Rankings
-
@pakman said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Ireland v Australia:
@pakman said in Ireland v Australia:
@Daffy-Jaffy said in Ireland v Australia:
Ireland:
15 Hugo Keenan, 14 Mack Hansen, 13 Garry Ringrose, 12 Stuart McCloskey, 11 Jimmy O’Brien, 10 Johnny Sexton (c), 9 Jamison Gibson Park, 8 Caelan Doris, 7 Josh van der Flier, 6 Peter O’Mahony, 5 James Ryan, 4 Tadhg Beirne, 3 Tadhg Furlong, 2 Dan Sheehan, 1 Andrew Porter
Replacements: 16 Rob Herring, 17 Cian Healy, 18 Finlay Bealham, 19 Joe McCarthy, 20 Jack Conan, 21 Craig Casey, 22 Jack Crowley, 23 Bundee AkiAustralia:
15 Andrew Kellaway, 14 Mark Nawaqanitawase, 13 Len Ikitau, 12 Hunter Paisami, 11 Tom Wright, 10 Bernard Foley, 9 Nic White, 8 Rob Valetini, 7 Michael Hooper, 6 Jed Holloway, 5 Cadeyrn Neville, 4 Nick Frost, 3 Allan Alaalatoa, 2 David Porecki, 1 James Slipper (c)
Replacements: 16 Folau Fainga’a, 17 Tom Robertson, 18 Taniela Tupou, 19 Will Skelton, 20 Pete Samu, 21 Jake Gordon, 22 Noah Lolesio, 23 Jordan PetaiaI like the look of that Aussie bench!
15 adv. Wobs
14 adv. Wobs
13/12 adv. Wobs
11 adv. Wobs
10 not even close
9 adv. Wobs
8, 6-1 adv. Micks
7 adv. WobsWobs by plenty
@NTA is trying to downplay this!
There is no need to downplay a weird and frankly irrelevant ranking system
-
@ARHS said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones re making a mockery of the ranking system: Maybe this view merits a wider consideration?
Consider that we are on a winning streak of 6 matches - only France has better. The last 6 matches for France include 4 point wins over South Africa and Wales, a 5-pointer over Japan and a 1 pointer over Australia.
Then, how many matches have France and Ireland played away from home, and how often have they benefited from cards to the opposition, while incurring next to none themselves.
Simply looks like a very even playing field in the top 10 countries, with home advantage, cards, injuries and depth-testing rotation influencing some of the results.
We are now ahead of a South African team that has lost 4 of their last 7 and an English team that has done the same.
The gap between NZ and France might not be as great as people assume. And, we had a points aggregate victory over Ireland earlier this year didn't we??
Most of that does make sense except for the points aggregate over Ireland. They beat us in a 3 tests series. Aggregate doesn't come in to it.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Ireland v Australia:
@ARHS said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones re making a mockery of the ranking system: Maybe this view merits a wider consideration?
Consider that we are on a winning streak of 6 matches - only France has better. The last 6 matches for France include 4 point wins over South Africa and Wales, a 5-pointer over Japan and a 1 pointer over Australia.
Then, how many matches have France and Ireland played away from home, and how often have they benefited from cards to the opposition, while incurring next to none themselves.
Simply looks like a very even playing field in the top 10 countries, with home advantage, cards, injuries and depth-testing rotation influencing some of the results.
We are now ahead of a South African team that has lost 4 of their last 7 and an English team that has done the same.
The gap between NZ and France might not be as great as people assume. And, we had a points aggregate victory over Ireland earlier this year didn't we??
Most of that does make sense except for the points aggregate over Ireland. They beat us in a 3 tests series. Aggregate doesn't come in to it.
Only pointing out that we had a convincing victory in match 1 and lost both the closer ones. The rankings consider margins of victory.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Ireland v Australia:
@Dan54 said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Ireland v Australia:
@Crucial said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Ireland v Australia:
I think the Wallabies will pull it off. They're due to click long enough to hold out for a win.
