England Topple Australia

Stuart Lancaster will be the benefactor of plaudits for engineering England into third position in the IRB rankings even before the AIs kick off.

Benefiting from Argentinas inaugural rugby championship victory and a succession of thumping at the hands of South Africa and New Zealand, England have reclaimed third spot.

Victories over NZ and South Africa will lift England to second spot before the World Cup opens.

Well done to Stu and the boys.

Aside from when it determines tiering for RWC group determination, does anyone really care about IRB rankings?

I do. Not so much #2 till #500, but claiming to be the #1 team in world rugby is a big deal surely?

rankings are important. Its weighted to your performance in relation to your peers.

Quite interesting how it is used officially mind.... France who got a tier 1 seeding in the RWC are currently in 7th position.

Rankings mean squat.

It was a novelty idea brought in at a time when England were world champions.

As for how rankings are calculated it makes a mockery of a system that ignores conditions, injuries, not playing the same opponents etc.

Biltong wrote:Rankings mean squat.

It was a novelty idea brought in at a time when England were world champions.

As for how rankings are calculated it makes a mockery of a system that ignores conditions, injuries, not playing the same opponents etc.

Why is it so bad? Teams should be more than their first XV. South Africa would be able to field 5 teams in test rugby and still be very competitive, NZ, FRA and ENG are the same.

Everyone has injuries, both sides have to face the conditions on the day etc.

The rankings overall figure is built up over a period of time, over which the odd win/loss due to surprising factors should iron out.

Well think about it.

NZ plays a weaker team in monsoon conditions, it affects the way they can play and wins by only a handful of points, if they played them in dry conditions they are likely to win by more than 15 points.

Therefor the ranking gain would differ due to conditions.

Argentina does not have their first choice players available in June, so their ranking topple every june, how is that credible?

We don't play the same opponents from one year to the next, so NZ may play a poor England team and Australia might play a better England team the next year, how is that credible?

Biltong wrote:Rankings mean squat.

It was a novelty idea brought in at a time when England were world champions.

As for how rankings are calculated it makes a mockery of a system that ignores conditions, injuries, not playing the same opponents etc.

No, the rankings were introduced before the 2003 World Cup.

The ranking system is a fairly crude tool but there is no way of taking into account conditions, injuries etc in an objective way.

All sports have a ranking system of some kind and I don't think you can argue that the one we have roughly indicates where sides are at present. Don't just look at the order but also the points difference.

Biltong wrote:Well think about it.

NZ plays a weaker team in monsoon conditions, it affects the way they can play and wins by only a handful of points, if they played them in dry conditions they are likely to win by more than 15 points.

Therefor the ranking gain would differ due to conditions.

Argentina does not have their first choice players available in June, so their ranking topple every june, how is that credible?

We don't play the same opponents from one year to the next, so NZ may play a poor England team and Australia might play a better England team the next year, how is that credible?

Its an incentive not to field a weakened team and to maintain standards.

Teams know the weather of their nations, no one is forced to take a game. Organise a rugby match in Newcastle Australia (which has near twice the annual rainfall as London & Edinburgh for instance) then don't be surprised if a monsoon comes your way.

for instance on injuries also

I would say there is very little difference between England, Ireland and Wales if they all played their first XVs.

However, England has quite an advantage come the rankings and for me this is because England are able to deal with injuries easier as they have greater strength in depth (perhaps because they have far greater a number of players to choose form). Their bench is also a lot stronger.
Strength in depth is important part of modern day rugby... very seldom can a coach field a full strength side for more than the odd game. A test rugby season may use 30+ players these days.

I'm sure in 1995 England used 15 players only for the 5Ns tournament. That would be unheard of today.

I like the idea of ranking points as every test is important IMO. But Bilt is right there are far too many variables to take it seriously. If SA had beaten NZ in Wellington by 15 points they'd have gotten the No 1 ranking. Which is ridiculous (all due respect to SA).

We all have a gauge of the best teams in order and they'd show some similarities I'm sure. But since there isn't that much between the top teams it's still a guessing game. I'm just happy my team's lived up to the title of world champs after the tournament itself regardless of any ranking points on offer.

FA wrote:Its an incentive not to field a weakened team and to maintain standards.

Incentive for those who have a choice, Argentina has little choice in the matter.

Disneychilly wrote:I like the idea of ranking points as every test is important IMO. But Bilt is right there are far too many variables to take it seriously. If SA had beaten NZ in Wellington by 15 points they'd have gotten the No 1 ranking. Which is ridiculous (all due respect to SA).

Exactly, one win out of six and we could have been number 1?

Ridiculous.

I look at head to head and that is all that counts.

"If SA had beaten NZ in Wellington by 15 points they'd have gotten deserved the No 1 ranking"!

