RugbyRebels

Well done to your boys for having the consistent results to get to the top of the heap.

I guess that makes you World Cup favourites now!

Lizard wrote:Well done to your boys for having the consistent results to get to the top of the heap.

I guess that makes you World Cup favourites now!

Hopefully not.

Just remind me, when did we last beat you?

.

Graigwen wrote:

Lizard wrote:Well done to your boys for having the consistent results to get to the top of the heap.

I guess that makes you World Cup favourites now!

Hopefully not.

Just remind me, when did we last beat you?

.

When did you last lose to Ireland, Australia, or South Africa?

Puja

You don’t necessarily need to beat us to win the RWC.

The 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 RWCs were won by teams that did not beat NZ during the tournament. (Although the non-NZ teams did have a recent history of beating them at the time).

Next week England play Ireland. Shockingly, Ireland could sneak to the top of the rankings with a win. Such is the ridiculousness of the ranking algorithm .

Could I support England for the first time in my life????

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Next week England play Ireland. Shockingly, Ireland could sneak to the top of the rankings with a win. Such is the ridiculousness of the ranking algorithm .

Could I support England for the first time in my life????

Ireland could snaek a win and go top and nobody would bat an eyelid even though they've been humped by both England and Wales once this year but hay, they beat the All Blacks.

The salt from certain places is just sad. We've beaten all put infront of us yet its not good enough?

They could simplify the rankings by just saying that the All Blacks are no.1 until someone beats them twice in a row at Eden Park.

Historically that would mean SA 1921/37 and Australia 1949/55.

The salt continues. They changed the rules, quicker than I can ever recall anything being changed in the wake of England having a strop and now Wales being #1 is branded "ridiculous" by a high ranking world rugby boss (who is a total bellend, granted) and now they're going to change the rules on that. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... s-16830751

Wales have won 15 of 16 over the last 18 months including beating England twice, Argentina twice, South Africa twice, plus the usual Ireland, Scotland, France and Australia. The only team we haven't beaten is NZ, since we haven't played them that would be a tough ask.

Ross. S wrote:The salt continues. They changed the rules, quicker than I can ever recall anything being changed in the wake of England having a strop and now Wales being #1 is branded "ridiculous" by a high ranking world rugby boss (who is a total bellend, granted) and now they're going to change the rules on that. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... s-16830751

Wales have won 15 of 16 over the last 18 months including beating England twice, Argentina twice, South Africa twice, plus the usual Ireland, Scotland, France and Australia. The only team we haven't beaten is NZ, since we haven't played them that would be a tough ask.

Pichot *is* a colossal bellend and nothing is going to change. He's having a whine to an Argentine magazine following a question about Argentina not being in the top 10 in the world in the latest rankings and making it into the fault of the rankings, rather than the fault of Argentina not winning any games. He's worried about being behind Japan and that a bad RWC and a further fall in the rankings would see Japan invited to join SANZAAAAAAR in their place.

The quote in the article is:
"- How much does the fact that Argentina has ceased to be among the top 10 in the ranking?
- In nothing. It is a ranking that is badly done and I said it the first day I arrived at World Rugby. It has no order, it is all mathematical and I would say that it is almost a matter of marketing. Argentina, for example, plays all the games with the first three (NdR: refers to New Zealand, Australia and South Africa) and Japan or Fiji win two or three games and are above Italy that also plays a very tough tournament like The Six Nations This was demonstrated when Wales never beat New Zealand in history (since the ranking is drawn up) and now appears first. It's ridiculous! I'm going to change it. I assure."

Outside of Pichot's grudgey mind, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the rankings and there's zero appetite to change them. Although I do remember a lot of complaining on here after the 2011 RWC when England overtook Wales in the rankings, despite going out in the quarters, because we had the gall to only lose one match whereas you lost three, so I do find that satisfaction with the rankings ebbs and flows depending on how someone's team is doing in them.

Puja

Yep. AP panders to his local audience and has zero effect on anything.

If Argentina wants to be ranked higher then they need to regularly beat Australia and South Africa like Wales do, and start winning against the NH. They are 3 from 17 from 2016, beating only Italy (x2) and France (in Arg, 2016) losing every time to every other 6N side home and away.