I hope they can. While a win would only move them up the rankings one or two places (depending on the Scotland v Arg result), it would knock Ireland off the top and below us. A NZ win beforehand would make the gap between us and France (1 and 2) very small.
Won't that make a mockery of the whole ranking system? I mean, we've lost to Ireland, SA, France, Argentina and almost Australia...
Yep but we have also beaten all teams named haven't we?? So not sure what you mean JTJ.
Well, lost a series to Ireland, lost to France, won a series on aggregate to Argentina, and beat the Wobs. Oh and drew or lost on aggregate to SA? I don't see how we can close the gap. I just find the ranking system a bit weird.
Mate I find it strange too at times, it's a system where you are almost rewarded for not playing, as it hard to lose your rankings. But even the fact we came into NH tour behind SA after we won RC seemed strange as Boks were part os it. I really don't get hung up on it.
-
@ARHS said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Ireland v Australia:
@ARHS said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones re making a mockery of the ranking system: Maybe this view merits a wider consideration?
Consider that we are on a winning streak of 6 matches - only France has better. The last 6 matches for France include 4 point wins over South Africa and Wales, a 5-pointer over Japan and a 1 pointer over Australia.
Then, how many matches have France and Ireland played away from home, and how often have they benefited from cards to the opposition, while incurring next to none themselves.
Simply looks like a very even playing field in the top 10 countries, with home advantage, cards, injuries and depth-testing rotation influencing some of the results.
We are now ahead of a South African team that has lost 4 of their last 7 and an English team that has done the same.
The gap between NZ and France might not be as great as people assume. And, we had a points aggregate victory over Ireland earlier this year didn't we??
Most of that does make sense except for the points aggregate over Ireland. They beat us in a 3 tests series. Aggregate doesn't come in to it.
Only pointing out that we had a convincing victory in match 1 and lost both the closer ones. The rankings consider margins of victory.
Surely wins trump margins of victory. For me, it's like a bonus point. A bonus point should only be considered to separate teams even on wins on the ladder.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones Also you get extra points for winning away from home, so giving SA a touch up in SA is worth more points, same as losing to Pumas in NZ cost a lot of points as they were away from home and below us on table. etc etc etc
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Ireland v Australia:
@ARHS said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Ireland v Australia:
@ARHS said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones re making a mockery of the ranking system: Maybe this view merits a wider consideration?
Consider that we are on a winning streak of 6 matches - only France has better. The last 6 matches for France include 4 point wins over South Africa and Wales, a 5-pointer over Japan and a 1 pointer over Australia.
Then, how many matches have France and Ireland played away from home, and how often have they benefited from cards to the opposition, while incurring next to none themselves.
Simply looks like a very even playing field in the top 10 countries, with home advantage, cards, injuries and depth-testing rotation influencing some of the results.
We are now ahead of a South African team that has lost 4 of their last 7 and an English team that has done the same.
The gap between NZ and France might not be as great as people assume. And, we had a points aggregate victory over Ireland earlier this year didn't we??
Most of that does make sense except for the points aggregate over Ireland. They beat us in a 3 tests series. Aggregate doesn't come in to it.
Only pointing out that we had a convincing victory in match 1 and lost both the closer ones. The rankings consider margins of victory.
Surely wins trump margins of victory. For me, it's like a bonus point. A bonus point should only be considered to separate teams even on wins on the ladder.
You get more for a big win than a small one. 15 points plus defines 'big win'. That's a reasonable factor IMO. Wins do trump margins but big wins by even more.
-
Moved the rankings discussion from the Oz v Ireland thread to here.
If I've pushed all the right buttons ...
-
@Machpants said in Rankings:
The only reason RWC gets double is so they don't have a winner not ranked 1. World Rugby can't handle complexity. Which is stupid really, being cup winner does not mean you're the best, consistent team in the world, which the ranking is much better at showing. I'd like to see some nerd redo the rankings taking the RWC extra points out. It would be much more accurate I reckon
Hmmm ...
