How can this be?

[th][/th][th][/th]

New Zealand	15
Wales	10
South Africa	9
Ireland	8
Australia	7
France	6
Scotland	5
England	4
Argentina I will make my point in a minute. But would anyone first care to try to identify this ranking?	1

The sum total of the decimalised date of births of the team captain, added to his star sign, rooted, added to a pineapple then integrated via a flying pig.

A minutes up.

GloriousEmpire wrote:[th][/th][th][/th]

New Zealand	15
Wales	10
South Africa	9
Ireland	8
Australia	7
France	6
Scotland	5
England	4
Argentina I will make my point in a minute. But would anyone first care to try to identify this ranking?	1

Is it some sort of collective golf tournament, with England sitting pretty in second place at 1 over par?

Hood83 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:[th][/th][th][/th]

New Zealand	15
Wales	10
South Africa	9
Ireland	8
Australia	7
France	6
Scotland	5
England	4
Argentina I will make my point in a minute. But would anyone first care to try to identify this ranking?	1

Is it some sort of collective golf tournament, with England sitting pretty in second place at 1 over par?

Sorry, four over, the excellent driving and short-game of Argentina has obviously left then on 1 over.

I thought I'd cheat (I was a no 7). So I loaded the chart into the search engine, pushed go.

It came back with ;
"how can this be?....the V2 forum..

Give up?

Is it the number of players in the playing squad descended from heaven?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Give up?

I'll give you three guesses

Yellow cards that should have been given but weren't?  

Good call Asbo, perhaps its red cards that were but shouldnt.

Has it got something to do with the tier one countries?

Come on GE, put me out of my misery.

All I can see is that the OP doesn't know how to format his code properly.

Is it actual amount of people born in their country who were representing the said country ?

is it a most handsome players chart

Is it a chart showing how often a team bleats about the referee when they lose?

 

BamBam wrote:Is it a chart showing how often a team bleats about the referee when they lose?

 

Doubt the ABs have lost that many times. Maybe it's about general bleating.

It is an IPE chart



Induced Premature Ejaculation

Galted wrote:

BamBam wrote:Is it a chart showing how often a team bleats about the referee when they lose?

 

Doubt the ABs have lost that many times.  Maybe it's about general bleating.

It'd have to some sort of inverse relationship as it's upside down. May comments from the coach without bleating/bleating by the coach. That might work.

Ok it's the number of inductees to the International rugby hall of fame per country.

Sorry about the formatting issue. Trying to post via iPhone and the wysiwyg tool drives me nuts.

My feeling is this is a proxy for the number of world class players as identified by the games glorious suited ones produced by each country.

To me the fact that the rankings and skew do not match the team rankings and historical prevalence of success indicates one of two things:

A) the selections are unrepresentative, biased or wrong
B) team is more important than individual in assuring long term success

Can't help but notice England's glaring under representation. The lack of players from 2nd tier nations and perhaps a flattery of New Zealanders and welsh players comparatively.


Thoughts?

c) Everyone really does seem to hate the English.... 

Actually probably not unrealistic...

Im surprised Irelands is so high mind.

Ps is there a list of who they all are?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Actually probably not unrealistic...

Im surprised Irelands is so high mind.

You wouldnt be so surprised when you see who the Irish players are though. I actually guessed what it was but sadly OP had given the answer already.

http://www.irb.com/history/halloffame/inductees/index.html

Would seem that the chart is inaccurate. Fiji and Samoa have inductees, and Argentina have at least 2.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Actually probably not unrealistic...

Im surprised Irelands is so high mind.

Maybe but we have a history of producing some great individual players  - Willie John, Mike Gibson, Syd Millar, Keith Wood, Jack Kyle - even if generally the teams have been mediocre .... a lot of guys have made their name on the Lions I suppose.

An interesting point of discussion though would be that have individual legacies suffered in the countries with greater depth and competition for places? For example when you look at the number of individuals who've won +100 caps for Ireland it does seem disproportionate.

At least half the inductees are there for non-playing reasons.

Coaches, administrators - hell even an entire school.

Ireland has 1 less then SA. In other words... not a great indictor on success. A little euro-centric perhaps... esp given for near a century the boks were the dominant side in rugby.... they had the best test record in the 20th century.

Its about players not teams accepted but its the same when people state best of all time records....  at best only ever 2-3 boks in there which is a joke.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Ok it's the number of inductees to the IRB hall of fame per country.

Sorry about the formatting issue. Trying to post via iPhone and the wysiwyg tool drives me nuts.

My feeling is this is a proxy for the number of world class players as identified by the games glorious suited ones produced by each country.

