Scotland v Georgia, 26 November

     
SCOTLAND v GEORGIA
26 November 2016
KO: 14:30 GMT
Rugby Park, Kilmarnock

Live on [BBC Two]

Referee: Matthew Carley (England)
Assistant referees: Mathieu Raynal (France), Dan Jones (Wales)
TMO: Simon McDowell (Ireland)

A. Head to Head

1 Played 1
1 Won 0
0 Drawn 0
0 Lost 1
15 Points 6

B. Recent Form

14 September 2011
Scotland 15–6 Georgia
Rugby Park Stadium, Invercargill

C. TEAMS:

SCOTLAND 

15 Stuart Hogg, 14 Sean Maitland, 13 Mark Bennett, 12 Alex Dunbar, 11 Tommy Seymour, 10 Finn Russell, 9 Greig Laidlaw(c), 8 Ryan Wilson, 7 Hamish Watson, 6 Rob Harley, 5 Jonny Gray, 4 Richie Gray, 3 Zander Fagerson, 2 Ross Ford, 1 Allan Dell

Replacements: 16 Fraser Brown, 17 Alex Allan, 18 Moray Low, 19 Grant Gilchrist, 20 John Barclay, 21 Ali Price, 22 Pete Horne, 23 Rory Hughes

GEORGIA

15 Merab Kvirikashvili, 14 Giorgi Aptsiauri, 13 Merab Sharikadze, 12 Tamaz Mtchedlidze, 11 Sandro Todua, 10 Lasha Malaghuradze, 9 Vasil Lobzhanidze, 8 Beka Bitsadze, 7 Mamuka Gorgodze(c), 6 Vito Kolelishvili, 5 Giorgi Nemsadze, 4 Kote Mikautadze, 3 Levan Chilachava, 2 Jaba Bregvadze, 1 Mikheil Nariashvili

Replacements: 16 Badri Alkhazashvili, 17 Kakha Asieshvili, 18 Dudu Kubriashvili, 19 Lasha Lomidze, 20 Giorgi Tkhilaishvili, 21 Giorgi Begadze, 22 Beka Tsiklauri, 23 Shalva Sutiashvili

***

In the recent international series, Georgia posted the following results, having travelled to the Pacific Islands for the first time:

- 11 June 2016: Samoa 19 - 19 Georgia (Apia Park, Samoa)
- 18 June 2016: Tonga 20 - 23 Georgia (Suva, Fiji)
- 24 June 2016: Fiji 3 - 14 Georgia (Suva, Fiji)
- 12 November 2016: Georgia 22−28 Japan
- 19 November 2016: Georgia 20–16 Samoa

This now means that:

- Georgia have now beaten all of the Tier 2 rugby nations (Fiji, Japan, Samoa, Tonga, Canada, USA, Uruguay, Namibia, Portugal, Romania, Russia and Spain)
- Georgia are now ranked 11th in the world
- This ranks them higher than Japan, Italy, Samoa, Tonga and the USA
- Georgia has now played in 4 RWCs and has automatically qualified for Japan 2019
- They have now won the European Nations Cup (i.e. the Tier 2 version of the 6 Nations) nine times in 2001, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Not related to the game, but according the rankings calculator after yesterdays games Scotland will move up to 7th

I don't think we can afford to take this game lightly and put out a development 15 as some may suggest - this is going to be a bloody tough game!

I hope he sticks with Bradbury though - I'm sure he would have been disappointed being subbed off so early.

I don't think VC does development teams, he will pick a team to win.

There may be a few tweaks though.

CDP may get a run off the bench, which would be no bad thing. Hopefully RG will be back and Horne and Jones may be injured. I would not be surprised to see Ford start again, the front row definitely looked more solid with him on and Georgia if anything will have a stronger scrum than Argentina. Practically every team in France has a Georgian prop!

Ali Price definitely deserves a cap after warming the bench twice, the problem with never subbing Laidlaw is that we have absolutely no one coming on behind him and that is not sustainable.

BigGee wrote:I don't think VC does development teams, he will pick a team to win.

There may be a few tweaks though.

CDP may get a run off the bench, which would be no bad thing. Hopefully RG will be back and Horne and Jones may be injured. I would not be surprised to see Ford start again, the front row definitely looked more solid with him on and Georgia if anything will have a stronger scrum than Argentina. Practically every team in France has a Georgian prop!

