Change to IRB Ranking System

Should a team be able to increase their position in the IRB rankings while losing a series and not win the game?

My mind is no.

So if Ireland lose away to NZ by 3pts and the team slightly ahead of them lose to Georgia at home the other team is still better?

anotherworldofpain wrote:Should a team be able to increase their position in the IRB rankings while losing a series and not win the game?

My mind is no.

Offcourse and i am English.. but why am i answering you- you also now this and why. silly wummy

Gentlemen it is a ligitimate question.

AWOP, the reason your ranking can change is if you lose to a lower ranked team than another.

If 1 plays 5 and there is 8 points difference and 2 play 3 and the difference is less than the resultant ranking penalty is in fact more because you ae clser to the number 2 team than 5 is to 1.

Makes perfect sense.

Should the IRB ranking account for the real difference in fielded team strength?

If Scotland beat a lessing than full strong Australia and Wales loose to the stronger combinator then should Scotland gaining more points?

Is it fair?

The ranking system is not perfect, it doesn't take in account weather, conditions, strength of teams etc.

Hence not a very important measuring tool in my view.

If Wales for example is ranked .05 ahead of england, what does tat mean in real terms?

Nothing.

I rather go by recent results.

I think the 1-15 point and over 15 point margin is flawed,

It should be 1-7 points very small points exchanged because a team can dominate a game and still lose by a last minute penalty or intercept try,

its unfair that that situation stands under the 1-15 point margin,
a team that loses by 14 points is well beat unlike a team that loses by 7 or less.

It should be
1-7 points very small points exchange
7-15 points and average points exchange
15 and over points a large points exchange

whats the difference between a 14 and 15 pt win guys?

the pts should be pro rated per pt per win- obviously we need to cap the largest exchange at some pt- id go with 25 though.

So the largest exchange comes at 25pt win or over

How much value do you guys hold for these rankings?

0.05 means nothing bilt.

People need to look at points rather than positions.

in truth wales and england are completley level- but we are 9pts down on NZ!!!

Thats the concern - not who is 4th or 5th.. Obviously If we use common sense its better to say that england and wales are joint 4th(btw this has nothing to do with being english) The same goes for france and argentina who should be joint 6th..

Nah,

This is all too complicated. The rankings should be:

1=) NZ
1=) SA

Weight of history dictates they deserve to be joint top in perpetuity, irrespective of results.

3) Australia
4) Argentina

Everyone knows that 4Ns are better than 6Ns so 3&4 will always be contested by these two. any victories by NH teams over SH rivals are just a figment of our twisted imagination.

Places 5-10 will be held by the 6Ns teams. While sides like Samoa may complain, this is a closed shop after all. Teams shoudl be ranked in order of most recent 6Ns table

5) Wales
6) England
7) Ireland
8) France
9) Italy
10) Scotland

Seemples.

I look at it this way.

Oz has the wool over us, well them and Bruce, so we need to improve and smarten up when we play them, we have lost three tests against them that we shouldn't have, one in 2010 when Beale kicked a 50 meter penalty in the last minute, due to us being penalised for sealing off (which everyone got away with this weekend) when on attack at the breakdown, and twice last year, one courtesy of us creating a good number of opportunities to score tires in the home match of the trinations, only to knock balls with open try lines etc.
And of course one courtesy of my dear friend.

all in all stupidity lost us those three matches whcih has given us a poor record against them in recent years.

The All Blacks over recent years have a slight edge over us with a 6/5 advantage, but we win just and they win comfotably when they do.

We need to sort out the way they play at ruck time, we aren't wise enough to counter their "dark arts"

France is actually a bogie team for us in a sense, we don't often win in France, in fact I can't remember the last time we did win there.

England is not far behind us event thou their recent record against us si not that good.

Same for Wales.

Ireland has been a bogey for us in their back yeard for some reason. but away they struggle.

Scotland doesn't play us away, and although they get the odd win against us, I think we are ahead of them.

And that's it, rankings don't tell me that.

biltongbek wrote:How much value do you guys hold for these rankings?

It only concerns me for world cup seedings.

Being a SH supporter and constantly playing the highest ranked seeds it probably doesn't concern you too much

munkian wrote:

biltongbek wrote:How much value do you guys hold for these rankings?

It only concerns me for world cup seedings.

Being a SH supported and constantly playing the highest ranked seeds it probably doesn't concern you too much

Irrispective of the rankings, even if we were outside the top 4 wouldn't matter to me.

