Going into this RWC

World Rugby Rankings:

1 New Zealand - 92.89
2 Australia - 86.67
3 South Africa - 85.15
4 England - 85.04
5 Wales - 84.63
6 Ireland - 84.40
7 France - 81.12
8 Argentina - 78.39
9 Fiji - 77.04
10 Scotland - 75.88
11 Tonga - 75.69    
12 Samoa - 75.14    
13 Japan - 72.06
14 Italy - 70.53  
15 USA - 70.36      
16 Georgia - 69.36  
17 Romania - 66.28    
18 Canada - 65.17    
19 Uruguay - 62.11
20 Namibia - 61.85

So tier 1 is NZ

Tier 2 is Australia, SA, England, Wales and Ireland

Tier 3 France Argentina and Fiji

Tier 4 Scotland Italy Tonga Samoa USA  Georgia and Japan

Tier 5 Romania Canada Uruguay and Namibia

That would be the largest gap weve had over the second placed country for quite some time.

Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly are these "tiers" decided?

Arbitrarily, I'm pretty sure.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 are fairly clear-cut, after that you might as well bunch them any way you like. To be honest once you get below 8 the rankings aren't really reliable, there simply aren't enough games between the traditional and non-traditional teams to give accurate rankings.

All these teams have played over the summer, three or four games at least and all had ranking points though the games were of varying significance to each nations preparation.

According to some statistician in the paper today NZ have a 47.1% chance of winning.

Less than 50/50.

I'm hanging my hopes on that.

How do they work that out???

The rankings on odds checker website looking at best odds for betting on success at the RWC

New Zealand
England
SA
Aus
Ire
Fra
Wal
Arg
Sco
Sam
Fiji
Tonga
Ita
Jap
Can
Geo
Rom
USA
Ura

Wales, above Fiji? :-p

Only joking. I think France might be a good bet.

I've not seen them this coherent before a tournament for a while. Which perhaps means they will bomb but they have always had the talent.

Scotland at 200:1 might be worth a couple of quid. Possibly. If you like losing your money.

maestegmafia wrote:How do they work that out???

Statistics

TJ wrote:Scotland at 200:1 might be worth a couple of quid.  Possibly.  If you like losing your money.

Well, just for Devil's Advocate's sake, what were the odds on the woman who won the US Tennis Open Saturday?  Probably a zillion to one.  So upsets across a whole tournament can happen.  Rare, no doubts.  But it can happen.

donglewood wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:How do they work that out???

Statistics

You mentioned that before, it's rather a broad title, Statistics. The variables are rather undefinable and rather infinite.

You could Google it. http://www.worldrugby.org/rankings/explanation

Oddschecker looks quite well aligned to the IRB ranking once you factor in that England will have home advantage (worth 3 points in the IRB system) throughout the tournament.

maestegmafia wrote:

donglewood wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:How do they work that out???

Statistics

You mentioned that before, it's rather a broad title, Statistics. The variables are rather undefinable and rather infinite.

Thanks for the link but that explains little about why dingle thinks the kiwis only have a 46% chance of success due to "statistics"...!!

Well, I guess if you take all of the odds and pro rate a percentage to them you could find out.

Scottrf wrote:Well, I guess if you take all of the odds and pro rate a percentage to them you could find out.

Plus and minus likelihood of injuries, reflection and response to pressure, how many refereeing calls are likely to go for and against them, the list goes on and on.

You can calculate the stat probability of a chance of winning but it would take a while.

Before the sarcasm, I was interested to know what the foundations of this calculation were..

Have the Kiwi's secretly and covertly transported some of England's old friends over in the cargo hold to sow the seeds of doubt in England's minds?

Will the Dwarves walk in just when the English boys are having some down time in a local pub having made it through to the quarters?

What the stats on the likelihood of that happening!?  Or what's the odds on the Kiwi's miraculously and mysteriously catching norovirus once more?  Them's the stats I want to read.

doctor_grey wrote:

TJ wrote:Scotland at 200:1 might be worth a couple of quid.  Possibly.  If you like losing your money.

Well, just for Devil's Advocate's sake, what were the odds on the woman who won the US Tennis Open Saturday?  Probably a zillion to one.  So upsets across a whole tournament can happen.  Rare, no doubts.  But it can happen.

I struggle to deal with watching Scotland anyway, let alone having money riding on it! This said I still may have a flutter for a laugh. Perhaps bet on them reaching the semis, you have slim chance of a return but more chance than them actually winning!

