IRB world rankings.

Having just found these on the world cup website. I can't argue with most of the list, England should possibly be above Ireland, but they did lose to Ire so that is fair enough.

The thing I really can't understand is why are Argentina ranked above Scotland. Scotland won both tests in a two test series there last summer, and when was the last time Arg beat Aus and SA? To me Arg should definitely be below Scotland in the rankings, even if it was a disastorous 6N for Sco.

Anyone agree?

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 93.19
2(2) AUSTRALIA 87.45
3(3) SOUTH AFRICA 86.44
4(4) IRELAND 82.51
5(5) ENGLAND 82.48
6(6) FRANCE 82.06
7(7) WALES 79.55
8(8) ARGENTINA 78.97
9(9) SCOTLAND 77.35
10(10)FIJI 74.05

Argentina have beaten France not too long ago, otherwise they're artificially high on the boards due to RWC results being double points (and they had a good 2007) and a paucity of matches played since.

paucity of matches played since

Kiwi - using the word paucity on a Rugby board -brave man

Agree though, is due to the extra points in the World cup, and also the fact that Argentina do not play many matches, so they rarely lose any

Is artifically high, and unless they have a good World cup this year, they will drop a lot.

The thing is they finished third in the world cup last time around and world cup wins count for double in terms of ranking points. Added to that, they don't really play anybody since they don't have a tri nations or 6 nations championship so they remain quite stationary in terms of their position on the ranking. I can understand your dismay being a Scotland supporter but you'll be able to right the perceived wrongs in the world cup if you finish above Argentina.

I don't particularly have any issues with the rankings as they are. Ireland, England and France are so close and you'd think home advantage would usually decide the tie. Oddly though it always seems Ireland beat England, France beat Ireland and England beat France regardless of home advantage. The one nation that could feel hard done by is Italy. They have just beaten France and they're nowhere to be seen (I assume they're 11th?). I mean Fiji are three ranking points behind Scotland and Italy aren't that far behind Scotland, never mind Fiji. It seems quite harsh.

All in all the rankings mean very little though. I just mentioned Italy beat France which shows anything can happen on any given day. The one issue I have with the rankings is the world cup groups. I'm not too fussed with the group Ireland drew but why are Argentina first seeds in their group now? Yes they finished third last time but it seems illogical that they should be first seeds for a competition in 2011 when they haven't performed to the 2007 standards since 2007. The world cup groups should be drawn a year in advance at most, not three as happened this time.

Not sure Scotland are much better than Argentina. All will be revealed in the WC. Very tough group.

leinsterbaby wrote:Not sure Scotland are much better than Argentina. All will be revealed in the WC. Very tough group.

we did beat them twice in the summer

Italy are twelfth behind Samoa, I think you are right mr superclear, they had a very good result against France and should be rewarded.

leinsterbaby wrote:Not sure Scotland are much better than Argentina. All will be revealed in the WC. Very tough group.

Agreed, defo would not claim that they are "much better". Beating them in Argentina last summer was significant, but they were without a short handful of superstars, altho some of them may not make the RWC due to injury anyhow. Will be an extremely tough (and attritional) game

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:Not sure Scotland are much better than Argentina. All will be revealed in the WC. Very tough group.

Agreed, defo would not claim that they are "much better". Beating them in Argentina last summer was significant, but they were without a short handful of superstars, altho some of them may not make the RWC due to injury anyhow. Will be an extremely tough (and attritional) game

Yeah the summer wins were a great achievement but I'd be wary of Argentina, Ireland never really struggle to beat them between world cups but have found them a lot tougher at the WC where they are generally a different animal.

The rankings are based on a formulaic exchange of points - effectively you take points from a team you beat based on relative ranking points and home advantage. As with any of these things, it isn't perfect, but saying one team should be ranked higher than another is definitely not an improvement: it's so subjective! At the end of the day when your team wins you are pleased they win. Very few (if any) will head straight for their calculators to see what it does to the rankings.

Out side of the world cup they also miss a few of their players.

Will be tough, but if we play the way we can, we should win it. Trouble is we do not always play the way we can!

Cheers cat bit complicated but well explained

Here's the link to the IRB's explanation Scotland.

http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html

Quite frankly this is one of the most obtuse and poorly explained explanations imaginable. Their example is ok, but badly worded until the end when it becomes useless. They say to look at the tables, but they give no explanation how they arise and are so small as to be useless.