Usually the top 8 make the quarter finals, some times one or two doesn't, but the RWC in all honesty really only starts then.

That means you must win 3 matches on the trot, does it matter who you meet really? You are going to have to beat them all anyway.

whether you come 2nd or 8th, you still haven't won the cup.

Fair play

biltongbek wrote:The ranking system is not perfect, it doesn't take in account weather, conditions, strength of teams etc.

Hence not a very important measuring tool in my view.

If Wales for example is ranked .05 ahead of england, what does tat mean in real terms?

Nothing.

I rather go by recent results.

Except it do mean something important to seedings when one country take spot 4 by 0.01 point so maybe is worth get the 0.01 point correctly allocate!

Wales should anyhow be above England with the grandslam and every thing so I don't get what the fuss is about.

True Fern, but we don't need a ranking system to tell us that, do we?

We just look at the results.

I'd like to go on what I think...without looking at rankings.

So here's what I think off the cuff ('without doing too much analysis on it' or 'using instinct' for the non-fluent speakers)

New Zealand 1
Australia 2
Wales 3
SA 4
England 5
Ireland 6
Argentina 7
France 8
Scotland 9
Samoa 10

Now let's see how accurate I am by looking at the official:

New Zealand 1
Australia 2
SA 3
Wales 4
England 5
Argentina 6
France 7
Ireland 8
Samoa 9
Scotland 10

That's 3 out of 10 for me for accuracy but 10 out of 10 for knowing who is in the top 10

We all know who is rougly in the mix due to instinct and then we all kinda differ in the detail. I prefer my reading of rankings to the official one but my mind and the official ranking is actually more often in tune than not. It's actually rare that my mind diverges from the system as much as it does this time. It must be all the 'rebuilding' talk I'm hearing from most international camps that's causing it!.

People dont look at rankings in the correct way, its not really about your position but more about where you are compared to the best- wales and england are both miles behind

However Rankings is ultimate in football due to qualfying seedings.

There is no qualifying in rugby for the top boys so its not as relevant

However it is good to get perfect rankings in rugby- because if we end up better teams at rankings 9 and above than some of the ones in the top 8 we could have some ridiculasly weighted world cup groups.

Its all about the top 8 not the top 4

SecretFly wrote:I'd like to go on what I think...without looking at rankings.

So here's what I think off the cuff ('without doing too much analysis on it' or 'using instinct' for the non-fluent speakers)

New Zealand 1
Australia 2
Wales 3
SA 4
England 5
Ireland 6
Argentina 7
France 8
Scotland 9
Samoa 10

I saw on another forum someone also ranking Wales above us, couldn't figure out on what basis they thought it to be?

mystiroakey wrote:People dont look at rankings in the correct way, its not really about your position but more about where you are compared to the best- wales and england are both miles behind

However Rankings is ultimate in football due to qualfying seedings.

There is no qualifying in rugby for the top boys so its not as relevant

However it is good to get perfect rankings in rugby- because if we end up better teams at rankings 9 and above than some of the ones in the top 8 we could have some ridiculasly weighted world cup groups.

Its all about the top 8 not the top 4

Incidently, all of that was being discussed on another thread this morning..... and let's just say not all of us think a seed should always have a free run to becoming a giant oak... a few chainsaws should have a better deal in the WC forest.

Do you think WC groups should be luck of the draw then SF. whats your view on it..

remember that its all about tv revenue-So the above ideal would never ever bear fruit!

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'd like to go on what I think...without looking at rankings.

So here's what I think off the cuff ('without doing too much analysis on it' or 'using instinct' for the non-fluent speakers)

New Zealand 1
Australia 2
Wales 3
SA 4
England 5
Ireland 6
Argentina 7
France 8
Scotland 9
Samoa 10

I saw on another forum someone also ranking Wales above us, couldn't figure out on what basis they thought it to be?

Don't think it's easy for me to say it either, biltong. It's not. Wales is not exactly the first nation I'd like to see in 3rd (I think I warned you before about assuming we all love each others sides up here and that we all root for each other when we play down south) but I'm letting my instinct show me the way. Instinct doesn't need any reasons of course but I'll try some.

I just see them as having an edge in creativity and the fact that they are putting it up to 2nd ranked side (my 2nd ranked side BTW, not the offical one) and look like they could take a win next week...well I'm just tipping them above SA for now biltong. It's a fine line for sure but then the top seven or eight (but for ABs) are a fine line with me.

