Rankings
-
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.
-
Against the grain, but I LOVE that the top sides are in one side. The World Cup needs jeopardy to make it interesting.
Thr best World Cup pool stage ever was 2015 where one of England, Wales or Australia weren't making the quarters.
I don't consider the Cup to be the judge of the best team in the world, so weird draws don't change my enjoyment.
-
As I've said, the structure for the RWC playoffs are consistent. That isn't the problem.
The real problem is allocating the teams to bands, and therefore pools, so far in advance of the tournament.
Wiki says the draw was made on 14 Dec 2020, but they used the rankings from Jan 2020. So even worse!
-
As I've said, the structure for the RWC playoffs are consistent. That isn't the problem.
The real problem is allocating the teams to bands, and therefore pools, so far in advance of the tournament.
Wiki says the draw was made on 14 Dec 2020, but they used the rankings from Jan 2020. So even worse!
Yep - THIS.
There's absolutely zero "weird" about the QFs/SFs setup.
It's just that the use of old rankings, led to a scenario where the top 4 teams happen to be in 2 pools.
And for those who don't think things through - the fact that those pools just happen to be named "A" & "B" - it might look even worse... but it's not. There could have been 2 in Pool B & 2 in Pool D - to the same net effect.
There is no "2 sides to the draw - with the top 4 teams all on one".
There are 4 sides to the draw, and we just happen to have the top 4 congested into 2 of them.And the end result - to get to the final, you're still going to have to beat one of the "top 4", and 1 of the top 8, and then the only other team who has managed to accomplish the same thing. Just in a different order to normal.
The more I think about it - the more I'm coming to think it's kinda cool...- Pool matches
- QF against somebody else of your general level (top 4 playing each other, ~5~8 playing each other)
- SFs - in theory a little less competetive than normal - but still, the ~5~8 teams aren't exactly slouches, and now have a shot - one upset away from a RWC final - that's gotta bring some game out of a team
- Final
-
As I've said, the structure for the RWC playoffs are consistent. That isn't the problem.
The real problem is allocating the teams to bands, and therefore pools, so far in advance of the tournament.
Wiki says the draw was made on 14 Dec 2020, but they used the rankings from Jan 2020. So even worse!
I believe they are not consistent, in 2019 the pool winners and runners-ups at the quarters, which is how SA got such an easy run to the final.
My issue with it is that raised so much discussion, whereas this time we'll know that the France/AB game only decides who gets to play who in the semis - the pools don't have any fun to them as they don't affect the whole tournament makeup.
-
In 2019, the QFs were still:
C1 vs D2
B1 vs A2D1 vs C2
A1 vs B2The winners played in the SFs. SA were only seeded 7th so were in Band 2. Japan beating Ireland, and Wales beating Australia meant those teams ended up switching from the expected QF matchups.
-
Re the rankings, they can change pretty quick.
The 6N don't often get completely dominated by one side. That's why Grand Slams and Triple Crowns are still celebrated.
I can see any of the 5 top 6N sides beating the others in the New Year. And Italy beat Aussie ...
So the current rankings could get scrambled again between now and October.
That is not to say WR shouldn't try and do the draw later in the cycle.
-
In 2019, the QFs were still:
C1 vs D2
B1 vs A2D1 vs C2
A1 vs B2The winners played in the SFs. SA were only seeded 7th so were in Band 2. Japan beating Ireland, and Wales beating Australia meant those teams ended up switching from the expected QF matchups.
You are right and I am wrong.
-
In 2019, the QFs were still:
C1 vs D2
B1 vs A2D1 vs C2
A1 vs B2The winners played in the SFs. SA were only seeded 7th so were in Band 2. Japan beating Ireland, and Wales beating Australia meant those teams ended up switching from the expected QF matchups.
You are right and I am wrong.
Mods - ban him for crimes against the Fern.
Admitting you're wrong cannot be allowed to stand.
-
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Rankings:
Admitting you're wrong cannot be allowed to stand.
Yeah, you're right.
I see what you did there.