Ali Price definitely deserves a cap after warming the bench twice, the problem with never subbing Laidlaw is that we have absolutely no one coming on behind him and that is not sustainable.

Agreed - Laidlaw needed replacing yesterday and he obviously didn't have confidence that price could do it. We desperately need a replacement 9 off the bench that can lift the tempo - we're never going to develop that if he keeps Laidlaw on the pitch for 80 minutes every game

RDW_Scotland wrote:

BigGee wrote:I don't think VC does development teams, he will pick a team to win.

There may be a few tweaks though.

CDP may get a run off the bench, which would be no bad thing. Hopefully RG will be back and Horne and Jones may be injured. I would not be surprised to see Ford start again, the front row definitely looked more solid with him on and Georgia if anything will have a stronger scrum than Argentina. Practically every team in France has a Georgian prop!

Ali Price definitely deserves a cap after warming the bench twice, the problem with never subbing Laidlaw is that we have absolutely no one coming on behind him and that is not sustainable.

Agreed - Laidlaw needed replacing yesterday and he obviously didn't have confidence that price could do it. We  desperately need a replacement 9 off the bench that can lift the tempo - we're never going to develop that if he keeps Laidlaw on the pitch for 80 minutes every game

The issue with replacing Laidlaw is surely goal kicking, simply that. Who would we have trusted to reliably kick the winning penalty yesterday? I very much doubt we could be sure Russell would have made it. It is a problem that needs addressing going forward, Laidlaw won't be around too much longer so we really need to find somebody who can kick a high percentage of our chances.

MacKnocked-on wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

BigGee wrote:I don't think VC does development teams, he will pick a team to win.

There may be a few tweaks though.

CDP may get a run off the bench, which would be no bad thing. Hopefully RG will be back and Horne and Jones may be injured. I would not be surprised to see Ford start again, the front row definitely looked more solid with him on and Georgia if anything will have a stronger scrum than Argentina. Practically every team in France has a Georgian prop!

Ali Price definitely deserves a cap after warming the bench twice, the problem with never subbing Laidlaw is that we have absolutely no one coming on behind him and that is not sustainable.

Agreed - Laidlaw needed replacing yesterday and he obviously didn't have confidence that price could do it. We  desperately need a replacement 9 off the bench that can lift the tempo - we're never going to develop that if he keeps Laidlaw on the pitch for 80 minutes every game

The issue with replacing Laidlaw is surely goal kicking, simply that. Who would we have trusted to reliably kick the winning penalty yesterday? I very much doubt we could be sure Russell would have made it. It is a problem that needs addressing going forward, Laidlaw won't be around too much longer so we really need to find somebody who can kick a high percentage of our chances.

I wouldn't be too sure on that - he said he wants to play to the next world cup!

I think that is the case, Price is a high tempo player, ideal to come off the bench at this stage in his career. He has a searing break on him, one of the fastest players over 20 metres in the Glasgow squad.

Russell is not that bad a goal kicker and would surely have nailed that one in the end. GL has missed a few himself recently, if he had kicked better, we would have beaten Oz last week.

At the end of the day, Finn is only going to get better at kicking at international level by doing more. If we can get a bit of a cushion in this game, then maybe he will give Price a run and trust Russell to kick the goals.

Well even if he does go on, regardless of that we still need to find another kicking option, unless Russell or somebody else can improve. Until that changes we're going to have a real problem giving Price, Pyrgos, SHC etc any meaningful game time, and that's obviously not ideal in a position as pivotal as 9.

The same thing happened with SHC and look what it did to his form!

BigGee wrote:I think that is the case, Price is a high tempo player, ideal to come off the bench at this stage in his career. He has a searing break on him, one of the fastest players over 20 metres in the Glasgow squad.

Russell is not that bad a goal kicker and would surely have nailed that one in the end. GL has missed a few himself recently, if he had kicked better, we would have beaten Oz last week.

At the end of the day, Finn is only going to get better at kicking at international level by doing more. If we can get a bit of a cushion in this game, then maybe he will give Price a run and trust Russell to kick the goals.

You've got more faith in his kicking than me, he made a right Horlicks of two simple drop goal attempts so I'm not so sure he would have made that kick. Even worse scenario would have been if it was Horne who needed to take it.

20 NOV SCOTLAND SQUAD UPDATE

The Scotland medical team provided the following squad update, having reviewed the players from yesterday’s Autumn Test victory over Argentina at BT Murrayfield Stadium (19-16).