On what basis do you disagree with me on the Welsh thing? Apart from the fact that you are SA and the official rankings, that is. Do you see Wales being an easy pickings side for SA on neutral ground?

mystiroakey wrote:Do you think WC groups should be luck of the draw then SF. whats your view on it..

remember that its all about tv revenue-So the above ideal would never ever bear fruit!

TV revenue is the deal, of course it is. So ideals never get too far in that climate for sure, oakey

No, I'm not for change, as I said in the other post; but I am against giving too much sway to the idea that rankings suggest merit...nope, they more often than not suggest continuing involvement in a traditional men's club. I like the club...or should I say, I like being in the club. But refraining from voicing the truth isn't a requirement of membership of the club only that you play and re-play fellow rankers to keep your ranking points up. That's all it needs

SecretFly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'd like to go on what I think...without looking at rankings.

So here's what I think off the cuff ('without doing too much analysis on it' or 'using instinct' for the non-fluent speakers)

New Zealand 1
Australia 2
Wales 3
SA 4
England 5
Ireland 6
Argentina 7
France 8
Scotland 9
Samoa 10

I saw on another forum someone also ranking Wales above us, couldn't figure out on what basis they thought it to be?

Don't think it's easy for me to say it either, biltong. It's not. Wales is not exactly the first nation I'd like to see in 3rd (I think I warned you before about assuming we all love each others sides up here and that we all root for each other when we play down south) but I'm letting my instinct show me the way. Instinct doesn't need any reasons of course but I'll try some.

I just see them as having an edge in creativity and the fact that they are putting it up to 2nd ranked side (my 2nd ranked side BTW, not the offical one) and look like they could take a win next week...well I'm just tipping them above SA for now biltong. It's a fine line for sure but then the top seven or eight (but for ABs) are a fine line with me.

On what basis do you disagree with me on the Welsh thing? Apart from the fact that you are SA and the official rankings, that is. Do you see Wales being an easy pickings side for SA on neutral ground?

Personally SecretFly I'd still have Wales in 4th for several reasons
- SA are beating England by a lot more than Wales did in the 6N.
- The Aussie team Wales are getting close to is nowhere near full strength, I'd expect SA to have won one if not both tests if they'd played in Aus the last 2 weeks (and I know that neither SA or Wales are currently at full strength, but both are better off than Aus)
- SA got a lot closer to beating Aus in NZ last year than Wales did.
- "creativity" is all well and good. As long as you win.

SecretFly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'd like to go on what I think...without looking at rankings.

So here's what I think off the cuff ('without doing too much analysis on it' or 'using instinct' for the non-fluent speakers)

New Zealand 1
Australia 2
Wales 3
SA 4
England 5
Ireland 6
Argentina 7
France 8
Scotland 9
Samoa 10

I saw on another forum someone also ranking Wales above us, couldn't figure out on what basis they thought it to be?

Don't think it's easy for me to say it either, biltong. It's not. Wales is not exactly the first nation I'd like to see in 3rd (I think I warned you before about assuming we all love each others sides up here and that we all root for each other when we play down south) but I'm letting my instinct show me the way. Instinct doesn't need any reasons of course but I'll try some.

I just see them as having an edge in creativity and the fact that they are putting it up to 2nd ranked side (my 2nd ranked side BTW, not the offical one) and look like they could take a win next week...well I'm just tipping them above SA for now biltong. It's a fine line for sure but then the top seven or eight (but for ABs) are a fine line with me.

On what basis do you disagree with me on the Welsh thing? Apart from the fact that you are SA and the official rankings, that is. Do you see Wales being an easy pickings side for SA on neutral ground?

I am sure if we played them, even with this team - without many of our first choice players we will still beat the Welsh. Even in Wales. We have a recent bad run against the Aussies, but we still beat them. Last time we met the Welsh we beat them. With a small margin, but still. And if PDivvy can split the country in two and still manage a clean sweep I will always be confident when we play Wales.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'd like to go on what I think...without looking at rankings.

So here's what I think off the cuff ('without doing too much analysis on it' or 'using instinct' for the non-fluent speakers)

New Zealand 1
Australia 2
Wales 3
SA 4
England 5
Ireland 6
Argentina 7
France 8
Scotland 9
Samoa 10

I saw on another forum someone also ranking Wales above us, couldn't figure out on what basis they thought it to be?

