Son of Mathonwy wrote:
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??
Ah, fair enough. In which case, no, they shouldn't be, which is why the double points for a RWC is stupid.
Puja wrote:
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??
Ah, fair enough. In which case, no, they shouldn't be, which is why the double points for a RWC is stupid.
Puja
I may be oversensitive to this, on account of Wales's habit for finishing 4th.
Puja wrote:
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??
Ah, fair enough. In which case, no, they shouldn't be, which is why the double points for a RWC is stupid.
Puja
Doesn't seem particularly wrong to me. SA favourites against everyone everywhere, NZ just favourites over SA if playing at home.
You can look at position and Wales are 4th which is where they finished the tournament, or you can look at points and they didn't beat anyone with more points than them and got thumped by the team that was above them. Seems like a net loss isn't unreasonable to me.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
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??
Ah, fair enough. In which case, no, they shouldn't be, which is why the double points for a RWC is stupid.
Puja
Doesn't seem particularly wrong to me. SA favourites against everyone everywhere, NZ just favourites over SA if playing at home.
You can look at position and Wales are 4th which is where they finished the tournament, or you can look at points and they didn't beat anyone with more points than them and got thumped by the team that was above them. Seems like a net loss isn't unreasonable to me.