Thanks again Cat

No problem.

Not a fan of the rankings at all, and their only real use, World Cup seedings (in which they do a better job than simply relying on the last WC performance), was messed-up by taking seedings ridiculously far in advance of drawing the groups.

As regards Scotland being better than Argentina, I'd say they are two extremely evenly matched sides. Our last half dozen matches against eachother tend pretty much to the conclusion that joint 8th would probably be a fairer outcome.

In terms of the other sides, probably fair.

While Italy were emmense when they beat France, they still lost their other 6N matches. Any side that loses more than it wins over the course of a season (Autumn Ints, 6N & summer tours) cannot expect to climb any ranking system. While the double points for RWC wins distorts the picture a little, it does reward consistancy in the premier Rugby competition. One off wins are jut that, one off.

I reckon just do a if you beat them then you go over them kind of table. So Aus beat NZ in HK so they moved up to 1 then etc. Ugly and not quite fair. A bit like what we have now but easier to understand

The IRB ratings give a better idea over a period,if you win consistently you stay high.Who you beat,home advantage,when in RWCs[points count double].
It is a better indicator of the side than a RWC position,since 2003 post RWC.NZ have topped the log ,after briefly sharing with England 2004,to SA post 2007 RWC,and again for a short period in 2009.NZ have 6 losses since 2003 for an 85% win rate no matter who claimed they were World Champions.
IRB number one is THE best.

No one really paid attention to rankings for the first 100 or so years of international rugby - why start now, theres no title no trophies, no need for a table to determine the top nation at the moment.

Tri nations mayh alter the rankings but this years comp is likely to be a bit of a dud with the coaches shadow boxing a little before the big bout.

"IRB number one is THE best" ok but it will mean diddly squat come september.

The reall trick to reading the rankings is to look at the points difference. England France and Ireland iare pretty much level, which is about right despite Ireland having spanked England in a one off home game ( at home they get aa + 3 in the prediction model)

Scotland had a short period of good results including taking Argentina at home. Since then its been back to business as usual, pretty mediocre. Argentina's rating is lagging a bit still based on their best ever set osf players producing to teh top of their optential, theres no question they rent the same side that got averanked at 4th after the last world cup. Since then they have slid downwards.

We'll find out in a few months who should be ranked higher of Scotland and Argentina when they meet with the best prepared sides they can put out in a neutral venue.
Thats why world cup points count double.
Its a close call for me, despite scotland having turned them over a year ago ( to everyones suprise). Great tie. Either could beat England too.

MR. scotland27 wrote:Italy are twelfth behind Samoa... they had a very good result against France and should be rewarded.

And they would have been 'rewarded' in the rankings if they hadn't already been hammered at Twickenham.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

MR. scotland27 wrote:Italy are twelfth behind Samoa... they had a very good result against France and should be rewarded.

And they would have been 'rewarded' in the rankings if they hadn't already been hammered at Twickenham.

The rankings are designed to avoid one stupid result skewing them too much.

Should France have been ranked number one after beating NZ away? No.
Italy havent really gone forwards in the last few years, they are still also rans who can pick up the occassional win in the 6 nations. ( oh hio scotland). Fiji and Samoa reguallry trouble the 6 nations giants, well Wales anyway

The ranking certainly arent perfect but I dont think anyone can really argue with the top 3. Below that a good world cup run would propel any of the teams up the board.

As a bit of fun, I like The Raeburn Shield as a very unscientific way of seeing who is top dog:

http://www.raeburnshield.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=40

If you take the top 12 out of their groups and rearrange em according to current rankings groups become


Canada
Japan
New Zealand
Wales
Tonga

Georgia
Romania
Ireland
France
Scotland

Russia
United States
South Africa
Argentina
Italy

Samoa
Namibia
Fiji
England
Austrlia

Might be wrong!

IRB ratings did`nt mater for over 100years?it did to best Two sides in the World.All Blacks and Boks that was the defacto World title Pre 1987.After 1956 when the All Blacks won the tiitle it went with the home side.It was`nt just Rugby in1956 it was WAR,a battle of attrition from the first game vWaikato.
Monster packs,solid packs.kicking half backs and the BOOT.