England break into top 3

First topic message reminder :

Without kicking a ball!


Australia have paid the price for their 47-29 loss to New Zealand in their Rugby Championship opener by falling one place in the latest IRB World Rankings, allowing England to break the southern hemisphere dominance of the top three.

The Wallabies could have climbed to second had they beaten New Zealand in Sydney, but the margin of defeat in Ewen McKenzie's first game in charge sees them fall below England by just over three tenths of a rating point.

With South Africa unable to improve their rating despite overwhelming Argentina 73-13 in Soweto, New Zealand's cushion at the top - a position they have occupied since 16 November 2009 - has grown to 4.52 rating points.

South Africa went into the match sitting eight places and 10.36 rating points above los Pumas, which meant that regardless of the margin of victory it would not have any impact on their rating in second place.

The only other change in the latest IRB World Rankings sees Canada climb one place to 14th - swapping place with Japan - after their 27-9 victory over USA in the first leg of the Rugby World Cup 2015 qualifier to determine the Americas 1 side at England 2015.

Canada now lie just under a point behind Fiji above them going into the second leg in Toronto this weekend, while despite the heavy loss on home soil, the USA Eagles remain 18th and still have a cushion of nearly three points over Russia below.

The IRB World Rankings:

1(1) New Zealand 91.55
2(2) South Africa 87.03
3(4) England 85.76
4(3) Australia 85.41
5(5) France 81.59
6(6) Wales 81.36
7(7) Samoa 80.42
8(8) Ireland 79.58
9(9) Scotland 76.95
10(10) Argentina 76.67
11(11) Tonga 74.77
12 (12) Italy 74.17
13(13) Fiji 73.56
14(15) Canada 72.68
15(15) Japan 71.98
16(16) Georgia 67.66
17(17) Romania 66.18
18(18) USA 64.91
19(19) Russia 61.99
20(20) Spain 60.44

England artificially high because of fluke win over AB

AAArrrggghhh you see this type of comment really feckin annoys me!!!!!

How the Feck was it a fluke win????!!!! Did we play a high tempo, power game. Did we give them a chance to settle. There was only 10 mins at the start of the second half when Read scored when they looked like they could come back but we raised the intensity again.
We beat them fair and square...and i dont want to hear about any feckin Norovirus rubbish. Even McCaw said they were just beaten by a better team on the day.

Englands problem is that we know the level and style we CAN play at...we just havent reproduced it...due to injuries to key players etc.

Lets see how we go with a fully fit squad in the AI's....

GeordieFalcon wrote:

England artificially high because of fluke win over AB

AAArrrggghhh you see this type of comment really feckin annoys me!!!!!

How the Feck was it a fluke win????!!!! Did we play a high tempo, power game. Did we give them a chance to settle. There was only 10 mins at the start of the second half when Read scored when they looked like they could come back but we raised the intensity again.
We beat them fair and square...and i dont want to hear about any feckin Norovirus rubbish. Even McCaw said they were just beaten by a better team on the day.

Englands problem is that we know the level and style we CAN play at...we just havent reproduced it...due to injuries to key players etc.

Lets see how we go with a fully fit squad in the AI's....

Because we (and note I said WE) have not replicated it. We beat them, I've argued in length that I don't think the norovirus had much impact other than in preperation, AND it was looking like a typical AB game before Barritt's try. But it is still a one off and IMO that makes it a fluke.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

England artificially high because of fluke win over AB

AAArrrggghhh you see this type of comment really feckin annoys me!!!!!

How the Feck was it a fluke win????!!!! Did we play a high tempo, power game. Did we give them a chance to settle. There was only 10 mins at the start of the second half when Read scored when they looked like they could come back but we raised the intensity again.
We beat them fair and square...and i dont want to hear about any feckin Norovirus rubbish. Even McCaw said they were just beaten by a better team on the day.

Englands problem is that know the level we CAN play at...we just havent reproduced it...due to injuries to key players etc.

Lets see how we go with a fully fit squad in the AI's....

+1

The win (and the winning margin) may have been surprising but it doesn't mean it was a fluke. England's intensity was something else that day (like Wales v England in the 6 Nations). Neither result was a fluke but both sides need to do it more consistently. NZ perform like this often which is why they are normally the best.

Infrequent/one-off does not equate to fluke.

Thunor, totally disagree that it was looking like a typical NZ game before Barritt's try. England outplayed NZ at the breakdown for long periods before that. Doesn't sound typical to me.

If OZ beat NZ on the weekend, Does England then "fall" out of the top 3?

Or will it just be known as a quicky you know, in and out.

The Saint wrote:At least the Millennium stadium is still THE BEST in the world.

Sort the grass out and we'll consider it.

disneychilly wrote:

The Saint wrote:At least the Millennium stadium is still THE BEST in the world.

Sort the grass out and we'll consider it.

Is it true that it was your favourite stadium up until the end of 2007?