Huw Jones sustained a foot injury in the act of creating Sean Maitland’s try in the 53rd minute. The midfielder had a scan at Spire Murrayfield Hospital after the game and will be reassessed early in the week.

Three players sustained dead legs in the match – hooker Fraser Brown, lock Grant Gilchrist and replacement centre Pete Horne – all of whom will require medical management this week.

Several other players are showing the signs of a physical contest and will require ongoing care and management as the week progresses

Huw Jones the biggest doubt by the sound of things.

This game has banana skin written all over it, especially with the scrum woes that have been so evident.

I would look to make some changes this week, and try and freshen things up a bit. I thought we really struggled to get over the gain line without Richie and a recognised 8. I was very surprised when Bradbury left the field, as he was one of the only guys busting tackles. Not much we can do about the props, but I would definitely bring in Ford to add some more bulk. Another player who hasn't been particularly influential is big Eck, and my changes reflect that.

Dell
Ford
Fagerson
Gray
Gray
Bradbury
Watson
CDP

Laidlaw
Russell
Seymour
Scott
Jones (Bennett if not fit)
Maitland
Hogg

Allan
Brown
Low
Gilchrist
Barclay
Price
Bennett/Horne (If Bennett starts)
Hughes

Aside from a solid win next week (ie +10) I'd really like at some point for the team to set up and for Russell to actually score a drop goal just to prove they can.

Where's Dan parks when you need him?

I've noticed that Duncan Taylor again wasn't in the Sarries squad so must still be injured - he was clearly never going to be fit for this series so I don't know why he was picked!

Edinburgh and Glasgow are back playing this weekend so hopefully Dickinson is fit enough to get some gametime for Edinburgh - I don't think he should be rushed straight back for Georgia.

Dickinson needs to be kept away from this game. Don't want him getting injured further by what will be a very aggressive Georgian pack

Bradbury should start again. He was solid on Sat and no idea why he was subbed off so early.  I'd have the same back row starting with CDP on the bench.

I'd start with Laidlaw and Finn and hopefully we're out of touch midway through the second half. I'd then let Ali Price get 20 mins. Either taking off laidlaw or taking finn off and moving laidlaw to 10.

If Jones is goosed then Bennett starts.

I'd really like to see Peter Horne playing for Glasgow and not taking up a valuable bench spot for the international team.

Afraid Ford has to start against Georgia as he's needed at scrum time.

We can't afford to take Georgia lightly and it's going to be a tough day at the office for the tight 5!

PS, if Jonny Gray doesn't go with the Lions then it will be an utter joke!

Just had a quick gander through the Georgia teams Wikipedia game. Not that I have ever heard off half of them, but every prop in their current squad plays for a good top 14 team in France. We could be in for a torrid time at the scrum.

EST wrote:Just had a quick gander through the Georgia teams Wikipedia game.  Not that I have ever heard off half of them, but every prop in their current squad plays for a good top 14 team in France.  We could be in for a torrid time at the scrum.

I think that's a certainly, which may force his hand to bring Dickinson in. I just don't think he'll be anywhere near physically ready for it though.

It is also a worry that the scrum became worse when Low was subbed on.

Saying that, we should still be able to beat Georgia comfortably in the end even if our scrum is getting smashed.

Easier said than done, but the aim of the game will be possession and not knocking on!

RDW_Scotland wrote:

EST wrote:Just had a quick gander through the Georgia teams Wikipedia game.  Not that I have ever heard off half of them, but every prop in their current squad plays for a good top 14 team in France.  We could be in for a torrid time at the scrum.

I think that's a certainly, which may force his hand to bring Dickinson in. I just don't think he'll be anywhere near physically ready for it though.

It is also a worry that the scrum became worse when Low was subbed on.

Saying that, we should still be able to beat Georgia comfortably in the end even if our scrum is getting smashed.

Yeah, I certainly don't think that we should rush Dickinson back - he won't be ready and without Nel I don't think his involvement would make much difference anyway. Looking at the positives, this will be a great learning curve for Fagerson and Dell.

I definitely think we should win this, but if the weather is horrible in Kilmarnock (surely a given?) then I think it could be pretty close. Georgia are no mugs anymore.

I think Dell has done better than expected so far, he hasn't really struggled in the scrum too much and he's pretty mobile. I think he will figure in the Scotland squad ongoing, not just as a injury call up.
If only Berghan would stay fit then we might have another much needed backup option for Nel at 3 as well.