Anyhoo England have toppled Aus before and they'll do it again. No bigee.

Why would it have been ridiculous?

Firstly.... When was the last time NZ lost at home by 15? From a quick browse of the data I don't think they EVER have. I saw 3 games where they lost by 14 but, AUS in 78, World XV in 92 and France in 94.

Whatever the injury crisis' NZ have had they have always been able to keep the scoreboard respectable in defeat at home.

Then you would see that SA would have beaten NZ 2-0 in 2014 and since the last world cup would have only lost 6 games (4 to NZ, 2 to AUS) in 34 matches.

Now this isn't the same as NZ losing only 3 games under your scenario yet its not far off and to get severely beaten at home (i.e. +15 points) is a big statement and the achievement should be reflected in ranking points.

Unless a team is well clear anyhow I think it would be difficult to assert with certainity that NZ is better than SA or SA is better than NZ if the ranking points diff is say within say 0.50 points.

From that I would rather say, ok you may be 0.50 points ahead in the rankings but we have a 5-1 record say over the last 3 years. I know which one I would be more proud of.

Rankings are a good indicator, but its not full proof... as are head to heads with individual teams. They all have to be taken combined to assert bragging rights!

FA, I am not going to brag about beating the AB's if it is 4-2 in their favour under Meyer.

Biltong wrote:

FA wrote:Its an incentive not to field a weakened team and to maintain standards.

Incentive for those who have a choice, Argentina has little choice in the matter.

Disneychilly wrote:I like the idea of ranking points as every test is important IMO. But Bilt is right there are far too many variables to take it seriously. If SA had beaten NZ in Wellington by 15 points they'd have gotten the No 1 ranking. Which is ridiculous (all due respect to SA).

Exactly, one win out of six and we could have been number 1?

Ridiculous.

I look at head to head and that is all that counts.

At the moment Argentina is quite a specific case where their players are still in Europe during the June internationals.... yet it also occurs to English and French teams also. They are impacted the same as Argentinians in Europe. They are not alone in this. Until the season is over in Europe, no players are released from their clubs.

Biltong wrote:FA, I am not going to brag about beating the AB's if it is 4-2 in their favour under Meyer.

Exactly why I said SA still probably wouldn't have the bragging rights and that rankings are only a guide with everything else.
2 wins 0 losses in 2014 and a no.1 ranking steal would have given you some mind.

I think you got it slightly wrong anyhow BB.

Disney said had SA beaten NZ in NZ by 15 (when they lost) not the last game.

So that means it would have been 2-4 rather than 1-5 since the last world cup... and also 2-0 in 2014.

fa0019 wrote:I think you got it slightly wrong anyhow BB.

Disney said had SA beaten NZ in NZ by 15 (when they lost) not the last game.

So that means it would have been 2-4 rather than 1-5 since the last world cup... and also 2-0 in 2014.

I understood what he said mate, the point is our record under Meyer against the AB's are embarrassing, winning 2-0 this year isn't going to make up for it. WE would need to at least get to 4-4 before I would consider bragging rights, and even then, it isn't something I do.

there wouldn't be bragging rights from that absolutely. But to beat your opponents home and away in the same season without loss is something to be proud of.

The question is where do we take the cut off. Last game, last year, last decade, pro era, all time???

Ah, but pride is something totally different.

The cut off is for me the current regime under Meyer.

As an example lets take the Boks under PDV
OZ 4/12
NZ 5/11
FRA 1/2
IRE 1/2
SCO 1/2
ENG 2/2
WAL 6/6
ITA 4/4
ARG 1/1

During the period we were ranked 2 and 3 mostly, but when you look at the head to head, we weren't really all that good were we?

The only one which stood out as poor under PDV was their AUS record. The rest were as expected (take away the loss in Murrayfield).

5 wins vs. NZ in 4 years is not something to be ashamed of in anyone's book.

But for a number two ranked team the record vs most tier one countries is poor.

Biltong wrote:But for a number two ranked team the record vs most tier one countries is poor.

Why shouldn't a no.2 team lose to the no.3 or 4 side in the world at some stage?

They lost 1 match to France away and 1 match to Ireland away... and if you recall the boks were on their knees come that tour after the lions series. I recall you and I spoke about it at length at the time on the old site after the cheetahs bullied the sharks in the Currie Cup SF upfront. Those are not bad defeats still.

Scotland yes. Bad defeat.

AUS record... the home games they lost was poor certainly. PDV simply lacked a game plan for AUS. He had 1 way of playing (often effective but Deans was an astute coach).

Rankings can be ignored.

They do remind me of the Churchill quote about democracy. Its the worst form of government there is, except for all the other kinds.

I would rather England win the World Cup than spend any amount of time ranked #1

No question

Silly things happen in knock out competitions. Poisoning, refs and the luck of the draw.

