England 2nd best team in the world?

First topic message reminder :

England are on the verge of going to 2nd in the world rankings. What do people think is their true current standing in the world? I would say that England are now clear of Wales/Ireland in the NH and are on their own as the best NH team. For the last few years there's been nothing separating Ireland/Wales and England but I feel momentum has shifted and England have inched ahead. They are probably vying for the 2nd spot in the world alongside the Aussies and SA but are a fair bit behind NZ. Is this a fair assessment?

Biltong wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That SA are currently better than England.

No, points on the board this Monday are:
NZ 96.1
Eng 88.5
SA 86.03
Aus 85.43

I'd expected Ireland to win but I think they weren't used to the altitude.

The world ranking points mean nothing in relation to head to head, england haven't beaten SA in more than 10 years.

So if we played tomorrow how much would that help, like you said you're not the team you were. Neither are we. h2h is a silly way to judge.

..or at least when they haven't played for nearly 2 years and the question is "currently"

Answer me this, based on what do you deem them number two in the world and better than SA "currnetly"?

Just that.

NZ, England, Aus, Ireland and Wales would all be above you now in my eyes.

Biltong wrote:After a decade of dominance inspite of their decline SA is still ahead of England

I can't agree with that at all Biltong. SA look a real mess at the minute and have struggled against a weakened Ireland side(England have recently turned over a stronger Ire side in the 6N with relative ease.)

SA's set piece is struggling and some of their handling at the weekend was dire. It's only hypothetical obviously, but I'd expect England to beat SA home and away at the minute, certainly on recent showings.

Alex_Germany wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Well until we actually start losing a few against England nothing tells me they are better than us yet. Because they have beaten Australia doesn't say they are better than the Springboks

Well until you actually start winning a few against Japan nothing tells [you] you are better than them yet. Because they lost to Scotland doesn't say they are worse than the Springboks.

And this is what you come up with when we are discussing england and south africa?

Incredible insight. Wow.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That SA are currently better than England.

No, points on the board this Monday are:
NZ 96.1
Eng 88.5
SA 86.03
Aus 85.43

I'd expected Ireland to win but I think they weren't used to the altitude.

The world ranking points mean nothing in relation to head to head, england haven't beaten SA in more than 10 years.

So if we played tomorrow how much would that help, like you said you're not the team you were. Neither are we. h2h is a silly way to judge.

..or at least when they haven't played for nearly 2 years and the question is "currently"

Answer me this, based on what do you deem them number two in the world and better than SA "currnetly"?

Just that.

NZ, England, Aus, Ireland and Wales would all be above you now in my eyes.

I am happy for you if that is your opinion, which is just as valid as mine.

However you are not answering my question.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
NZ, England, Aus, Ireland and Wales would all be above you now in my eyes.

Really? When did Wales / england last beat SA? Scotland beat SA a couple of times a few years ago - would you have put them a better team than SA at the time? Yes Irelands win was a good one but is it a sign of being better team or is it a one off result?

SA seem to be in a bit of a decline but still made the semis of the WC only narrowly being beaten by NZ. None of the teams you have said are better than SA got as far

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That SA are currently better than England.

No, points on the board this Monday are:
NZ 96.1
Eng 88.5
SA 86.03
Aus 85.43

I'd expected Ireland to win but I think they weren't used to the altitude.

The world ranking points mean nothing in relation to head to head, england haven't beaten SA in more than 10 years.

So if we played tomorrow how much would that help, like you said you're not the team you were. Neither are we. h2h is a silly way to judge.

..or at least when they haven't played for nearly 2 years and the question is "currently"

Answer me this, based on what do you deem them number two in the world and better than SA "currnetly"?

Just that.

NZ, England, Aus, Ireland and Wales would all be above you now in my eyes.

I am happy for you if that is your opinion, which is just as valid as mine.

However you are not answering my question.

Considering I asked you that question first and the answer was we were good ten years ago!

TJ wrote:England may be second in the rankings but to be able to claim " 2nd best team in the world" I would want to see more consistency and more defeats of SH teams

True. If they don't defeat Aus this weekend, then they might be back down to Number 3.

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
NZ, England, Aus, Ireland and Wales would all be above you now in my eyes.

Really?  When did Wales / england last beat SA?  Scotland beat SA a couple of times a few years ago - would you have put them a better team than SA at the time?  Yes Irelands win was a good one but is it a sign of being better team or is it a one off result?

SA seem to be in a bit of a decline but still made the semis of the WC only narrowly being beaten by NZ.  None of the teams you have said are better than SA got as far

Basing it on the reletive strengths of the teams. As I've said h2h is fatally flawed.