MacKnocked-on wrote:I think Dell has done better than expected so far, he hasn't really struggled in the scrum too much and he's pretty mobile. I think he will figure in the Scotland squad ongoing, not just as a injury call up.
If only Berghan would stay fit then we might have another much needed backup option for Nel at 3 as well.

Berghan needs to prove himself at Edinburgh level never mind Scotland - he's been a full time trainer for 2 years then got injured this year just as he would have got a lot of gametime!

RDW_Scotland wrote:

MacKnocked-on wrote:I think Dell has done better than expected so far, he hasn't really struggled in the scrum too much and he's pretty mobile. I think he will figure in the Scotland squad ongoing, not just as a injury call up.
If only Berghan would stay fit then we might have another much needed backup option for Nel at 3 as well.

Berghan needs to prove himself at Edinburgh level never mind Scotland - he's been a full time trainer for 2 years then got injured this year just as he would have got a lot of gametime!

That's exactly what I mean, but in the few games he's played for Edinburgh he does look like he's got the potential to be a really strong scrummager. However, maybe the signing of the young prop Whyte from SA suggests that Berghan isn't going to be fit anytime soon, hope I'm wrong.

EST wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

EST wrote:Just had a quick gander through the Georgia teams Wikipedia game.  Not that I have ever heard off half of them, but every prop in their current squad plays for a good top 14 team in France.  We could be in for a torrid time at the scrum.

I think that's a certainly, which may force his hand to bring Dickinson in. I just don't think he'll be anywhere near physically ready for it though.

It is also a worry that the scrum became worse when Low was subbed on.

Saying that, we should still be able to beat Georgia comfortably in the end even if our scrum is getting smashed.

Yeah, I certainly don't think that we should rush Dickinson back - he won't be ready and without Nel I don't think his involvement would make much difference anyway.  Looking at the positives, this will be a great learning curve for Fagerson and Dell.

I definitely think we should win this, but if the weather is horrible in Kilmarnock (surely a given?) then I think it could be pretty close.

Probably. Everything else is.

I hate reading comments stating that this match could be close/we'll get spanked in the scrums/Georgia are a good team etc.

I'm sorry, but if we're classing Georgia as a great test and a good win would be 10+ points, then we need to accept that we're never going to challenge at the top.

This is Georgia. We should be putting 40+ points on these teams. It's what England & Ireland would do quite easily, so we should be aiming for the same.

To be fair to Fagerson he has played a reputed scrummaging power in Argentina who have fallen a bit and Australia whose scrum has improved immensely with Sio and Kepu. Georgia are another big scrummaging team so if he is 50-50 on whether he can survive long enough that is a good performance. Welsh is better than Low and would have been far more useful.

A team like
Maitland (Need to establish a back-up to Hogg)
Seymour
Bennett
Dunbar (Scott?)
Visser
Russell
Laidlaw

Dell
Ford
Fagerson
Gilchrist
Gray
Barclay
Watson
Bradbury

Brown, Allan, Low, Gray (Swinson), CDP, Price, Taylor/Scott/Dunbar, Hughes/Hoyland

Experimental more in the backs. Our forwards are already inexperienced and this game will do them good. I want to see what Scotland can do without Hogg as we will be in Australia and could be injured at anytime.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:I hate reading comments stating that this match could be close/we'll get spanked in the scrums/Georgia are a good team etc.

I'm sorry, but if we're classing Georgia as a great test and a good win would be 10+ points, then we need to accept that we're never going to challenge at the top.

This is Georgia. We should be putting 40+ points on these teams. It's what England & Ireland would do quite easily, so we should be aiming for the same.

I agree - with our strongest team out we should be expecting a comfortable win. We cannot however make mass changes and expect to still romp it, and if we carry on with the youngsters against them (no choice in some positions) if might be a bit of a struggle - at least for the first 60 minutes or so.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:I hate reading comments stating that this match could be close/we'll get spanked in the scrums/Georgia are a good team etc.

I'm sorry, but if we're classing Georgia as a great test and a good win would be 10+ points, then we need to accept that we're never going to challenge at the top.

This is Georgia. We should be putting 40+ points on these teams. It's what England & Ireland would do quite easily, so we should be aiming for the same.

Completely agree. If Scotland have aspirations to be top 4 team then smashing Georgia is expected. Be confident but not complacent.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:I hate reading comments stating that this match could be close/we'll get spanked in the scrums/Georgia are a good team etc.