For instance, it's likely the best toe teams will knock the Shiite out of each other in the next rugby World Cup in a semi-final. Whilst the home team may canter to the final without facing anyone ranked higher than themselves in the knock out phase.

Only the rankings are a true reflection of superiority.

Of course Dick.

I prefer Richard to dick thanks, if you don't mind.

I think it suits you.

It's his name though Bilt. Not my fault.

They're funny things, these world rankings. England are now ranked 3rd in the world with fans talking about them possibly beating New Zealand in the AIs. Scotland are ranked 8th in the world, with their IRB rating points below England only slightly more than the number of IRB rating points which England are below New Zealand. But who'll have a bet on Scotland beating England in the 6N?

optimist wrote:They're funny things, these world rankings. England are now ranked 3rd in the world with fans talking about them possibly beating New Zealand in the AIs.  Scotland are ranked 8th in the world, with their IRB rating points below England only slightly more than the number of IRB rating points which England are below New Zealand.  But who'll have a bet on Scotland beating England in the 6N?  

I think that might be linked to the fact that there is a feeling that England are still on the rise. There is (hopefully) more to come from this team.

There should be the same vibe about Scotland, particularly as there has been a regime change, but so far there just isnt.

optimist wrote:They're funny things, these world rankings. England are now ranked 3rd in the world with fans talking about them possibly beating New Zealand in the AIs.  Scotland are ranked 8th in the world, with their IRB rating points below England only slightly more than the number of IRB rating points which England are below New Zealand.  But who'll have a bet on Scotland beating England in the 6N?  

That's where the home 'weighting' comes into play though (where the home side is treated as if they have 3 points more than their current ranking to take the advantage into account). England play both these games at home so its the equivalent of being 3 points closer to NZ and 3 points further away from Scotland (a huge swing of 6 points across both games).

optimist wrote:They're funny things, these world rankings. England are now ranked 3rd in the world with fans talking about them possibly beating New Zealand in the AIs.  Scotland are ranked 8th in the world, with their IRB rating points below England only slightly more than the number of IRB rating points which England are below New Zealand.  But who'll have a bet on Scotland beating England in the 6N?  

The rankin scale is not linear so you can't compare directly the points gap between 1 and 3 and 3 and 5, or assume 90 to 80 is the same as 80 to 70.

Points at the top end are harder to get and easier to lose.

Unless Cotter can turn around a decade long problem of Scotland being unable to score tries, nothing will change. Unfortunately for us.... we are seeing team improvements and better players becoming available but so are everyone else... Ireland, Wales, England and I would say whilst we have moved up a few notches, they have moved up a few notches more.

Richard wrote:

optimist wrote:They're funny things, these world rankings. England are now ranked 3rd in the world with fans talking about them possibly beating New Zealand in the AIs.  Scotland are ranked 8th in the world, with their IRB rating points below England only slightly more than the number of IRB rating points which England are below New Zealand.  But who'll have a bet on Scotland beating England in the 6N?  

The rankin scale is not linear so you can't compare directly the points gap between 1 and 3 and 3 and 5, or assume 90 to 80 is the same as 80 to 70.

Points at the top end are harder to get and easier to lose.

As I said - IRB rankings are funny things

Biltong wrote:Rankings mean squat.

It was a novelty idea brought in at a time when England were world champions.

As for how rankings are calculated it makes a mockery of a system that ignores conditions, injuries, not playing the same opponents etc.

Same opponents ? I think the AIs even out some of this Biltong, although you might reasonably argue that the AIs give the Europeans a home advantage. There again we have to suffer the away 'summer' tours which tend to kill any previous NH momentum in the IRB rankings. (NH seasons btw). The rankings are only of passing interest to me, but the RWC seedings are of sidnificant importance.

PS ENGLAND: well there had to be a way of trying to knock them off the 2003 perch without having to wait 4 years to do it.

Actually the rfu introduced the ranking system via irb petition about 6 months prior to the 2003 rwc after carefully formulating a system that made England world #1.

That bit them on the ass, then.

Much of the oddness of the system can be traced to the axioms fundamental to its initiation.

Richard wrote:Actually the rfu introduced the ranking system about 6 months prior to the 2003 rwc after carefully formulating a system that made England world #1.

That bit them on the ass, then.

Had nothing to do with them having a record at the time of

4 wins in a row vs. SA (inc. home and away)
4 wins in a row vs. AUS (inc. home and away)
2 wins in a row vs. NZ (inc. home and away)

2003 6N champs
2001 6N champs
2000 6N champs

Richard wrote:Actually the rfu introduced the ranking system via irb petition about 6 months prior to the 2003 rwc after carefully formulating a system that made England world #1.