WC is a decent sign of relative strengths tho isn't it? Where SA were significantly better than all the NH teams you have ahead of them

I don't think SA are in decline. I think they're in a serious glut of poor form and are struggling to come through it. They have some serious talent but are suffering with injuries and odd selections.

The current halfback pairing is possibly the worst I've ever seen from SA and the lack of confidence this is bringing to the backline really shows.

England are in a completely different place currently. Everybody knows their role, the set piece is strong and their 2nd ranking is fully justified.

Saying this though, I fully expect a different SA side in 6 months or so.

TJ wrote:WC is a decent sign of relative strengths tho isn't it?  Where SA were significantly better than all the NH teams you have ahead of them

Are they now? Or do you rate England below Wales and Aus?

TJ wrote:WC is a decent sign of relative strengths tho isn't it?  Where SA were significantly better than all the NH teams you have ahead of them

So does that make Japan better than South Africa?

hmmm .... perhaps we should check the rankings.

New Zealand are the best team in the world.

Everyone else is simply fighting it out to be the best loser runner-up.

RWC is a good guide - but only to the strength of teams at that point, usually at the end of a development style. Australia at that point could fairly call themselves the 2nd best team in the world, based on being the last team to lose (ie runner up) and twh World Rankings. However they cannot hold that "title" indefinitely, especially if they are losing to what some posters spent 5 months referring to as a Tier 2 team.

After the Autumn internationals we will have had a full cycle of matches - lets "crown" the second best team then.

Alex_Germany wrote:

TJ wrote:WC is a decent sign of relative strengths tho isn't it?  Where SA were significantly better than all the NH teams you have ahead of them

So does that make Japan better than South Africa?

hmmm .... perhaps we should check the rankings.

I am happy to see that a one off performance have you fixated.

Debate the issue beyond your one point

By your reasoning one win is enough to turn the tables.

LondonTiger wrote:New Zealand are the best team in the world.

Everyone else is simply fighting it out to be the best loser runner-up.

RWC is a good guide - but only to the strength of teams at that point, usually at the end of a development style. Australia at that point could fairly call themselves the 2nd best team in the world, based on being the last team to lose (ie runner up) and twh World Rankings. However they cannot hold that "title" indefinitely, especially if they are losing to what some posters spent 5 months referring to as a Tier 2 team.

After the Autumn internationals we will have had a full cycle of matches - lets "crown" the second best team then.

The question is, does it matter who the second best team is?

If you go according to the rankings the second best team varies all the time, and then often by only a few decimal points.

In the grand scheme of things it carries very little value if any, other than when the world cup seedings are done.

Biltong wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That SA are currently better than England.

No, points on the board this Monday are:
NZ 96.1
Eng 88.5
SA 86.03
Aus 85.43

I'd expected Ireland to win but I think they weren't used to the altitude.

The world ranking points mean nothing in relation to head to head, england haven't beaten SA in more than 10 years.

We have been playing with the same/similar team for about 12 years now - I think that might have something to do with it. This is the first time in a long span of time that we look this fresh though.

I think England is probably a stronger team than us at the moment, our combinations doesn't look settled. But the last time the Boks' core was from the Lions we won the RWC in 1995. I think they will play a much larger roll from now on.

Biltong wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

TJ wrote:WC is a decent sign of relative strengths tho isn't it?  Where SA were significantly better than all the NH teams you have ahead of them

So does that make Japan better than South Africa?

hmmm .... perhaps we should check the rankings.

I am happy to see that a one off performance have you fixated.

Debate the issue beyond your one point

By your reasoning one win is enough to turn the tables.

How well did Itoje play in the last 3 games vs SA?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

TJ wrote:WC is a decent sign of relative strengths tho isn't it?  Where SA were significantly better than all the NH teams you have ahead of them

So does that make Japan better than South Africa?

hmmm .... perhaps we should check the rankings.

I am happy to see that a one off performance have you fixated.

Debate the issue beyond your one point

By your reasoning one win is enough to turn the tables.

How well did Itoje play in the last 3 games vs SA?

What?Come on Bilt give us reasons why sa are 2nd best in the world.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What?Come on Bilt give us reasons why sa are 2nd best in the world.

I didn't say they are second best.

I said england need to win a few before they can call themselves better than the Springboks.

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What?Come on Bilt give us reasons why sa are 2nd best in the world.

I didn't say they are second best.

I said england need to win a few before they can call themselves better than the Springboks.

Like a Grand Slam and a first ever tour win in Aus?