Apart from the 3N and 5N, Fiji and Japan are ranked ahead of Argentina. The Pumas have not played Japan since winning in 2016. The last match with Fiji was in 2003.

In the same period, Fiji has beaten France and Scotland, as well as Italy. Of course they should be ranked higher than Argentina.

Argentina and Italy suffer a little in the rankings because they are the whipping boys in their respective competitions. But that's the price they pay for having seats at the top table(s), positions they arguably don't deserve (particularly in the case of Italy). Stop being whipping boys, stop having crap rankings.

The only thing I would say is slightly wrong with the rankings is that Japan and Georgia are slightly overranked. But, to be fair to them, they can only beat what's put in front of them and both have been beating PI teams regularly to get where they are.

Puja

I think you need to also look at the rankings points, not just positions.

Japan, Fiji and Argentina are all within 1 point, and under the system home advantage is considered to be worth 2 points. So these three are basically equal.

Similarly, Wales are top by only 0.03 points, with England 1.27 behind NZ.

The ranking system is a decent one. With teams not all playing each other in a systematic fashion and with a relatively low number of games per year (eg compared with tennis) a points exchange is a good idea.

My main criticisms are:

1) Marginal victories are too well rewarded. Winning margins from 1 to 15 are rewarded equally, IMO a low margin (say 1-3) indicates there is little between the teams whereas 10 or more is a comfortable win (indicating a genuine difference in performance).

I would reduce the current points exchange for a margin of 1 to 3 points to 0.5 of the current amount.


2) Doubling the ranking point exchange for ALL world cup matches, regardless of stage in the competition, is unjustified.

I would suggest only having the doubling for the knockout stages OR all 20 teams give up (say) 0.5 points at the start of the RWC and these points (20x0.5=10pts) are given to the teams reaching the last 8 places (eg 1st:3.5pts, 2nd:2pts, 3rd:1.5pts, 4th:1pt, 5th-8th:0.5pts).

I agree that the +/- 15 points division is too coarse. Either a win is a win, or a more nuanced sliding scale would be preferable.

I’m not sure that differentiating RWC games by stage is justified. Most pool results are predictable, and upsets should be rewarded.

I would rather that no RWC games carried any premium but that National Unions stopped awarding caps for plainly non-fully competitive games, like the current RWC warm ups.

Lizard wrote:I agree that the +/- 15 points division is too coarse. Either a win is a win, or a more nuanced sliding scale would be preferable.

I’m not sure that differentiating RWC games by stage is justified. Most pool results are predictable, and upsets should be rewarded.

I would rather that no RWC games carried any premium but that National Unions stopped awarding caps for plainly non-fully competitive games, like the current RWC warm ups.

The RWC warmups should not be capped, or at least not all of them. If the teams are obviously not the strongest because the coaches have done a deal (and I’m not criticising that it makes sense to give the whole squad a work out) then a cap should not be awarded.

Sandydragon wrote:

Lizard wrote:I agree that the +/- 15 points division is too coarse. Either a win is a win, or a more nuanced sliding scale would be preferable.

I’m not sure that differentiating RWC games by stage is justified. Most pool results are predictable, and upsets should be rewarded.

I would rather that no RWC games carried any premium but that National Unions stopped awarding caps for plainly non-fully competitive games, like the current RWC warm ups.

The RWC warmups should not be capped, or at least not all of them. If the teams are obviously not the strongest because the coaches have done a deal (and I’m not criticising that it makes sense to give the whole squad a work out) then a cap should not be awarded.

What if only one side looks weaker? And then if that still sees a game move to non cap status what of many NZ games (perhaps more so in 2006 than now) that clearly showed heavy reliance on rotation?

Tbh I don't see a problem, the rankings aren't fixed where they are, if other sides have a problem they need only win some games.

Sandydragon wrote:

Lizard wrote:I agree that the +/- 15 points division is too coarse. Either a win is a win, or a more nuanced sliding scale would be preferable.

I’m not sure that differentiating RWC games by stage is justified. Most pool results are predictable, and upsets should be rewarded.

I would rather that no RWC games carried any premium but that National Unions stopped awarding caps for plainly non-fully competitive games, like the current RWC warm ups.

The RWC warmups should not be capped, or at least not all of them. If the teams are obviously not the strongest because the coaches have done a deal (and I’m not criticising that it makes sense to give the whole squad a work out) then a cap should not be awarded.