I'm sorry, but if we're classing Georgia as a great test and a good win would be 10+ points, then we need to accept that we're never going to challenge at the top.

This is Georgia. We should be putting 40+ points on these teams. It's what England & Ireland would do quite easily, so we should be aiming for the same.

I agree - with our strongest team out we should be expecting a comfortable win.  We cannot however make mass changes and expect to still romp it, and if we carry on with the youngsters against them (no choice in some positions) if might be a bit of a struggle - at least for the first 60 minutes or so.

I think that is doing Georgia a disservice, in the pack they have three players on the books at Toulon and are above Italy and Samoa in the world rankings. They don't have a great backline, but if the weather is stinking and they drag us into an arm wrestle it could be close.

This is not to say that I don't expect/want Scotland to put them away well, it's what we should be aiming for. If I were to put a points total on it I would expect us to win by +15-25, but given our track record I don't think its unrealistic to suggest that the game might be closer than we expect.

EST wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:I hate reading comments stating that this match could be close/we'll get spanked in the scrums/Georgia are a good team etc.

I'm sorry, but if we're classing Georgia as a great test and a good win would be 10+ points, then we need to accept that we're never going to challenge at the top.

This is Georgia. We should be putting 40+ points on these teams. It's what England & Ireland would do quite easily, so we should be aiming for the same.

I agree - with our strongest team out we should be expecting a comfortable win.  We cannot however make mass changes and expect to still romp it, and if we carry on with the youngsters against them (no choice in some positions) if might be a bit of a struggle - at least for the first 60 minutes or so.

I think that is doing Georgia a disservice, in the pack they have three players on the books at Toulon and are above Italy and Samoa in the world rankings.  They don't have a great backline, but if the weather is stinking and they drag us into an arm wrestle it could be close.  

This is not to say that I don't expect/want Scotland to put them away well, it's what we should be aiming for.  If I were to put a points total on it I would expect us to win by +15-25, but given our track record I don't think its unrealistic to suggest that the game might be closer than we expect.

Expecting is maybe the wrong word - 'aiming for' is perhaps better. If we want to be a team that can get 3 or 4 wins in the 6N this year then we need to be getting a good win over teams likes Georgia. It certainly won't be easy though, especially given our injuries.

15 - Hogg
14 - Seymour
13 - BENNETT  (no point risking Jones)
12 - Dunbar
11 - HOYLAND  (good try scoring form for Edinburgh)
10 - Russell
9 - PRICE  (give him a crack)

8 - Barclay
7 - Watson
6 - Bradbury
5 - Gray
4 - GRAY
3 - Fagerson
2 - Ford
1 - Dell

16 - Brown
17 - Allan
18 - Low
19 - Gilchrist
20 - Wilson
21 - Pyrgos
22 - Horne
23 - Maitland

[deleted for Wrongness]

RDW_Scotland wrote:

EST wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:I hate reading comments stating that this match could be close/we'll get spanked in the scrums/Georgia are a good team etc.

I'm sorry, but if we're classing Georgia as a great test and a good win would be 10+ points, then we need to accept that we're never going to challenge at the top.

This is Georgia. We should be putting 40+ points on these teams. It's what England & Ireland would do quite easily, so we should be aiming for the same.

I agree - with our strongest team out we should be expecting a comfortable win.  We cannot however make mass changes and expect to still romp it, and if we carry on with the youngsters against them (no choice in some positions) if might be a bit of a struggle - at least for the first 60 minutes or so.

I think that is doing Georgia a disservice, in the pack they have three players on the books at Toulon and are above Italy and Samoa in the world rankings.  They don't have a great backline, but if the weather is stinking and they drag us into an arm wrestle it could be close.  

This is not to say that I don't expect/want Scotland to put them away well, it's what we should be aiming for.  If I were to put a points total on it I would expect us to win by +15-25, but given our track record I don't think its unrealistic to suggest that the game might be closer than we expect.

Expecting is maybe the wrong word - 'aiming for' is perhaps better. If we want to be a team that can get 3 or 4 wins in the 6N this year then we need to be getting a good win over teams likes Georgia. It certainly won't be easy though, especially given our injuries.

I agree, if we have any ambition of being a successful team on the 6N stage, then these type of games are a must win. Maybe it's because I was in the crowd at the 2011 WC, when we limped to a win over them at a rainy Invercargill (NZ's Kilmarnock) that i'm slightly less than optimistic for a 40+ point thrashing.

