IRB World Rankings

[Puja]

So, after all the palaver of Wales possibly going top blew over, the rankings are still left in a massively interesting situation going into the RWC. Drawing at home to South Africa and then getting gubbed by Australia has knocked a lot of points off New Zealand (combined with their 66% win percentage in the last 12 tests) and brought them right back into the pack. There's only 2.21 ranking points between 1st and 5th, which is possible to achieve within one match. Technically speaking, it is possible that any one of 4 sides could be top at the end of next weekend (it is actually mathematically possible for Australia to overtake NZ if they win by +15 this weekend, but a) not going to happen and b) it would be by dragging NZ down to 6th(!) rather than giving Aus enough points to get to number 1 - they can't get higher than 3rd even in best case scenario).

One funny outcome is that it's entirely possible that we could have 3 changes to the top spot in 3 weeks. England beat Wales by +15 in Cardiff, they go top. Ireland then beat England in Twickenham, they go top. Wales beat Ireland the next week and that could see NZ top of the pile again.

All things told, the rankings are saying what is now obvious from observation - the top 5 teams are now so close together that there's no way to pick an unequivocal number 1 and the team who might be seen as on top varies from game to game.

Good thing we've got a tournament coming up for everyone to prove their mettle, huh? As all the RWC results count for double points, I don't doubt that the winner is going to end up topping the rankings as well.

Puja

[Renniks]

So…
Wales win, wales go top, no matter what else happens
England win by more than 15, England go top, no matter what else happens
England & Aus win by any margin, England go top
England & Wales draw, and NZ don't win, Ireland go top

Quite the weekend for the NH then!

[Lizard]

All very interesting, but these NH warm-up matches should not be capped tests.

[Puja]

All very interesting, but these NH warm-up matches should not be capped tests.

You're not wrong. Or they should be counted half points for the rankings. As it stands, there is a very real chance of England going top by putting away an overtrained Wales twice in a row.

However, no-one's going to shell out for uncapped games tickets and, as Gatland's noted, these games are more about money than they are RWC prep.

Puja

[Digby]

All very interesting, but these NH warm-up matches should not be capped tests.

Meh, simply change your calendar to mirror ours and you'd have the same options

[Lizard]

All very interesting, but these NH warm-up matches should not be capped tests.

Meh, simply change your calendar to mirror ours and you'd have the same options

Or you could change yours to match ours and ruin your regular championship by turning it into a half-arsed warm-up tournament every four years. As it is we're going to butcher a 16-year run with the Bledisloe Cup (and 10 years at no.1) on the altar of a RWC Threepeat.

[Digby]

All very interesting, but these NH warm-up matches should not be capped tests.

Meh, simply change your calendar to mirror ours and you'd have the same options

Or you could change yours to match ours and ruin your regular championship by turning it into a half-arsed warm-up tournament every four years. As it is we're going to butcher a 16-year run with the Bledisloe Cup (and 10 years at no.1) on the altar of a RWC Threepeat.

I'm not worried about your issues/problems in this though, if anything I was amused at your defence with both 14 and 15 last time out, though I was less amused we didn't exactly look competent ourselves

[Puja]

All very interesting, but these NH warm-up matches should not be capped tests.

Meh, simply change your calendar to mirror ours and you'd have the same options

Or you could change yours to match ours and ruin your regular championship by turning it into a half-arsed warm-up tournament every four years.

No doubt that'll be on the schedule for the NH nations to capitulate to the next time the international calendar is up for negotiation again.

I've noticed that this has now started being reported on a few news sites*, but they're all getting it wrong by assuming that Aus has to beat NZ again to see a change. There's still a massive rankings gap between NZ and Aus and, especially with the game being in NZ, a home win is expected so there's very few points on offer. Even if NZ thump Australia, they will not stay top unless England beat Wales by less than 16 points (or draw). Any other result leads to one of England and Wales on top, regardless of what NZ do - the damage was done last week.

Puja

*A day or so after I posted it here, the same as when they reported on the chances of an Australia win putting Wales top last week, leaving me with the amusing suspicion that there's a journalist or two lurking here.

[Mellsblue]

Couldn’t be bothered to read it all myself but.....

https://davethomas.home.blog/2019/08/26 ... ssion=true

[Which Tyler]

Couldn’t be bothered to read it all myself but.....

https://davethomas.home.blog/2019/08/26 ... ssion=true

Seems to say what most of us do.
The actual rank is.... good, but not great. The important bit is the difference between ranking points of the teams.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Couldn’t be bothered to read it all myself but.....

https://davethomas.home.blog/2019/08/26 ... ssion=true

Seems to say what most of us do.
The actual rank is.... good, but not great. The important bit is the difference between ranking points of the teams.