£££. People don't fill the Millennium Stadium or Twickenham for England A vs Wales A.

I'd be in favour of RWC warmup games having half the points exchange though and getting rid of the double points for the RWC games. I get that the latter is to ensure that the winner ends up as close to #1 as possible for marketing reasons, but the winner will likely be there or thereabouts anyway (or it'll be a great story about an upset victory).

Puja

The big problem for me about the RWC ranking rules is what happens in the knockout stages. I feel that teams should get rewarded for their final position in the competition (indeed what kind of ranking system is it if it doesn't reflect this clearly?).

But what we get are ranking points changes based (approximately) on number of tests won minus number of tests lost. So (ignoring the pool stage) we get:

Final position: Net tests won
1st : 3
2nd: 1
3rd: 1
4th: -1
5-8th: -1

From the POV of a tier 1 team, assuming no shock loss to minnows, the pool stage nets +1 or -1 depending on whether you beat the other tier 1 team in your pool (wins against tier 2 will give low or zero points). So expected result 0.

So overall, you can expect to gain ranking points from the RWC if you finish in the top 3. Anything lower will likely lose you ranking points (for tier 1, anyway). And 2nd and 3rd get the same reward. And 4th & 5-8th get the same punishment. These are fairly perverse outcomes, so amplifying them by doubling the points is doubly perverse IMO.

Meh, any time the rankings get out of kilter they soon correct. Not that I really care about the rankings, but actually in rugby they seem to do a pretty decent job

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Lizard wrote:I agree that the +/- 15 points division is too coarse. Either a win is a win, or a more nuanced sliding scale would be preferable.

I’m not sure that differentiating RWC games by stage is justified. Most pool results are predictable, and upsets should be rewarded.

I would rather that no RWC games carried any premium but that National Unions stopped awarding caps for plainly non-fully competitive games, like the current RWC warm ups.

The RWC warmups should not be capped, or at least not all of them. If the teams are obviously not the strongest because the coaches have done a deal (and I’m not criticising that it makes sense to give the whole squad a work out) then a cap should not be awarded.

What if only one side looks weaker? And then if that still sees a game move to non cap status what of many NZ games (perhaps more so in 2006 than now) that clearly showed heavy reliance on rotation?

Tbh I don't see a problem, the rankings aren't fixed where they are, if other sides have a problem they need only win some games.

I’m actually thinking more about the integrity of a cap than rankings. If both sides agree to field a second team/ weakened team then is it a first XV or a second XV? However, you point about cash income is correct and will override such concerns.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:The big problem for me about the RWC ranking rules is what happens in the knockout stages. I feel that teams should get rewarded for their final position in the competition (indeed what kind of ranking system is it if it doesn't reflect this clearly?).

But what we get are ranking points changes based (approximately) on number of tests won minus number of tests lost. So (ignoring the pool stage) we get:

Final position: Net tests won
1st : 3
2nd: 1
3rd: 1
4th: -1
5-8th: -1

From the POV of a tier 1 team, assuming no shock loss to minnows, the pool stage nets +1 or -1 depending on whether you beat the other tier 1 team in your pool (wins against tier 2 will give low or zero points). So expected result 0.

So overall, you can expect to gain ranking points from the RWC if you finish in the top 3. Anything lower will likely lose you ranking points (for tier 1, anyway). And 2nd and 3rd get the same reward. And 4th & 5-8th get the same punishment. These are fairly perverse outcomes, so amplifying them by doubling the points is doubly perverse IMO.

We were all a it miffed to be ranked below England after the 2011 RWC despite finishing in a higher position. Whilst mathematically correct it felt a little odd (not that I remember any Argentinian committeemen objecting mind). We then compounded that by losing games before the 2015 draw and ending up in the same group as England and Australia.

Still, that worked out alright!

And Wales drop to 4 after that loss. The rankings can be a fickle bitch

Ross. S wrote:And Wales drop to 4 after that loss. The rankings can be a fickle bitch

Annoying. But I'll take it for what we learned in that match.

A win next week and we'll climb back to second. More than 15 or Tonga beating New Zealand and we'll be back to first... England can't get points from humping Italy and I'm not sure about SA against Japan but I doubt they'll gain much if anything