Rankings
-
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.
-
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.