You never know nb

Realistically in a normal RWC draw the top 8 sides would be 2 per Group and SHOULD
all proceed to QF stage.BUT it seldom happens IF you add Italy,Argentina,Tonga,Fiji,
Samoa they are the only likely Finalists/Winners.
The Current RWC Groups 7 won`t get that far after that the stats are evens for ALL
sides.
From past RWC`s No Winner has lost a match at any stage,no RC winner has won
a RWC in the same year.NZ have never won away from home,no side has won
back to back RWC`s.
Home side advantage needs qualifying the 3 RWCs won were the best 1/2 in the
world.Beating NZ in any match in NZ is nearly impossible 33 losses in 103 years and
frankly NO side would have beaten SA in 1995 such was there resolve.
The "Chokers " slur France 3 Finals 3 losses,England never beaten the AB`s
in a RWC.
The BEST officials should get the games and Final it probably be Nigel Owens
so the Front Row Mafia will have a field day.
According to England`s most famous pundit England will win there 2nd RWC
we shall see.Bring it on.

Not sure if this stat has been mentioned....but, the link between the four previous world cup winners is that they were all knocked out in the QF of the tournament proceeding their WC victory.

So, I make my favourites one of England, Ireland, South Africa or Argentina. Three of those teams are extremely realistic winners. But then there's NZ.......

Strange enough though...

in 2007 no one saw beyond NZ, 2011 likewise.

This time however whilst the gap looks bigger I don't see them standout above the rest in terms of tournaments past... at least from the beginning. 6 teams look capable on winning it.

I guess we'll see how it pans out. No one can really tell until the QFs.

2007 was to my mind the best yet because all preconceived ideas fell by the wayside.
NZ rotation policy came back and bit them,SA struggling past everyone but England
in there Group.
Nz,Aus out at the QF stage,and Hernadez and his dropped goals ANY team can get
a bad REF`s game,almost every one has at least one 1991,1995,2007.2011 etc.
What odds NZ not getting out of the Group?with Wayne Barnes anything is possible.

Get over it already emack NZ choke and you re still blaming the ref 2 world cups later.

emack2 wrote:2007 was to my mind the best yet because all preconceived ideas fell by the wayside.
NZ rotation policy came back and bit them,SA struggling past everyone but England
in there Group.
Nz,Aus out at the QF stage,and Hernadez and his dropped goals ANY team can get
a bad REF`s game,almost every one has at least one 1991,1995,2007.2011 etc.
What odds NZ not getting out of the Group?with Wayne Barnes anything is possible.

SA beat Samoa 59-7 and USA 64-15. Those are thrashings.

They only struggled against Tonga (30-25).

emack2 wrote:2007 was to my mind the best yet because all preconceived ideas fell by the wayside.
NZ rotation policy came back and bit them,SA struggling past everyone but England
in there Group.
Nz,Aus out at the QF stage,and Hernadez and his dropped goals ANY team can get
a bad REF`s game,almost every one has at least one 1991,1995,2007.2011 etc.
What odds NZ not getting out of the Group?with Wayne Barnes anything is possible.

Is it possible you could move on?

its really exciting. NZ a good chance to win, but there's a fair chance that we won't. if we don't then who will win it? South Africa, Australia, England, Ireland, France (or Wales?)?? Such uncertainty. will be fun for the next month and a bit

Factors like injuries,cards,refs decisions,goal kicking,accurate lineout throwing etc.
BUT the weather you have no control over,the current and forecast isn`t good teams
that run e.g Fiji maybe more upset than say England in the wet.
More important the playing surfaces cutting up will refs make allowances come
scrum time.
In fairness will any matches at the millennium be played roof open in fairness to
open air stadiums.
The mudlarks will love it NZ should be ok, IF you can play in Wellington during
hurricane season you can do it anywhere.

Smack I think you are right. The forecast is going to be a huge factor. We don't have the luxury of a Southern Hemisphere September October.

Well with the RWC about to start tomorrow, what do we expect to see.

I am hoping for a few upsets to turn up the excie net levels. This is the closest that teams in the top 20 of the international rugby rankings have ever been.

5.5 points separate the 2nd to 6th and 7th to 12th are not far behind them.

It has been remarked a few times that any top ten team is capable of beating any team higher than them.

When it comes to the RWC, no reputation is safe.

2007 started with Argentina beating hosts France in Paris...!

I think we may see some great matches, potential upsets afterall.

France look good again after everyone throwing them to the wolves, myself included. Probably not enough to beat Ireland but can they take down an undercooked NZ?

Fancy AUS to take the tournament by storm. Only concern of them not getting to the final would be Ireland taking them down in an arm-wrestle in the SFs. If Ireland can get to the SFs they'll be so pumped I think they'll walk any SF.

Saw the betting odds and an AUS vs SA final seems to have the most attractive odds for realistic match ups.