So assuming we beat Georgia, Argentina lose to England and Italy don't go on a winning run in the 6N, is there a high chance that we'll be in the top 8 come world cup draw after the 6N?

My main concern has actually become the lack of a substitute goal kicker for Laidlaw. 

Are we really confident with Finn kicking at international level?

RDW_Scotland wrote:So assuming we beat Georgia, Argentina lose to England and Italy don't go on a winning run in the 6N, is there a high chance that we'll be in the top 8 come world cup draw after the 6N?

Yes. The commentators were saying during the Scotland match that Argentina's problem is that they only have one more international between now and when the RWC draw happens in May. 

Unfortunately for them, it's against England at Twickers. This means the chance of them being able to get more World Rugby ranking points in time falls to this fixture. 

If they lose that game, Scotland beats Georgia and gets at least one win out of the 6N without getting hammered in the other fixtures, then it should be happy days.

Do we really lose points for getting beaten badly by teams ranked above us?

Rankings have just been updated:

1	(1)	NEW ZEALAND	94.78
2	(2)	ENGLAND	89.84
3	(3)	AUSTRALIA	88.14
4	(5)	IRELAND	83.46
5	(4)	SOUTH AFRICA	82.49
6	(6)	WALES	81.77
7	(9)	SCOTLAND	80.57
8	(7)	FRANCE	80.13
9	(8)	ARGENTINA	79.91
10	(10)	FIJI	75.49
11	(11)	JAPAN	75.20
12	(12)	GEORGIA	74.24

Article explaining that we are now at our highest ranking since 2011:
http://www.worldrugby.org/news/206582

The bit on their website explains how all of this works. Someone cleverer than me (which is essentially everyone) will explain it:

[size=40]Rankings Explanation[/size]

Both Men's and Women's World Rugby Rankings are calculated using a 'Points Exchange' system, in which sides take points off each other based on the match result. Whatever one side gains, the other loses.

The exchanges are based on the match result, the relative strength of each team, and the margin of victory, and there is an allowance for home advantage.

Points exchanges are doubled during the World Cup Finals to recognise the unique importance of this event, but all other full international matches are treated the same, to be as fair as possible to countries playing a different mix of friendly and competitive matches across the world.

Any match that is not a full international between two member countries does not count at all.

All member countries have a rating, typically between 0 and 100. The top side in the world will normally have a rating above 90.

An example of how a points exchange is calculated is shown further down this page.

WOMEN'S RANKING POINTS AT FIRST MATCH

The women’s rankings differ from the men’s in the way that the starting ranking points are calculated:

• The first official women’s full international match was played in 1987 and since then the number of women’s matches is considerably fewer than the number of men’s matches.
  
  
• There are a number of women’s teams who do not play regular matches.
  
  
• As a result of the relatively small number of matches compared to the men’s and the discrepancies in the number of matches played by different Unions the effect that one result will have on the rankings could unfairly skew the result.
  
  
• To combat this effect, it has been decided to start all teams out on 80 ranking points (an arbitrarily chosen figure which does not have any bearing on the subsequent results of the rankings) in 1987, then for each year between 1987 and the year that an individual Union played their first women’s full international match 2 points are deducted from their total.
  
  
• This deduction occurs up until 2007, so if a team plays their first ever full international after 2007 then they will begin with 40 ranking points.
  
  

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q. Can you tell in advance of matches what effect results will have on the rankings?

Yes we can, and this means that those involved with matches can know what is at stake, going into the match.

For each match, there are only five possible outcomes that can affect points exchanges: either side winning by more than 15 points, either side winning by up to 15 points, or a draw.

In each case, we can advise how many rating points each side will gain or lose. This type of preview information may be posted on the site.

Q. Does the system produce accurate and reliable rankings?

Several years' research went into developing the system, using an extensive database of international matches going back to 1871. All the weightings and values in the system were derived from detailed analysis of the results.

The system's reliability is assessed in a number of objective ways, including measuring its 'Predictive Accuracy'. If, over a period of time, the system tends to be good at predicting which side will win each match, then we can be confident that it is presenting an accurate and reliable picture of current strength, and responding appropriately to changes in form.

Q. How do you allow for home advantage?

When calculating points exchanges, the home side is treated as though they are three rating points better than their current rating. This has the effect of 'handicapping' the home side as they will tend to pick up fewer points for winning and give away more points for losing. In this way, the advantage of playing at home is cancelled out.