Which apparently is too subtle for journalists, coaches and the VP of World Rugby who hasn't the first clue how they work. Honestly Pichot was a fantastic rugby player but if there's a poster boy for great players not making great administrators, he's it.

[Lizard]

Pichot is a great reminder that Argentine rugby remained amateur until 2016.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!

Edmund Hillary, Valerie Adams, Russell Crowe, IN YOUR FACE!!!!

[Lizard]

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!

Edmund Hillary, Valerie Adams, Russell Crowe, IN YOUR FACE!!!!

You take that back immediately!

We gave Russell Crowe to Australia fair and square yonks ago, no returnsies.

[kUD]

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!

Edmund Hillary, Valerie Adams, Russell Crowe, IN YOUR FACE!!!!

You take that back immediately!

We gave Russell Crowe to Australia fair and square yonks ago, no returnsies.

Not to mention Phar Lap, Crowded House and pavlova....

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Son of Mathonwy]

Beware, the No.1 ranking brings with it a complete inability to win games.

Well, that's our experience anyway.

[Lizard]

If the RWC seeding was done using the current rankings, NZ and SA would be in different pools, as would Wales and Australia. Georgia would have justified it’s automatic qualification.

The unfairness of having 2 top-4 teams in Pool B is ameliorated somewhat by having easily the lowest ranked 3rd seed (14th placed Italy, natch) and having the lowest 2 ranked teams in the entire tournament (Canada 22nd and Namibia 23rd).

Aussie (5th) and Wales (6th) avoid top rank competition in their pool but have to contend with two top-12 sides (Fiji 9th, Georgia 12th).

[Puja]

The double points for RWC rankings (which I don't much like) make everything very volatile. Here are you results so far:

1 (↑2) New Zealand 90.98 (+1.59)
2 (↓1) Ireland 89.47
3 England 88.13
4 (↑5) Wales 87.32
5 (↓4) South Africa 85.75 (-1.59)
6 Australia 85.07 (+1.01)
7 (↑8) France 81.04 (+1.31)
8 (↓7) Scotland 81.00
9 (↑10) Japan 76.70
10 (↓9) Fiji 76.42 (-1.01)
11 Argentina 74.97 (-1.31)

Argentina continue to be utterly robbed in the rankings, as far as Pichot is concerned, by continuing to fail to win a single game of rugby. Outrageous that they keep losing points for that! New Zealand go top and will stay there regardless of what happens tomorrow, as England won't get any points from Tonga and Ireland can't get enough from Scotland. If Scotland win, then Ireland drop to 4th (and a big win would see Ireland go from 1st to 7th in a weekend with Scotland going 4th).

Other than that, only a major upset is going to change the rankings before next Saturday, as the next week is all big teams vs minnows with no ranking points to gain for the big teams.

Puja

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Double points at the RWC makes sense. Not so much for those of us in the Home Nations who have our rankings fairly accurately determined by the 6N, summer tours and AIs. However for everyone else playing a much wider selection of teams than they normally have access to, it makes sense to accelerate the points changes.

I do think that they should change the rankings match by match in the RWC. with sometimes 2 games in a week it makes no sense to only update on a Monday.

If I were like whiny Steven Hansen I'd complain about Ireland winning but going down in ranking but it makes perfect sense if you've got an even passing acquaintance with the rankings it makes perfect sense. I presume that means that NZ will remain number 1 until they lose? Not sure anyone can pick up enough points to get past them.

[Puja]

Double points at the RWC makes sense. Not so much for those of us in the Home Nations who have our rankings fairly accurately determined by the 6N, summer tours and AIs. However for everyone else playing a much wider selection of teams than they normally have access to, it makes sense to accelerate the points changes.

I do think that they should change the rankings match by match in the RWC. with sometimes 2 games in a week it makes no sense to only update on a Monday.

If I were like whiny Steven Hansen I'd complain about Ireland winning but going down in ranking but it makes perfect sense if you've got an even passing acquaintance with the rankings it makes perfect sense. I presume that means that NZ will remain number 1 until they lose? Not sure anyone can pick up enough points to get past them.

To me, it makes a one-off game, that might be settled by one incident, have too large an effect. It's possible to leap up 6 points in one go, which feels too high for one game.