That bit them on the ass, then.

Much of the oddness of the system can be traced to the axioms fundamental to its initiation.

More tin-foil-hat-wearing, conspiracy-theorising twaddle from

This is England's record in the RWC cycle post 1999 up to and including 2003.

Played 4 6N. Won 3.

Played 20 matches vs. NZ, SA, AUS and FRA. Won 17, lost 3.


NZ in the RWC cycle post 2007 up to and including 2011 was thus

Played 4 3N. Won 2.

Played 17 matches vs. SA, AUS, ENG & FRA. Won 12, lost 5.



Which one looks better to you???

The record books show results wins .losses,draws,no factors for sickness,injuries,home advantage,deliberately or politically weakened sides just results.
The IRB ranking system is weighted by points spreads,home advantage,and beating
higher rated sides.It doesn't take into account random factors as is suggested but
is a crude measure of where the sides are relatively speaking.

Winning a RWC doesn't take into account those factors either stats mean nothing,look
at Englands record post 2003 until 2011.How could you predict they`d reach the final
in 2007.

Don`t you just love people using stats selectively to prove points SCW`s record 1997
-2003 was 71% in his best years 2000-2003 93 % losing 5 games in the period.AUS
was the dominant SH side for most of that period.

The All Blacks overall in the same period won 3Ns 1996,1997,1999,2002,2003,Aus
winning 2000,2001,SA 1998,

Post 2003 to date All Blacks have won 3/4ns 2005,6,7,8,10,12,14,SA 2004,2009,Aus2011
for most of the period 2003 -14 NZ have been IRB number 1.

How many 6Ns have England won post 2003,Wales have 3 I think Grand Slams plus maybe
one more.Wales v England head to head is virtually identical.

Usually these are of a cyclical nature as players tend to retire or take a pension post RWC`s
England post 2003 for example.

Nz post 2003 lost a team retiring/overseas in2007 best part of a whole Squad,post 2011
relatively few in comparison.

At the moment most teams at least have some idea of there best teams for 2015 or
should have injuries etc permitting.

RWC`s are practically the only time you will see full strength teams of tier 2 sides in
place.

As to rather win a RWC than be IRB number 1 well you will be as RWC points count
double.Then all you have to do is win most of your matches post Rwc and you stay
there.

Off course no team has done that successfully since 1987 have they?Aus post 1999
being the best.

Nz doesn't count 1987,well the boks would have won that and home ties don`t count
France won it in 2011 but haven't defended it well have they?

fa0019 wrote:Why would it have been ridiculous?

Firstly.... When was the last time NZ lost at home by 15? From a quick browse of the data I don't think they EVER have. I saw 3 games where they lost by 14 but, AUS in 78, World XV in 92 and France in 94.

Whatever the injury crisis' NZ have had they have always been able to keep the scoreboard respectable in defeat at home.

Then you would see that SA would have beaten NZ 2-0 in 2014 and since the last world cup would have only lost 6 games (4 to NZ, 2 to AUS) in 34 matches.

Now this isn't the same as NZ losing only 3 games under your scenario yet its not far off and to get severely beaten at home (i.e. +15 points) is a big statement and the achievement should be reflected in ranking points.

Unless a team is well clear anyhow I think it would be difficult to assert with certainity that NZ is better than SA or SA is better than NZ if the ranking points diff is say within say 0.50 points.

From that I would rather say, ok you may be 0.50 points ahead in the rankings but we have a 5-1 record say over the last 3 years. I know which one I would be more proud of.

Rankings are a good indicator, but its not full proof... as are head to heads with individual teams. They all have to be taken combined to assert bragging rights!

Its ridiculous because they only won one game. NZ undefeated for 22 matches then lose one and the ranking? That's ridciculous. NZ should benefit from its wins in the same way. meaning SA would have to put on a long string of wins to catch. The top ranking should award consistency, not one offs.

Impossible to sat which team is "better".

But.

This recent 22game AB run contains about 1/3 of matches which came down to less than 3 points. Huge testament to AB ability to win nail-biters.

England's 2000-2003 run, especially given the RWC "A" team friendly loss against France, has surely to be considered more dominant, even if less "unbeaten" than the recent ABs.

What? That's crazy man logic. England 2002-2003 run was supplemented with a dozen hastily organised matches against the likes of the East lebanese ladies auxiliary baking committee. They limped to the RWC and then fell apart. NZ have been dominant for nearly four years.

This NZ side is probably the greatest to ever pass a ball, England were good by England's standards but definite also-rans amongst the great teams of history - the Boks, The Ella wallabies, the Welsh of the seventies, all blacks 1987, 2005, 2011...

That's just silly Dick.

I prefer Richard to Dick.

But I defer to your evident preference for Dick.