Surely on the flip. SA need to put in a decent performance against a weakened Ireland side? Something they've not yet managed to do.

My point is, things change quickly. Form, momentum and injuries play a huge part in where a team are.

Do you honestly not think England may possibly be slightly better than SA currently Bil?

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:New Zealand are the best team in the world.

Everyone else is simply fighting it out to be the best loser runner-up.

RWC is a good guide - but only to the strength of teams at that point, usually at the end of a development style. Australia at that point could fairly call themselves the 2nd best team in the world, based on being the last team to lose (ie runner up) and twh World Rankings. However they cannot hold that "title" indefinitely, especially if they are losing to what some posters spent 5 months referring to as a Tier 2 team.

After the Autumn internationals we will have had a full cycle of matches - lets "crown" the second best team then.

The question is, does it matter who the second best team is?

If you go according to the rankings the second best team varies all the time, and then often by only a few decimal points.

In the grand scheme of things it carries very little value if any, other than when the world cup seedings are done.

Really? For the last 5 years or so (excluding the actual present) it's usually been SA with Aus taking it occasionally - seems pretty accurate to me.

But your right - 2nd is just one of the rest, a few bald men fighting over a comb. EJ has bigger fish to fry

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What?Come on Bilt give us reasons why sa are 2nd best in the world.

I didn't say they are second best.

I said england need to win a few before they can call themselves better than the Springboks.

Why? Because the team from 2 years ago beat us? What relevance does that have to these teams now?

Biltong, you're starting to sound a bit like beshocked....

At the RWC, South Africa were materially better than England though probably not better than Australia (though they didn't play each other, it's marginal and you can argue it each way, something that's reflected in the ranking points as was).

But there's ample evidence that England are a very different beast from the team that got destroyed at the RWC, and less but growing evidence that SA are too.

England have won 8 games on the trot so far, including 2 against each of the teams that beat them in the RWC. South Africa have won one, lost one at home against a lower ranked team.

The ranking points scores are a fair reflection of where the teams are at the moment, but the margins between the teams ranked 2-4 and 5-7 are small and it could change again next weekend - especially as England will almost certainly have to make several changes to their team for injury and exhaustion.

But right now, we've seen 6 of the top 7 teams in action over the last two weeks. Even ignoring the ranking points, I think it's very hard not to agree that England's two performances have been better that South Africa's (to think the opposite, you'd have to believe that Ireland were better than both of them - which I think even the most emerald of Irishmen would be unable to claim with a straight face).

But look, if you want to cling to the belief that South Africa are the second best team right now, then be my guest. I'm with Eddie. The aim is to be the best, and second best only has any value as a stepping stone to getting there. I'm pleased with the progress England are making but happy to wait til the Autumn for confirmation...

sgt pooly, looking at the rankings vs head to head comparisons.

The ranking suggests that England is better than SA, or so most will read it.

Yet they have not beaten SA in more than a decade.

I will give you my rating of SA vs the rest of the top ten nations. Lets ignore home or away fixtures such as Ireland who now are playing SA in SA for the first time in 12 years.

Now understand that I have never put any credibility to rankings as I look at each team's recent head to head record vs SA.

Where you want to rank them on a totem pole is up to you.

SA VS NZ - NZ ahead by a mile.
SA VS AUS - Even
SA VS ENG - SA
SA VS FRA - SA but only just because they are somewhat of a bogey team for us
SA VS WAL - SA but not by much
SA VS IRE - IRE
SA VS SCO - SA
SA VS ARG - SA

To further my reasoning, you get form, transition and settled

Under a new coach and with quotas in play there is potential that the Springboks will slide badly.

Fortunately for you guys, that is a South African issue and not yours, was I not a South African I would likely enjoy a South African slide into the mire.

However that has not happened yet, even though I do expect the worse.

For now, that is where I see the Springboks in relation to their rivals

I hate to say it but I've been really impressed with England under Jones. On top of the growing quality of the premiership and strength of the underage sides it's hard not to see England as the best placed, and perhaps only side which may challenge the ABs dominance in world rugby in the near future.

I think the top 2 at the minute are NZ and England - with Australia, SA, Ireland, Argentina and Wales all competing for 3rd spot.

Which is flawed Biltong as you say SA are better than England but Ireland are better than SA and presumably England are better than Ireland. So it doesn't answer the question. You also acknowledge that teams from the past ten years have nothing to do with the current team. The fatc you state you would enjoy your side to slide into the mire is frankly unsurprising.

Ranking points yeah England are about right. I do agree that overall though, if say team x cannot ever seem to beat team y... whatever ranking points y has above team x is inconsequential.
I would say England would beat SA now, probably comfortably so... but we have said this for years and SA always seemed to come up on top when they did face each other.