Don't think it's easy for me to say it either, biltong. It's not. Wales is not exactly the first nation I'd like to see in 3rd (I think I warned you before about assuming we all love each others sides up here and that we all root for each other when we play down south) but I'm letting my instinct show me the way. Instinct doesn't need any reasons of course but I'll try some.

I just see them as having an edge in creativity and the fact that they are putting it up to 2nd ranked side (my 2nd ranked side BTW, not the offical one) and look like they could take a win next week...well I'm just tipping them above SA for now biltong. It's a fine line for sure but then the top seven or eight (but for ABs) are a fine line with me.

On what basis do you disagree with me on the Welsh thing? Apart from the fact that you are SA and the official rankings, that is. Do you see Wales being an easy pickings side for SA on neutral ground?

Personally SecretFly I'd still have Wales in 4th for several reasons
- SA are beating England by a lot more than Wales did in the 6N.
- The Aussie team Wales are getting close to is nowhere near full strength, I'd expect SA to have won one if not both tests if they'd played in Aus the last 2 weeks (and I know that neither SA or Wales are currently at full strength, but both are better off than Aus)
- SA got a lot closer to beating Aus in NZ last year than Wales did.
- "creativity" is all well and good. As long as you win.

All good reasons kiwi and it's why of course you still have Wales on your number 4 placing. But my instincts just won't listen to reason...they still, the merest of inches, suggest Wales...for now. Things change rapidly in my mind though. Next week will have a new ranking list, I'm sure. My list is really to emphasise my point that the official list is never too far from how we judge things ourselves..and yet we always complain about the official (unbiased scientific one) and clap ourselves on the back about the accuracy of our own personal ones. That's the point of the My List/Official List

FerN wrote:
I am sure if we played them, even with this team - without many of our first choice players we will still beat the Welsh. Even in Wales. We have a recent bad run against the Aussies, but we still beat them. Last time we met the Welsh we beat them. With a small margin, but still. And if PDivvy can split the country in two and still manage a clean sweep I will always be confident when we play Wales.

I had to double check there to tally your comments with your name! The name suggested New Zealand to me. Anyway, again, yes... SA are 3rd on your personal list for your reasons. Can't argue with personal conviction.

Fly, just tongue in cheeck. Instinct is when all logic fails.

Look if you rate them above us, that's fine, I have South african mates that still believe we are better than NZ.

I am a realist, and instinct doesn't serve me well too often.

Until wales beat us on a consistent basis they will never be ranked above SA, like Fern said, under a PDV who had bt a 50% win ration in his last two years, Wales couldn't beat us once.

biltongbek wrote:Fly, just tongue in cheeck. Instinct is when all logic fails.

Look if you rate them above us, that's fine, I have South african mates that still believe we are better than NZ.

I am a realist, and instinct doesn't serve me well too often.

Until wales beat us on a consistent basis they will never be ranked above SA, like Fern said, under a PDV who had bt a 50% win ration in his last two years, Wales couldn't beat us once.

But I'm not doing an ever-after ranking list there, biltong. If I was doing an ever-after list I wouldn't even put ABs on it as a mark of respect to them. They wouldn't even have to compete for at least a century.

But the list is time controlled - rankings based on very recent and present form. That's the one I was working on - and when you add that criteria to a how I feel on the spur of the moment about it, well that's the list that came up. But I did warn eveyone that it was an off-the-cuff list.

And it was so for a reason. My point, yet again, was to emphasise that our instincts (our own personal ideas) of the rankings of sides doesn't really diverge all that much from the offical one - and yet! it's always the offical one that gets it in the neck, the one without the feelings. And however much of a realist you are biltong, you're still human. Official list isn't - it's a program.

I am not fighting with you Fly, I just gave you my stance on it

Do I think Wales will have beat us over the past two weekends?

Definitely not.

biltongbek wrote:I am not fighting with you Fly, I just gave you my stance on it

I'm not fighting with you either, biltong. (In any of my posts today, BTW!) But I just feel the need for a bout of emphasis today, a bout of less jokiness - and that might appear like shouting from afar, but it isn't, I assure you. I'm just intent on making defined points today because perhpas the topics require it and interest me.

But you just seemed to take uneeded offence to the idea that I could consider Wales above SA in rankings, and I'm explaining why I do so and reasons for even doing the list in the first place.
I'm personally offended that I rank Wales 3rd... I'd much prefer to think of Ireland being there (in my mind) but at present it isn't and the realist in me noted the fact. I don't see how personal feelings can rankle people so much. I don't create rankings or control them - I just think outloud.

