RugbyRebels

Did you know that you could be the number one ranked side in the world this weekend?

If Arg win their home game against NZ by =>16 points, then it would cost NZ enough points to drop them to 2nd. It's not particularly likely, but the game is in Argentina, the home side are finally picking European based players, and NZ are heavily rotated, so it's not utterly impossible.

Puja

You'd think the ignominy of falling to second would focus the ABs' minds.

If it happens, we'll take it. But it's probably better if it doesn't - could take the edge off our hunger.

That’s nice. But it’s hard to take it too seriously. Yes we are GS champions and are on a great winning streak, but potentially moving past the All Blacks without beating them feels false.

Sandydragon wrote:That’s nice. But it’s hard to take it too seriously. Yes we are GS champions and are on a great winning streak, but potentially moving past the All Blacks without beating them feels false.

It'd be one of the few occasions where I'd agree that the rankings were demonstrably wrong. Okay, so you'd generally agree that getting clumped by the 10th ranked team should carry a penalty for NZ, but the mitigating circumstances of a rotated team and Argentina suddenly deciding to change tactics and pick their best players regardless of their club side mean that it wouldn't be a representative result of 10th vs 1st and, as you've said, Wales haven't yet shown enough to deserve top spot.

It's not going to happen anyway, although I can see a narrow Arg win as a possibility.

Puja

Don't Wales have the Raeburn Shield at the moment too?

Alas, it wasn't to be. But it's nice to see NZ struggling against ARG.

No it bloody wasn’t

I think the days of treating Argentina at home as a “safe” chance to experiment with selections are over. Here is a XV of All Blacks who didn’t start against the Pumas:

1.Moody
2.Taylor
3.Franks
4.S. Barrett
5.S. Whitelock
6.Hemopo
7.Todd
8.Read
9.Perenara
10.Mo’unga
11.R. Ioane
12.Crotty
13.SBW
14.Naholo
15.D. McKenzie

The South Africa draw today has closed the gap enough that now any Australian victory will see Wales go to number 1 for about 27 hours. They'll drop back down to second when they lose to England on Sunday, which is a shame because the rankings are only officially updated on a Monday, so it won't actually show on the stats if it happens.

Mind, having said that, what's the more unlikely scenario - the original one of Argentina winning by 16 or the new one of Australia actually winning a match against New Zealand?!

Puja

Puja wrote:The South Africa draw today has closed the gap enough that now any Australian victory will see Wales go to number 1 for about 27 hours. They'll drop back down to second when they lose to England on Sunday, which is a shame because the rankings are only officially updated on a Monday, so it won't actually show on the stats if it happens.

Mind, having said that, what's the more unlikely scenario - the original one of Argentina winning by 16 or the new one of Australia actually winning a match against New Zealand?!

Puja

Hah, trick question - the most unlikely scenario there is Wales losing to England.

But seriously, if Wales do manage to beat England, Wales can top the rankings (by a whopping 0.01 points ) if Australia manage to get a draw.

In the grand scheme of things - does it really matter?


Sent from my SNE-LX1 using Tapatalk

PoolerSaint wrote:In the grand scheme of things - does it really matter?


Sent from my SNE-LX1 using Tapatalk

Not massively, but it does have some import. Apart from anything else, it'd be nice to have another name atop the world rankings (even if it had to be at our expense), considering there's only been three so far and the ABs have been a distance away from competition since 2008. And from a Welsh perspective, it would be a fillip to your confidence - you can say it's only numbers and it doesn't really matter, but to have something tangible that says that New Zealand are not insuperable and there isn't some vast chasm of quality between them and the rest would be very valuable.

Puja

Yeah, I get all that, but personally I don't take too much notice of the rankings.
It would be a little hollow to take NZ's place at No1 when we haven't beaten them for nearly 60 years.

Sent from my SNE-LX1 using Tapatalk

PoolerSaint wrote:Yeah, I get all that, but personally I don't take too much notice of the rankings.
It would be a little hollow to take NZ's place at No1 when we haven't beaten them for nearly 60 years.

Sent from my SNE-LX1 using Tapatalk

But if you did, it'd be because they'd failed to win against Australia and South Africa, neither of whom you've failed to beat of late.

Puja

Not to get you guys excited, but NZ are currently 16-12 down at half-time and have just received a red card. This might actually be on.

Puja

think you can start to celebrate being World Cup favourites.

The final margin of 47-26 means that New Zealand lose the maximum points possible. Even if they beat Australia next week, there are now results permutations that could see Ireland or England overtake them (and you). Number one spot could change a lot over the next month or so.

If you get any shit from Kiwi fans about it being "stupid that you're #1 because you haven't beaten us in 50 years," feel free to point out that, in the last 12 matches, New Zealand have lost to Ireland, lost and drawn to South Africa, and lost to Australia, whereas in the same span Wales have beaten Ireland, Australia, and South Africa twice. 66% winning record to them, compared to a 100% for you. It's not a fluke or a flaw in the World Rankings; it's deserved.