Altitude certainly played a part vs Ireland in the last match. Had it been sea level I think they would have made it home and I'm not yet convinced SA will walk the next match either, I can certainly see Ireland getting home.

Can't agree with any of that really Biltong but happy to agree to disagree.

Seems a lot of the neutrals are behind us not that it really changes anyones opinion obviously. I'd have the current standings as:

1. NZ
---------
2. Eng
3. Aus
4. SA
5. Arg
6. Ire
7. Wales

I think Aus and SA could be interchangeable after a few months and the same with 4/5-7. It's quite tight between 3-7 on current form tbh.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which is flawed Biltong as you say SA are better than England but Ireland are better than SA and presumably England are better than Ireland. So it doesn't answer the question. You also acknowledge that teams from the past ten years have nothing to do with the current team. The fatc you state you would enjoy your side to slide into the mire is frankly unsurprising.

no, the flaw is to think because England beat Ireland and Ireland beat SA (forget that SA beat them back) then England must be Automatically better than SA.

England plays a similar style to SA and have come short for a decade, don't fool yourself into thinking they now play that much differently under Jones.

Ireland plays an in your face spoil the ball at source come with any anti rugby trick in the book and beat those dumb south africans and it is working.

Forget the rankings.

I don't get nervous because the rankings tells me I should, I get nervous because on recent form we struggle against a specific team, regardless of the ranking

To be fair, England beat a better side than SA are facing at the minute.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Can't agree with any of that really Biltong but happy to agree to disagree.

Seems a lot of the neutrals are behind us not that it really changes anyones opinion obviously. I'd have the current standings as:

1. NZ
---------
2. Eng
3. Aus
4. SA
5. Arg
6. Ire
7. Wales

I think Aus and SA could be interchangeable after a few months and the same with 4/5-7. It's quite tight between 3-7 on current form tbh.

Agree with that - If you consider France around 8th you could say the top 8 is very close, NZ still look out there on their own though.

It's not the same side Biltong. Boro played Spurs for years and regularly beat them and always finished below them in the Premier League. H2Hs are massively flawed. Take away your view of looking at 2 sides, look at them all and frankly you can't say SA are very good at the moment.

Boro regularly beat someone?

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's not the same side Biltong. Boro played Spurs for years and regularly beat them and always finished below them in the Premier League. H2Hs are massively flawed. Take away your view of looking at 2 sides, look at them all and frankly you can't say SA are very good at the moment.

Yes, agree SA are not at their usual standard. That is certainly the case.

But then we have seen how a pretty poor SA side are usually still good enough.

Look at the rwc last year, a crap SA side made the semi finals.

And they got pretty close to the All Blacks whilst playing negative rugby.

Cool, I'd still say you're below Aus and NZ. I'd now say England have improved to a level not seen in a good while. New players intergrating well, youngsters like Ford, nowell, Watson well settled. A guy like Nathan Hughes about to step in. Basically competition all around and then SA who look a shadow of their former selves. Yes look back to previous times and enjoy you were very good for a lot of years. Not sure thats true now.

Forgot all about Hughes

It'll be a good few years for England. I know we all want that SA monkey off our backs, but I don't measure our place by SA. They are far from the pinacle.

I think we should also add that European teams have had what 8-9 games now to build up ranking points this season.
SH teams have only had 2.

Where teams will be after the AIs is probably a fairer reflection on true ranking until then its a guide. I think England would probably beat any team bar NZ at the moment and I'd say at home they should beat NZ just about (55/45).. but this is NZ now, and they're getting better as they get rid of their ring rust.

I do think you have to consider how much South African (and Kiwi, Ozzie and Argentian) talent has been on show in the top 14 over the past 2 weekends.

If they had a full deck to pick from they would be in much stronger position you'd have to presume.

I'm pretty comfortable with England being ranked as the 2nd best side. I think there's very little separating England, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Ireland and Wales (although I do think England are the team with momentum from that group), but a massive gap between them and New Zealand. 3rd tier would be France and Scotland.

I thought England were superb at the weekend. I know much has been said and written about it, and that SH teams routinely come to the NH and win, but from where England were 10 months ago it's a great achievement to have turned things around so dramatically.

rodders wrote:I do think you have to consider how much South African (and Kiwi, Ozzie and Argentian) talent has been on show in the top 14 over the past 2 weekends.

If they had a full deck to pick from they would be in much stronger position you'd have to presume.

Rodders, that is just one more nail in our coffin, but this is the professional era and that will only get worse.