Women's and Men's Rankings | World Rugby
Information about the World Rugby women's and men's rankings
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Ireland v Australia:
@ARHS said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Ireland v Australia:
@ARHS said in Ireland v Australia:
@Joans-Town-Jones re making a mockery of the ranking system: Maybe this view merits a wider consideration?
Consider that we are on a winning streak of 6 matches - only France has better. The last 6 matches for France include 4 point wins over South Africa and Wales, a 5-pointer over Japan and a 1 pointer over Australia.
Then, how many matches have France and Ireland played away from home, and how often have they benefited from cards to the opposition, while incurring next to none themselves.
Simply looks like a very even playing field in the top 10 countries, with home advantage, cards, injuries and depth-testing rotation influencing some of the results.
We are now ahead of a South African team that has lost 4 of their last 7 and an English team that has done the same.
The gap between NZ and France might not be as great as people assume. And, we had a points aggregate victory over Ireland earlier this year didn't we??
Most of that does make sense except for the points aggregate over Ireland. They beat us in a 3 tests series. Aggregate doesn't come in to it.
Only pointing out that we had a convincing victory in match 1 and lost both the closer ones. The rankings consider margins of victory.
Surely wins trump margins of victory. For me, it's like a bonus point. A bonus point should only be considered to separate teams even on wins on the ladder.
You get more for a big win than a small one. 15 points plus defines 'big win'. That's a reasonable factor IMO. Wins do trump margins but big wins by even more.
Yep I think gap of win has to come into it. Couple of weeks ago Aus/France game, if French player had missed last penalty, France would of dropped a couple of places on rankinking and Aussie moved up 2-3 places. So really your place can be decided on the outcome of one kick etc, which makes it hard to get tied up over rankings.
-
-
your place can be decided on the outcome of one kick etc
it's called sport
Gee is it? Kind of not what I am getting at, but if you don't understand that a player from opposing team misses a kick can make a difference of 2 places on World rankings, so is a bit strange to me, no good me trying explain it.
-
your place can be decided on the outcome of one kick etc
it's called sport
Gee is it? Kind of not what I am getting at, but if you don't understand that a player from opposing team misses a kick can make a difference of 2 places on World rankings, so is a bit strange to me, no good me trying explain it.
Yes crazy how one kick can be the difference between being champs and chumps.
-
your place can be decided on the outcome of one kick etc
it's called sport
Gee is it? Kind of not what I am getting at, but if you don't understand that a player from opposing team misses a kick can make a difference of 2 places on World rankings, so is a bit strange to me, no good me trying explain it.
Yes crazy how one kick can be the difference between being champs and chumps.
Pretty sure England were already #1 leading into RWC2003...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/SPORT/09/10/rugby.rankings/
LONDON, England -- England confirmed their status as World Cup favorites by being named the world's number one team by the International Board. The Six Nations champions top the first official rankings with 89.95 points out of a maximum 100, just ahead of Tri-nations champions New Zealand (89.8) with Six Nations runners-up Ireland a surprise third on 83.92. World champions Australia, who open their title defense against Argentina on October 10, are fourth on 83.81 with France fifth on 82.85. The only team participating in the World Cup outside the top-20 are Namibia, who are 25th, behind Portugal, Morocco, Korea, Russia and Chile. Rugby Board officials said the rankings were tested against a database of more than 4,500 international matches dating back to 1871. One rating point difference between countries is equivalent to two points on the field, therefore England, who play 17th-ranked Georgia (63.80) in their opening World Cup match in Perth on October 12, are expected to win by at least 52 points. When two teams meet the system also allows for a home field advantage equivalent to three rankings points (six points on the field). Top 20 IRB world rankings points: 1. England 89.95 2. New Zealand 89.80 3. Ireland 83.92 4. Australia 83.81 5. France 82.85 6. South Africa 80.92 7. Argentina 80.00 8. Samoa 74.67 9. Scotland 74.42 10. Wales 74.24 11. Fiji 72.45 12. Tonga 70.08 13. Italy 69.98 14. USA 68.42 15. Romania 67.73 16. Canada 66.2117. Georgia 63.80 18. Japan 62.68 19. Uruguay 62.65 20. Portugal 62.03 -
@Frye Not really what I mean. I mean one kick can got or missed actually makes the difference on WRs of teams not involved in match. I know with a kick, how it can change a match etc, just seems strange it can change World rankings by so much.