Well done, you lot (he said through gritted teeth). Here's hoping we ruin it for you tomorrow.

Puja

Puja wrote:The final margin of 47-26 means that New Zealand lose the maximum points possible. Even if they beat Australia next week, there are now results permutations that could see Ireland or England overtake them (and you). Number one spot could change a lot over the next month or so.

If you get any shit from Kiwi fans about it being "stupid that you're #1 because you haven't beaten us in 50 years," feel free to point out that, in the last 12 matches, New Zealand have lost to Ireland, lost and drawn to South Africa, and lost to Australia, whereas in the same span Wales have beaten Ireland, Australia, and South Africa twice. 66% winning record to them, compared to a 100% for you. It's not a fluke or a flaw in the World Rankings; it's deserved.

Well done, you lot (he said through gritted teeth). Here's hoping we ruin it for you tomorrow.

Puja

Can you, now there's been the multiplier? I haven't checked the numbers.

Oh and I agree with what you say about the rankings. The idea that A can be better than B because B beat A is obviously ludicrous if B also manage to lose to a load of other teams whilst A beat the other teams.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Puja wrote:The final margin of 47-26 means that New Zealand lose the maximum points possible. Even if they beat Australia next week, there are now results permutations that could see Ireland or England overtake them (and you). Number one spot could change a lot over the next month or so.

If you get any shit from Kiwi fans about it being "stupid that you're #1 because you haven't beaten us in 50 years," feel free to point out that, in the last 12 matches, New Zealand have lost to Ireland, lost and drawn to South Africa, and lost to Australia, whereas in the same span Wales have beaten Ireland, Australia, and South Africa twice. 66% winning record to them, compared to a 100% for you. It's not a fluke or a flaw in the World Rankings; it's deserved.

Well done, you lot (he said through gritted teeth). Here's hoping we ruin it for you tomorrow.

Puja

Can you, now there's been the multiplier? I haven't checked the numbers.

Oh and I agree with what you say about the rankings. The idea that A can be better than B because B beat A is obviously ludicrous if B also manage to lose to a load of other teams whilst A beat the other teams.

England permutations here: http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... 14#p178404

Ireland face a very similar set of circumstances - win all of their games against England and Wales and they'll be top.

Puja

ETA. Just run the numbers and Ireland will be top if they beat England in the first game (as long as they don't lose to Italy, of course), as long as England win at least one of the games against Wales (if Wales win both, they'll be too far ahead and we won't have enough points for you to take off us to overtake them). That scenario would push New Zealand down to 3rd, which might cause Chris Rattue to spontaneously combust.

There are times when I would have been very happy to see Wales as World number 1. This time however seems pointless and means nothing. Wales are no better a side than they were yesterday. It is a statistical artefact.

.

Graigwen wrote:There are times when I would have been very happy to see Wales as World number 1. This time however seems pointless and means nothing. Wales are no better a side than they were yesterday. It is a statistical artefact.

.

Balls. Wales might be no better a side than they were yesterday, but New Zealand are looking a bit worse because they've just drawn at home to South Africa and got dicked by 6th-ranked Australia.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Graigwen wrote:There are times when I would have been very happy to see Wales as World number 1. This time however seems pointless and means nothing. Wales are no better a side than they were yesterday. It is a statistical artefact.

.

Balls. Wales might be no better a side than they were yesterday, but New Zealand are looking a bit worse because they've just drawn at home to South Africa and got dicked by 6th-ranked Australia.

Puja

I am an old man now, retired from rugby 30 years ago when approaching my fourth decade. I was at primary school the last time we beat the All Blacks. I think they would have done a lot better today with fifteen players.

Anyway, it does not really matter.

What is going on with Eddie Jones? I did think the Underhill:Curry pairing looked exciting and should have been tried before.

.

So according to lassen.co.nz the only way Wales can lose #1 tomorrow is to lose by 15 or more, is that correct?

It's nice to be there for however long it lasts.
But truthfully I'd take not being No1 and coming through the 4 warm up games with no injuries rather than winning the 4 and going to the RWC as No1 ranked nation.
I think back four years ago when we lost Rhys Webb, Leigh Halfpenny & Amos to long-term injuries.
There are some players we simply can't afford to lose as our depth (although improved) is paper thin in places.

Sent from my SNE-LX1 using Tapatalk

Ross. S wrote:So according to lassen.co.nz the only way Wales can lose #1 tomorrow is to lose by 15 or more, is that correct?

No, they're talking toot. Any loss sees you back down to #2, although a draw is good enough to keep you top. A >15 loss would see you drop below Ireland into 3rd.

Puja