Or an undercooked Bok side losing a QF to battle hardened Group A side?face it ALL
the Groups are soft but Group A.
Myself think you will have a repeat of 2011 with all the big 3 same side of QF on.
"The answer my Friend is Blowing in the Wind"

I would back SA to lose to AUS in a QF. I would back SA to beat ENG in a QF too.

Tom Youngs vs. Victor Matfield.. no case to answer any further really.

And what about your own team fa. What for Scotland?

I think they'll beat Samoa. The newly parachuted ex colonials should see to that.

Can they beat SA, no.

Can they beat England in Twickenham.... probably not but bad weather could turn some tables and the set piece I think is stronger overall. AUS... they'd have to find a way to block their running game and breakdown dominance... very tricky.

Scotlands set piece is stronger than Englands? Really? You really don't rate us.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Scotlands set piece is stronger than Englands? Really? You really don't rate us.

Scrums I think will be equal but the gray brothers add some real bulk to that pack. Lineout.. come on 7.5, even you must acknowledge that Scotland will have a superior Lineout.

Scotland have always had a very well functioning lineout. The rest, not so.

England in their game vs. Ireland did better with parling. Happy to acknowledge that...but they did by playing a few ace cards and you can't get away with those for long and to use them up in a friendly is a little naive (albeit understandable because they needed confidence immediately). Short lineouts, front balls to props, early hits.... teams become aware to them very quickly and come a QF you will be a fool to use them.

If you think its prejudice fine by me. Keep your head in the sand if you wish. With Hartley England had a good unit esp. with Lawes and Wood his club mates being 2 and 4.. but that's simply off the cards now. Youngs is car crash TV, its cringeworthy.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Scotlands set piece is stronger than Englands? Really? You really don't rate us.

Scrums I think will be equal but the gray brothers add some real bulk to that pack. Lineout.. come on 7.5, even you must acknowledge that Scotland will have a superior Lineout.

Scotland have always had a very well functioning lineout. The rest, not so.

England in their game vs. Ireland did better with parling. Happy to acknowledge that...but they did by playing a few ace cards and you can't get away with those for long and to use them up in a friendly is a little naive (albeit understandable because they needed confidence immediately). Short lineouts, front balls to props, early hits.... teams become aware to them very quickly and come a QF you will be a fool to use them.

If you think its prejudice fine by me. Keep your head in the sand if you wish. With Hartley England had a good unit esp. with Lawes and Wood his club mates being 2 and 4.. but that's simply off the cards now. Youngs is car crash TV, its cringeworthy.

England looked weak in the scrum so far. Smashed by the French twice then lost two against the head against the Irish..

I agree set piece will be the key.. Especially looking at the long term weather forecast for the early stages of this RWC.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Scotlands set piece is stronger than Englands? Really? You really don't rate us.

Scrums I think will be equal but the gray brothers add some real bulk to that pack. Lineout.. come on 7.5, even you must acknowledge that Scotland will have a superior Lineout.

Scotland have always had a very well functioning lineout. The rest, not so.

England in their game vs. Ireland did better with parling. Happy to acknowledge that...but they did by playing a few ace cards and you can't get away with those for long and to use them up in a friendly is a little naive (albeit understandable because they needed confidence immediately). Short lineouts, front balls to props, early hits.... teams become aware to them very quickly and come a QF you will be a fool to use them.

If you think its prejudice fine by me. Keep your head in the sand if you wish. With Hartley England had a good unit esp. with Lawes and Wood his club mates being 2 and 4.. but that's simply off the cards now. Youngs is car crash TV, its cringeworthy.

To be honest I think Scotland now have 2 or 3 Lions contenders. Thats as nice as I can be. No Scotlands set pieces are not as good as Englands.

maestegmafia wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Scotlands set piece is stronger than Englands? Really? You really don't rate us.

Scrums I think will be equal but the gray brothers add some real bulk to that pack. Lineout.. come on 7.5, even you must acknowledge that Scotland will have a superior Lineout.

Scotland have always had a very well functioning lineout. The rest, not so.

England in their game vs. Ireland did better with parling. Happy to acknowledge that...but they did by playing a few ace cards and you can't get away with those for long and to use them up in a friendly is a little naive (albeit understandable because they needed confidence immediately). Short lineouts, front balls to props, early hits.... teams become aware to them very quickly and come a QF you will be a fool to use them.

If you think its prejudice fine by me. Keep your head in the sand if you wish. With Hartley England had a good unit esp. with Lawes and Wood his club mates being 2 and 4.. but that's simply off the cards now. Youngs is car crash TV, its cringeworthy.

England looked weak in the scrum so far. Smashed by the French twice then lost two against the head against the Irish..

I agree set piece will be the key.. Especially looking at the long term weather forecast for the early stages of this RWC.

Our hopes (Wales) of winning the group game depends on this. However, Jenkins has been pinged off the park the last two games against them with a French referee.