. Hell France haven't lost a test in last 12 and they not ranked No1.
I not knocking how games are won etc, but how ranking points seemingly given is strange to me is all. Why I don't get hung up on them. -
One point larger points difference in bok eng game, and the ABs would be forth. But as it is, the dust has settled on the rankings in 2022. With one side of the RWC draw having the top four teams, another bit of WR genius 🙄
1 Ireland 90.63
2 France 90.01
3 New Zealand 88.98
4 South Africa 88.97
5 England 83.66
6 Australia 81.80
7 Scotland 81.55
8 Argentina 80.72
9 Wales 78.09
10 Japan 77.39
11 Samoa 76.03
12 Italy 75.95
13 Georgia 75.19
14 Fiji 74.84
15 Tonga 71.21 -
1 Ireland 90.63 (Pool B
2 France 90.01 (Pool A)
3 New Zealand 88.98 (Pool A)
4 South Africa 88.97 (Pool B
5 England 83.66 (Pool D)
6 Australia 81.80 (Pool C)
7 Scotland 81.55 (Pool B
8 Argentina 80.72 (Pool D)
9 Wales 78.09 (Pool C)
10 Japan 77.39 (Pool D)
11 Samoa 76.03(Pool D)
12 Italy 75.95 (Pool A)
13 Georgia 75.19 (Pool C)
14 Fiji 74.84 (Pool C)
15 Tonga 71.21 (Pool BNice system for deciding the pools WR, you fucking muppets.
-
1 Ireland 90.63 (Pool B
2 France 90.01 (Pool A)
3 New Zealand 88.98 (Pool A)
4 South Africa 88.97 (Pool B
5 England 83.66 (Pool D)
6 Australia 81.80 (Pool C)
7 Scotland 81.55 (Pool B
8 Argentina 80.72 (Pool D)
9 Wales 78.09 (Pool C)
10 Japan 77.39 (Pool D)
11 Samoa 76.03(Pool D)
12 Italy 75.95 (Pool A)
13 Georgia 75.19 (Pool C)
14 Fiji 74.84 (Pool C)
15 Tonga 71.21 (Pool BNice system for deciding the pools WR, you fucking muppets.
isn't it combined with the lack of crossover? So you can't go across to the other side of the draw?
Genuine question - I haven't stopped and really had a hard look -
1 Ireland 90.63 (Pool B
2 France 90.01 (Pool A)
3 New Zealand 88.98 (Pool A)
4 South Africa 88.97 (Pool B
5 England 83.66 (Pool D)
6 Australia 81.80 (Pool C)
7 Scotland 81.55 (Pool B
8 Argentina 80.72 (Pool D)
9 Wales 78.09 (Pool C)
10 Japan 77.39 (Pool D)
11 Samoa 76.03(Pool D)
12 Italy 75.95 (Pool A)
13 Georgia 75.19 (Pool C)
14 Fiji 74.84 (Pool C)
15 Tonga 71.21 (Pool BNice system for deciding the pools WR, you fucking muppets.
isn't it combined with the lack of crossover? So you can't go across to the other side of the draw?
Genuine question - I haven't stopped and really had a hard lookApparently there is at least a crossover, but I think @Crucial said that the crossover happens at the semis, not the quarters, which is so fucking dumb. It's like they want to make the issue worse.
Edit: Yep, so we can't have all four of those highest ranked teams make the semis, which could conceivably be possible if they split at the quarters as they fucking should do.
It honestly makes the WC a bit of a joke given the huge risks of one incident changing an entire match.