SecretFly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'd like to go on what I think...without looking at rankings.

So here's what I think off the cuff ('without doing too much analysis on it' or 'using instinct' for the non-fluent speakers)

New Zealand 1
Australia 2
Wales 3
SA 4
England 5
Ireland 6
Argentina 7
France 8
Scotland 9
Samoa 10

I saw on another forum someone also ranking Wales above us, couldn't figure out on what basis they thought it to be?

Don't think it's easy for me to say it either, biltong. It's not. Wales is not exactly the first nation I'd like to see in 3rd (I think I warned you before about assuming we all love each others sides up here and that we all root for each other when we play down south) but I'm letting my instinct show me the way. Instinct doesn't need any reasons of course but I'll try some.

I just see them as having an edge in creativity and the fact that they are putting it up to 2nd ranked side (my 2nd ranked side BTW, not the offical one) and look like they could take a win next week...well I'm just tipping them above SA for now biltong. It's a fine line for sure but then the top seven or eight (but for ABs) are a fine line with me.

On what basis do you disagree with me on the Welsh thing? Apart from the fact that you are SA and the official rankings, that is. Do you see Wales being an easy pickings side for SA on neutral ground?

On the basis that SA has not lost to Wales since 1999, has beaten higher ranked teams more often and has only lost three games to Northern Hemisphere opposition since 2008.(Scotland 2010,France 09,Ireland 09)

SecretFly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Fly, just tongue in cheeck. Instinct is when all logic fails.

Look if you rate them above us, that's fine, I have South african mates that still believe we are better than NZ.

I am a realist, and instinct doesn't serve me well too often.

Until wales beat us on a consistent basis they will never be ranked above SA, like Fern said, under a PDV who had bt a 50% win ration in his last two years, Wales couldn't beat us once.

But I'm not doing an ever-after ranking list there, biltong. If I was doing an ever-after list I wouldn't even put ABs on it as a mark of respect to them. They wouldn't even have to compete for at least a century.

But the list is time controlled - rankings based on very recent and present form. That's the one I was working on - and when you add that criteria to a how I feel on the spur of the moment about it, well that's the list that came up. But I did warn eveyone that it was an off-the-cuff list.

And it was so for a reason. My point, yet again, was to emphasise that our instincts (our own personal ideas) of the rankings of sides doesn't really diverge all that much from the offical one - and yet! it's always the offical one that gets it in the neck, the one without the feelings. And however much of a realist you are biltong, you're still human. Official list isn't - it's a program.

On current form i would still bet on the Boks to beat the Welsh , in Cardiff too!! i'm actually suprised you'd rank Wales at 3rd because they ran an understrength aussie side close but still lost Surely that should mean demotion not promotion.

Bullsbok wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'd like to go on what I think...without looking at rankings.

So here's what I think off the cuff ('without doing too much analysis on it' or 'using instinct' for the non-fluent speakers)

New Zealand 1
Australia 2
Wales 3
SA 4
England 5
Ireland 6
Argentina 7
France 8
Scotland 9
Samoa 10

I saw on another forum someone also ranking Wales above us, couldn't figure out on what basis they thought it to be?

Don't think it's easy for me to say it either, biltong. It's not. Wales is not exactly the first nation I'd like to see in 3rd (I think I warned you before about assuming we all love each others sides up here and that we all root for each other when we play down south) but I'm letting my instinct show me the way. Instinct doesn't need any reasons of course but I'll try some.

I just see them as having an edge in creativity and the fact that they are putting it up to 2nd ranked side (my 2nd ranked side BTW, not the offical one) and look like they could take a win next week...well I'm just tipping them above SA for now biltong. It's a fine line for sure but then the top seven or eight (but for ABs) are a fine line with me.

On what basis do you disagree with me on the Welsh thing? Apart from the fact that you are SA and the official rankings, that is. Do you see Wales being an easy pickings side for SA on neutral ground?

On the basis that SA has not lost to Wales since 1999, has beaten higher ranked teams more often and has only lost three games to Northern Hemisphere opposition since 2008.(Scotland 2010,France 09,Ireland 09)

That is the basis for an ever-ending list again - all the way back to 1999 (even the official ranking list doesn't 'care' about that long ago.) - I said opinion and rankings based on ideas of recent form and proof of it. But go ahead, any reason is good enough reason for instincts and desire.

