating: Wales 78.95; Australia 86.31
If home team wins by more than 15 points: Wal 81.11; Aus 84.16
If home team wins by 15 points or less: Wal 80.39; Aus 84.87
If away team wins by 15 points or less: Wal 78.39; Aus 86.87
If away team wins by more than 15 points: Wal 78.11; Aus 87.16
If it's a tie: Wal 79.39; Aus 85.87

Current ranking:
1. (1) New Zealand 92.91
2. (2) South Africa 86.94
3. (3) Australia 86.31
4. (4) France 85.07
5. (5) England 81.07
6. (7) Ireland 80.22
7. (8) Wales 78.95
8. (9) Samoa 78.71
9. (6) Argentina 78.71
10. (11) Italy 76.24
11. (12) Tonga 76.10
12. (10) Scotland 75.83
13(14) FIJI 71.52
14(13) CANADA 71.41
15(15) JAPAN 70.09
16(16) USA 68.32
17(17) GEORGIA 65.83
18(19) SPAIN 63.09
19(18) ROMANIA 62.12
20(20) RUSSIA 61.49