We have to play with the hand we are dealt, we do not have the currency or economy to kerp our players and it there for stands to reason we will continue to lose top players to club and country.

Being second just means your'e the last loser (in a tournament) or the first loser (in a race). It doesnt mean much either way tbh. Not sold on England. Australia are famously dodgy after a World cup, and to be fair, for the three years proceeding it as well. But can't argue with a grand slam and series win in Aus I suppose.

In the end, no team should say ah but we if we have a full first XV, no injuries etc then we'd romp home... because in the end, players move abroad, players retire, players get injured. You have to ride such things.

SA make mistakes all the time with their senior players. They know that they are susceptible to big money bids so the best idea is thus... lock them in early.

A guy like Bissie is a good example. Better than Strauss, its no contest. They should lock him in and say... ok, you want to leave but how about making you captain. He's an obvious choice anyhow but I think being told he would lead the boks may have prevented him from moving to France.
Same with Frans Steyn.. he should have had 100 caps, he has 53. I swear SA rugby would have been very different if Frans Steyn had stayed not only available for SA, but in SA rather than trying to play in France, SA and Japan every year and maximise his short sighted earning potential.

But that's rugby.

NZ are very good at keeping their main stars, giving them sabbaticals, giving them short term contract allowances. SA are amateurs at such negotiations... the if you don't want to stay, stuff em.

Tell them, you want to play abroad... well France is a no no because you play too many games, too many inside test windows. Go to AP or Pro12 instead like Frans Louw, Ruan Pienaar.

FA SARU is a bunch of Amateurs, they have been spoilt with depth of talent for too long.

They have no idea, when it comes to protecting players, keeping talent, developing coaches etc.

It is pathetic.

You cannot believe hoe angry ?i am about SA rugby currently. I have not seen a more useless bunch (well I have never seen them ) of administrators.

We complain about transformation, but SARU is a good example that anyone can be useless

Biltong wrote:

rodders wrote:I do think you have to consider how much South African (and Kiwi, Ozzie and Argentian) talent has been on show in the top 14 over the past 2 weekends.

If they had a full deck to pick from they would be in much stronger position you'd have to presume.

Rodders, that is just one more nail in our coffin, but this is the professional era and that will only get worse.

We have to play with the hand we are dealt, we do not have the currency or economy to kerp our players and it there for stands to reason we will continue to lose top players to club and country.

I think in a few seasons we won't have an International game in the sense we do now - it will certainly be secondary to the club game in Europe, if it isn't already, and some countries will suffer more than others.

C'est la vie.

I think New Zealand are only about 5th best side now, to be honest, in all fairness, when the chips are down, at the end of the day.....

rodders wrote:

Biltong wrote:

rodders wrote:I do think you have to consider how much South African (and Kiwi, Ozzie and Argentian) talent has been on show in the top 14 over the past 2 weekends.

If they had a full deck to pick from they would be in much stronger position you'd have to presume.

Rodders, that is just one more nail in our coffin, but this is the professional era and that will only get worse.

We have to play with the hand we are dealt, we do not have the currency or economy to kerp our players and it there for stands to reason we will continue to lose top players to club and country.

I think in a few seasons we won't have an International game in the sense we do now - it will certainly be secondary to the club game in Europe, if it isn't already, and some countries will suffer more than others.

C'est la vie.

Jip, we might then just see the six nations, rugby championship and world cup. No more tours

I reckon the true best teams would look something like this

1. NZ 1st
2. NZ 2nd
3. ENG 1st
4. AUS 1st
5. SA 1st
6. IRE 1st
7. ARG 1st
8. NZ 3rd
9. NZ 4th
10. WAL 1st
11. ENG 2nd
12. SA 2nd
13. SCO 1st
14. FRA 1st
15. NZ 5th

rodders wrote:

Biltong wrote:

rodders wrote:I do think you have to consider how much South African (and Kiwi, Ozzie and Argentian) talent has been on show in the top 14 over the past 2 weekends.

If they had a full deck to pick from they would be in much stronger position you'd have to presume.

Rodders, that is just one more nail in our coffin, but this is the professional era and that will only get worse.

We have to play with the hand we are dealt, we do not have the currency or economy to kerp our players and it there for stands to reason we will continue to lose top players to club and country.

I think in a few seasons we won't have an International game in the sense we do now - it will certainly be secondary to the club game in Europe, if it isn't already, and some countries will suffer more than others.

C'est la vie.

The World is not-so-slowly going mad. End of Days a coming. Tim Peake should have stayed where he was - it might be smaller in the Station but it seems saner - even the Russians are your friends up there.