IRB rankings - after last weekend

Below are the latest IRB rankings after last weekend's games - top 6 unchanged, Samoa and Argentina up a notch, Ireland down two places to 9th. Hard to quibble but Ireland's position after the 6N - just lucky the world cup draw has already been made and not being drawn now - otherwise we would be snugly in the 3rd tier.

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 90.08
2(2) SOUTH AFRICA 86.94
3(3) AUSTRALIA 86.87
4(4) ENGLAND 83.72
5(5) WALES 83.36
6(6) FRANCE 81.59
7(8) SAMOA 78.71
8(9) ARGENTINA 78.71
9(7) IRELAND 78.05
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.86
11(11) TONGA 76.10
12(12) ITALY 76.06

Italy are a lot better than their 12th would suggest. Good to see England still at the top table where they deserve to be

France still 6th is the shock for me..... how did they do that trick? I think they were 4th before the 6N.

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Italy are a lot better than their 12th would suggest. Good to see England still at the top table where they deserve to be

Em...third is the cut off point for that one usually, WC

WC has a 4 seater Table - Only problem is that the leg has come off one of the chairs

I was thinking more that the bronze is the last medal on the podium.

A table for three? It's a well known fact that most restaurant tables are square and squares normally have 4 sides and 4 place settings. You need to eat out more fly.

Nz away out front, SA and Aus chasing them. England lead the second tier - of England Wales and France. then a whole gaggle. Nothing much between 7 - 12

I'm more the man of intimacy, WC...table for two is always big enough for me. Moonlight, music, two table legs and a balancing act of Lurve holding up the seesawing food.

Try it - it's messy but delicious

3, 4, 5, in same RWC pool, so one will not make it through to play offs.
One of the curent top 5, one will go out, and a QF place 'guaranteed' to one of the 6 - 10 placed sides.

Fly, are you asking me out on a date?

Does anyone actually think Samoa are a better side than Ireland or Argentina? I know which team I'd rather face.

The rankings system is a heap of nonsense, not that Scotland deserve to be any higher.

get a room, we're discussing rugby here

Well...how else will I get a chance of stealing your 4th place wallet???

Call me a femme fatale...all sweet talk and killer thoughts......

funnyExiledScot wrote:Does anyone actually think Samoa are a better side than Ireland

Yup.

4th place is about all you'll find in my wallet

Can you get rankings as they were at a certain time? I mean could you go back and find data that you could use to create a swingometer graph with???

I've never looked at the Rankings site closely enough to find out. It'd be just interesting to do a graph of how we all went up and down over the last few seasons. I know from just concentrating on ireland that it's pretty seasickening the way we're up and down in deep swells.

Compared to Ireland Wales are genuinely Bi-Polar without medication - 6 Nations slammers and champions with a brutal performance over NZ bashers England and we're in the 3rd tier at the RWC

How the flip can France remain in the same spot despite losing 4 from 5?

What a crock.

The rankings is just that, a ranking system designed by a bunch of guys with Doctor type jackets who believe statistical data depicts whi is better than who.

It doesn't take all factors into calculation, the only position not in despute is NZ.

But then I don't need a ranking system to tell me that.

Saint Andre is an idiot: +2 points to France.
Game against Italy, they weren't really trying: 1.27 points to France
Against Ireland, they should'a won: .82 points to France

You see, Rodders - it's easy when you know the maths.

Shouldn't England be above NZ now ?

gregortree wrote:Shouldn't England be above NZ now ?

I'm saying Nothing

I think Ruby is thinking Kama Sutra rather than Rankings.... blame me for starting it.

The ranking looks about right to me.

NZ slightly ahead of the SA and AUS chasing close behind. England and Wales near identical with England slightly ahead due to Wales previous inconsistency inbetween 6N campaigns.

fa0019 wrote:The ranking looks about right to me.

NZ slightly ahead of the SA and AUS chasing close behind. England and Wales near identical with England slightly ahead due to Wales previous inconsistency inbetween 6N campaigns.

FA, they may look pretty close to reality.

The problem is people attach far too much value to a points differentia to boast superiority over another team.

I look at our recent record vs any team and then decided whether we are better.

Currently NZ and Oz are better than SA.

Simple.

The rankings basically work. I feel what must be the rankings based on performances I see and yeah, the rankings mostly agree. They just work. They're just a barometer.... good for just plotting where you are off and on.

But no team can say we is going to beat you coz we is higher in the rankings. So, nice to look at but impotent in deciding who wins next.

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:The ranking looks about right to me.

NZ slightly ahead of the SA and AUS chasing close behind. England and Wales near identical with England slightly ahead due to Wales previous inconsistency inbetween 6N campaigns.

FA, they may look pretty close to reality.

The problem is people attach far too much value to a points differentia to boast superiority over another team.

I look at our recent record vs any team and then decided whether we are better.

Currently NZ and Oz are better than SA.

Simple.

AUS are better than SA esp given the head to heads between the teams of late.... but AUS have been blighted by injuries and the odd mental result to a lesser side.The boks don't do shock results. Very consistent.

What you say is true though... it adds very little bar the top ranking spot and RWC seedings. I too value head to heads more, often we see the case of A>B, B>C but C>A which confuses ranking matters.

Ruby is a shrink. It's all about sex.... Freud said so.