Q. How important is 'margin of victory' under the system?

The research suggested that match results are more important than margins of victory in producing accurate rankings. For instance, whether a side wins by 60 points or 100 points against much lower-rated opposition is not a good indicator of future performance.

However, the analysis also indicated that it is significant whether sides win relatively comfortably - with 'something to spare' - so a weighting is applied where a side wins a match by more than 15 points.

Q. Do sides earn credit for losing narrowly to higher rated opponents?

No they don't. In this system, you can't win points for losing, or lose points for winning. While it may be attractive to award points for heroic defeats, it is less appealing to deduct points from a team that has won. If the close match was an indication of a genuine shift in relative strength, this would be reflected in other results.

Q. Are all matches treated as equally important?

We have added a weighting for matches in the World Cup Finals, to recognise the unique importance and prestige of this event. All other full international matches between member unions, where players earn caps for playing for their country, currently count the same.

Q. Where do new countries start?

As of 1 December 2012, as soon as a country becomes a World Rugby Full Member Union, they are added to World Rugby World Rankings with a rating of 30. The rankings are responsive to results and it is possible to get from the bottom to the top (and vice-versa) in less than 20 matches. Countries will normally have a rating between 0 and 100.

(Prior to December 2012 the following applied for new countries - new full World Rugby Member Unions  start with a rating of 40, and their rating is treated as provisional until they have played 10 matches.)

Q. Will some countries tend to be higher rated at certain times of the year, such as following the Six Nations Championship?

No. As all matches are worth a total of 0 points (as whatever one side gains, the other loses) there is no particular advantage to playing more matches. Under the system, a country has a certain rating, which stays the same until they play again. Although matches often result in points exchanges, relatively 'predictable' results lead to very minor changes, and may result in no change to either side's rating at all.

Q. How important are past achievements in calculating the rankings?

The system is designed to produce an accurate picture of current strength, based on results. The importance of past successes will fade and be superseded by more recent results.

Q. How does the system deal with freak results?

There is a maximum that any side's rating can move, either up or down, based on one match result, to make sure that the system does not over-react.

Q. What happens if a country does not play for a number of years?

Their rating may be deemed to be 'dormant', in which case they will be removed from current ranking lists. However, when they are active again they will pick up their rating from where they left off.

Q. What happens if countries split, or merge?

When countries merge, the new country inherits the highest rating of any of the constituent countries.

When countries split, the new countries will inherit a rating at a fixed level below the rating of the original country.

HOW WORLD RUGBY WORLD RANKINGS ARE CALCULATED

For illustration, we'll use the Six Nations match between Wales and Scotland in Cardiff on 14 February 2004, to describe the process.


Step One: Check pre match ratings 

• The top 10 countries in World Rugby World Rankings, immediately before the match, are shown below. Wales were on a rating of 76.92 and Scotland slightly lower on 76.36.
  
  

Step Two: Allow for home advantage

• To 'handicap' the home side, we treat them as though they are three points stronger than their current rating, which means that they will
  
  
  
  tend to pick up fewer points for winning, and give away more points for losing
  
  
• This gives Wales a rating of 76.92 +3 = 79.92, against Scotland's rating of 76.36.
  
  

Step Three: Calculate the Rating Gap

• The Rating Gap is the difference between the ratings of the two sides
  
  
• Allowing for home advantage it is 79.92 - 76.36 = 3.56 (in favour of Wales).
  
  

Step Four: Check the possible Core Rating Changes

• Core Rating Changes are based on the match result and the Rating Gap
  
  

As illustrated in the diagram below, with a Rating Gap of 3.56, if Wales won their Core Rating Change would be up, and Scotland's down, by 0.64

• Again as illustrated below, if the game was drawn, Wales Core Rating Change would be down, and Scotland's up, by 0.36
  
  

• And finally if Scotland won their Core Rating Change would be up, and Wales's down, by 1.36. 
  
  

So Wales, as the higher rated side (especially allowing for home advantage) would pick up fewer points than Scotland if they won the match, and would give away more points if they lost. 









Step Five: Apply weighting factors
If one side has won by more than 15 points, we multiply the Core Rating Change by 1.5.
So if Wales won 30-10 the points exchange would be 0.64 x 1.5 = 0.96.
If the match was part of the World Cup Finals, we would then double the Rating Change.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Wales won the match 23-10, so the sides exchanged 0.64 rating points, with Wales going up to 77.57 and Scotland going down to 75.72.