Your lot can overtake NZ if you win your group and beat South Africa in the quarters - NZ's opponent in the quarters won't be high enough for them to earn points.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is the thing that annoys me about the rankings.

Wales had 87.32 at the start of the RWC and now, having finished a pretty good 4th place, have 85.02

Outside of the RWC (and its double-strength ranking changes), the system works pretty well.

[Puja]

This is the thing that annoys me about the rankings.

Wales had 87.32 at the start of the RWC and now, having finished a pretty good 4th place, have 85.02

Outside of the RWC (and its double-strength ranking changes), the system works pretty well.

Same as the last time you finished fourth - you lost two games, as opposed to NZ, SA, and England who only lost one.

It's all looking fairly sensible and inarguable at the top of the rankings right now. I think it's one in the eye for those who wouldn't stop whining about them (Pichot) before the RWC.

1 South Africa 94.19
2 New Zealand 92.11
3 England 88.82
4 Wales 85.02
5 Ireland 84.45
6 Australia 81.90
7 France 80.88
8 Japan 79.28
9 Scotland 79.23
10 Argentina 78.31

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is the thing that annoys me about the rankings.

Wales had 87.32 at the start of the RWC and now, having finished a pretty good 4th place, have 85.02

Outside of the RWC (and its double-strength ranking changes), the system works pretty well.

Same as the last time you finished fourth - you lost two games, as opposed to NZ, SA, and England who only lost one.

It's all looking fairly sensible and inarguable at the top of the rankings right now. I think it's one in the eye for those who wouldn't stop whining about them (Pichot) before the RWC.

1 South Africa 94.19
2 New Zealand 92.11
3 England 88.82
4 Wales 85.02
5 Ireland 84.45
6 Australia 81.90
7 France 80.88
8 Japan 79.28
9 Scotland 79.23
10 Argentina 78.31

Puja

I'm not in this instance complaining about the 4th place ranking - although you might, ending up below NZ despite getting to the final - it's losing a chunk of ranking points despite a reasonable finish.

[Puja]

This is the thing that annoys me about the rankings.

Wales had 87.32 at the start of the RWC and now, having finished a pretty good 4th place, have 85.02

Outside of the RWC (and its double-strength ranking changes), the system works pretty well.

Same as the last time you finished fourth - you lost two games, as opposed to NZ, SA, and England who only lost one.

It's all looking fairly sensible and inarguable at the top of the rankings right now. I think it's one in the eye for those who wouldn't stop whining about them (Pichot) before the RWC.

1 South Africa 94.19
2 New Zealand 92.11
3 England 88.82
4 Wales 85.02
5 Ireland 84.45
6 Australia 81.90
7 France 80.88
8 Japan 79.28
9 Scotland 79.23
10 Argentina 78.31

Puja

I'm not in this instance complaining about the 4th place ranking - although you might, ending up below NZ despite getting to the final - it's losing a chunk of ranking points despite a reasonable finish.

I'm actually okay with that - we won against NZ and deserved it, but I think we'll need to do it again to consider ourselves genuinely better, given NZ's recent record and especially given that we couldn't back it up against SA.

I think there's a reasonable chance that SA are actually not quite as good as NZ and England, if we were to play the same games 10 times over, but you can't really argue with the Champions having the #1 ranking, especially with the demolition job they did on England in the final.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Same as the last time you finished fourth - you lost two games, as opposed to NZ, SA, and England who only lost one.

It's all looking fairly sensible and inarguable at the top of the rankings right now. I think it's one in the eye for those who wouldn't stop whining about them (Pichot) before the RWC.

1 South Africa 94.19
2 New Zealand 92.11
3 England 88.82
4 Wales 85.02
5 Ireland 84.45
6 Australia 81.90
7 France 80.88
8 Japan 79.28
9 Scotland 79.23
10 Argentina 78.31

Puja

I'm not in this instance complaining about the 4th place ranking - although you might, ending up below NZ despite getting to the final - it's losing a chunk of ranking points despite a reasonable finish.

I'm actually okay with that - we won against NZ and deserved it, but I think we'll need to do it again to consider ourselves genuinely better, given NZ's recent record and especially given that we couldn't back it up against SA.

I think there's a reasonable chance that SA are actually not quite as good as NZ and England, if we were to play the same games 10 times over, but you can't really argue with the Champions having the #1 ranking, especially with the demolition job they did on England in the final.

Puja

Sure, that's fine. I have no problem with that.

It's the points. Should SA really be 2 points ahead of NZ, 5 above England, 9 above Wales??