To me the fact that the rankings and skew do not match the team rankings and historical prevalence of success indicates one of two things:

A) the selections are unrepresentative, biased or wrong
B) team is more important than individual in assuring long term success

Can't help but notice England's glaring under representation. The lack of players from 2nd tier nations and perhaps a flattery of New Zealanders and welsh players comparatively.


Thoughts?

the representation and selection of any group of individuals that is based on subjective perception is flawed in its own right but cannot be argued with, disagreed with or negated.

It simply is.

Had a look online, dont think Wales have 10. Also England have 5 I think, one of them being Rugby school though.
Id imagine that the figures are 'skewed' because on the IRB website it says inductees need to be players that make outstanding contributions on and OFF the field. So England will possibly get a couple more in about 10-20 years from their team from start of 2000s. If you look at the list its not really about the best players but contribution to the game, so usually will be older people/institutions.

have to agree Biltong. SA have a great rugby tradition, would have thought they'd have more. It seems a bit strange that the home nations would have a combined 25 given their record. Or that England would have less than everyone bar Argentina. Politics?

Rugby is a team sport

I still think the table actually reflects the number of WUM articles posted per nation, per day on this fair site.

Cyril wrote:Rugby is a team sport

I still think the table actually reflects the number of WUM articles posted per nation, per day on this fair site.

Being one of only a handful of Saffers on this site, you are suggesting I submit 9 WUM articles a day?  

blackcanelion wrote:have to agree Biltong. SA have a great rugby tradition, would have thought they'd have more. It seems a bit strange that the home nations would have a combined 25 given their record. Or that England would have less than everyone bar Argentina. Politics?

South Africa have the 2nd most, behind only New Zealand.

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:Rugby is a team sport

I still think the table actually reflects the number of WUM articles posted per nation, per day on this fair site.

Being one of only a handful of Saffers on this site, you are suggesting I submit 9 WUM articles a day?  

The SA number goes up every time you think a bad thought about Bryce

rodders wrote:c) Everyone really does seem to hate the English.... 

Well Grey Ghost, sorry, Glorious Empire does at any rate.

Is the real story here that some countries, like Ireland, tend to produce players who are nice people off the pitch and that some other nations ..... don't?

Pretty much every number on the original chart is wrong - so no point discussing it really.

More than 50% are on the list for administration stuff - so it is not about playing.



However as the entire USA team in the 1920/24 Olympics were inducted that means they have rather a lot.


Mind you the entire Rugby school was inducted.

Just clicked that its the international hall of fame. Set up by a charitable trust in London. It ran until 2007. The IRB Hall of fame is different.

I know. How many of your team could make a world XV at the moment. After NZ the figures don't add up.

The best tour side to play the AB's in Great Britain and Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W69tqSa6bHQ

Yeah? Well, You can prove anything with facts.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yeah? Well, You can prove anything with facts.

shame your table was bereft of accurate facts?

It's copied from the interweb mate. 

Interesting that the international hall of fame and IRB hall of fame both pick just 4 English players though, isnt it?

I wonder what creates this impression?

You claim it is the IRB Hall of Fame you have used, yet you ignore the Fijian, Samoan, Japanese, Chilean, US, Romanian and some of the Argentinian inductees.

What does it all show - gosh whoop NZ are better at rugby than England over the last 120 years. Does not take a sublime intellect to spot that one.

Quite why you feel the need to point this out, every single day escapes me.

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:Rugby is a team sport

I still think the table actually reflects the number of WUM articles posted per nation, per day on this fair site.

Being one of only a handful of Saffers on this site, you are suggesting I submit 9 WUM articles a day?  

The SA number goes up every time you think a bad thought about Bryce

Don't know any Bryce's.  

Presumably John Smit be inducted into the hall of fame next followed by McCaw. It seems all WC winning captains are there.

fa0019 wrote:Ireland has 1 less then SA. In other words... not a great indictor on success. A little euro-centric perhaps... esp given for near a century the boks were the dominant side in rugby.... they had the best test record in the 20th century.

Not true exactly Fa, the Irish inductees are mostly there because of what they achieved on Lions tours. McBride for example sucessfully captaining the Lions to a series win v SA.

GloriousEmpire wrote:[th][/th][th][/th]

New Zealand	15
Wales	10
South Africa	9
Ireland	8
Australia	7
France	6
Scotland	5
England	4
Argentina I will make my point in a minute. But would anyone first care to try to identify this ranking?	1

1. Daily consumption of alcohol units per young person between ages 12 to 16?

2. According to the Dail Mail what percentage of their domestic population try to move/emigrate/study in London.

3. Percentage of single mothers there are per 1000 of populations.

4. Out of 100 people interviewed how many thought Gatland was wrong to drop BOD?

5. Number of people convicted per day for violating livestock in a sexual manner.... Baaaaaaaaaa.