Right....so basically you need a Masters degree in Mathematics and a PhD in statistics to understand it!

I'll try to simplify it.

Teams take or lose points against whoever they play.

The points at stake depends on the margin of difference between the two ranked teams so Scotland would get more points if we beat NZ that if we beat Wales. Likewise the reverse is true. We'd lose less points if we lost to NZ than if we lost to Wales.

You also win or lose more points if the score is 15 or more points between you and the other team.

15 points is the only cut off. Losing by 15 points has the same effect as losing by 100 points!

tigertattie wrote:I'll try to simplify it.

Teams take or lose points against whoever they play.

The points at stake depends on the margin of difference between the two ranked teams so Scotland would get more points if we beat NZ that if we beat Wales. Likewise the reverse is true. We'd lose less points if we lost to NZ than if we lost to Wales.

You also win or lose more points if the score is 15 or more points between you and the other team.

15 points is the only cut off. Losing by 15 points has the same effect as losing by 100 points!

What that smart feller said ^.

Just to put it in context:
- when Italy beat the Springboks, they gained 2 whole points.
- when the All Blacks beat any sides ranked 10th in the world or higher, they risk losing points if the margin of victory is less than the huge amount that their points differential would suggest.

by 10th or higher do you mean 11th, 12th, ect or 9th, 8th, etc?

George Carlin wrote:

tigertattie wrote:I'll try to simplify it.

Teams take or lose points against whoever they play.

The points at stake depends on the margin of difference between the two ranked teams so Scotland would get more points if we beat NZ that if we beat Wales. Likewise the reverse is true. We'd lose less points if we lost to NZ than if we lost to Wales.

You also win or lose more points if the score is 15 or more points between you and the other team.

15 points is the only cut off. Losing by 15 points has the same effect as losing by 100 points!

What that smart feller said ^.

Just to put it in context:
- when Italy beat the Springboks, they gained 2 whole points.
- when the All Blacks beat any sides ranked 10th in the world or higher, they risk losing points if the margin of victory is less than the huge amount that their points differential would suggest.

Not quite - no matter which team is playing, they don't lose points if they win a match. i.e. New Zealand wouldn't lose points by only beating Scotland by five.

What they points differential does mean in practice is that New Zealand won't gain any points by beating Namibia, and Namibia won't lose any points by being utterly prison-shamed by New Zealand. Importantly, Namibia wouldn't gain points by only losing by five - they just wouldn't lose any points.

Blair Cowan coming out today saying he wants a Scotland recall. Will he get another cap with the rise of Bradbury, CDP and eventually Ritchie as well as the availability of Wilson, Harley, Strauss and Barclay?

Staying at LI was honourable and probably killed his chances. I don't think he is good enough for Glasgow (and looking at how Glasgow messed around Kieran Low, I would rather not) and Edinburgh would probably use him as bench cover. Would he be Hardie's replacement until Matty Smith comes through?

International Rugby is cutthroat - Kelly Brown is an example that if you're out the picture for a while and are nearing the end of your career then it is very hard to get back in. His decision to stay with LI made it an easy choice not to select him for Scotland.

Barclay is an exception but he is still in his prime and has been a standout player.

i can't see him getting any more caps other than a lot of injuries, and given the players coming through it is probably fair as well.

Unless he moves to a top tier comp (T14/Aviva/Pro12) and plays out of his skin, then I think his International career is over. We have lot of players ahead of him in the pecking order and he would need a major injury crisis to get into the side again.

It's a shame for him, but from a selfish point of view, I'm delighted we have so much depth we can in theory ignore him.

My rankings (the order in which I'd pick someone in each position if each were fully fit)

Blindside
CDP
Bradbury
Barclay
Strauss
Harley

No 8
CDP
Strauss
Bradbury
Barclay
Denton

Openside
Hardie
Watson
Barclay
Cowan

He still has a chance but it's not looking overly good!

Speaking of players coming through, I see Bradbury's younger brother is playing tighthead for the U19s against Georgia tomorrow.

tigertattie wrote:My rankings (the order in which I'd pick someone in each position if each were fully fit)

Blindside
CDP
Bradbury
Barclay
Strauss
Harley

No 8
CDP
Strauss
Bradbury
Barclay
Denton

Openside
CDP
Watson
Barclay
Cowan

SH
CDP
Laidlaw
Pyrgos

FH
CDP
Russell
Jackson

FB
CDP
Hogg

He still has a chance but it's not looking overly good!

God.....get a room will you.