So on recent Form , the Welsh who lost to a weakened aussie side twice are a better team than the Boks who beat the Poms twice including a battering at ellis park ? Please explain that to me i'm very lost

Bullsbok wrote:
On current form i would still bet on the Boks to beat the Welsh , in Cardiff too!! i'm actually suprised you'd rank Wales at 3rd because they ran an understrength aussie side close but still lost Surely that should mean demotion not promotion.

We all could always claim to be understrength - there is always someone on the fringes either preparing to go off or someone preapring to come on again. We'd be much better without our 'understrength' Irish side making an effort in New Zealand...but those are the cards dealth to a side with enough of a margin of home advantage to negate the shortfall.

I'm not here to defend Wales. I'm hear to say personally I think they are a slight notch above SA at present. It's not a crime to think that but it is annoying for some, I'll accept that.

SecretFly wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:
On current form i would still bet on the Boks to beat the Welsh , in Cardiff too!! i'm actually suprised you'd rank Wales at 3rd because they ran an understrength aussie side close but still lost Surely that should mean demotion not promotion.

We all could always claim to be understrength - there is always someone on the fringes either preparing to go off or someone preapring to come on again. We'd be much better without our 'understrength' Irish side making an effort in New Zealand...but those are the cards dealth to a side with enough of a margin of home advantage to negate the shortfall.

I'm not here to defend Wales. I'm hear to say personally I think they are a slight notch above SA at present. It's not a crime to think that but it is annoying for some, I'll accept that.

Ok lets say this is a full strength aussie side for arguments sake , how does losing to them make Wales better than the Springboks? i really fail to see the logic in your argument.Sure of they won i might understand but they lost and whichever way you cut it they lost

Bullsbok wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:
On current form i would still bet on the Boks to beat the Welsh , in Cardiff too!! i'm actually suprised you'd rank Wales at 3rd because they ran an understrength aussie side close but still lost Surely that should mean demotion not promotion.

We all could always claim to be understrength - there is always someone on the fringes either preparing to go off or someone preapring to come on again. We'd be much better without our 'understrength' Irish side making an effort in New Zealand...but those are the cards dealth to a side with enough of a margin of home advantage to negate the shortfall.

I'm not here to defend Wales. I'm hear to say personally I think they are a slight notch above SA at present. It's not a crime to think that but it is annoying for some, I'll accept that.

Ok lets say this is a full strength aussie side for arguments sake , how does losing to them make Wales better than the Springboks? i really fail to see the logic in your argument.Sure of they won i might understand but they lost and whichever way you cut it they lost

Did you miss all that stuff about instincts? Or do you want to simply ignore it and get a retraction from me, Bullsbok?

The retraction won't be coming because the thesis is based on instinct. If you go back far enough (and yeah, I know, you won't be interested enough to) you'd find that I used a personal list and the offical list for a reason, to explain a point that irrational quick thoughts about who is best in the world (rankings if you like) don't really always diverge so much from the offical one! So................ I gave a quick mind read on the layout and I'm coming down on Wales as 3rd. The offical says 4th and my point is yep, that's in the right region, I'm not far off from the official reading.

Now - since I said all that, all I'm getting is the stabs about how i could consider that SA was lower by one placing than Wales? I'll tell you how, one last time - instinct. Thinking on my feet - not doing the analysis, thinking about the close call at the Wc between SA and Wales, thinking about 6N for Wales, thinking about Australia being Number 2 in the offical rankings (not 3 - 2) and Wales after an iffy beginning looks like they are chasing Australia down for the final game. It might happen, it might not - not the point. The point is those were my personal thoughts and personal thoughts don't diverge all that much from offical statements as regards rankings.

I'll state again - none of that is a crime. My thoughts won't change rankings - don't worry about me and my thoughts.

SecretFly wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:
On current form i would still bet on the Boks to beat the Welsh , in Cardiff too!! i'm actually suprised you'd rank Wales at 3rd because they ran an understrength aussie side close but still lost Surely that should mean demotion not promotion.

We all could always claim to be understrength - there is always someone on the fringes either preparing to go off or someone preapring to come on again. We'd be much better without our 'understrength' Irish side making an effort in New Zealand...but those are the cards dealth to a side with enough of a margin of home advantage to negate the shortfall.

I'm not here to defend Wales. I'm hear to say personally I think they are a slight notch above SA at present. It's not a crime to think that but it is annoying for some, I'll accept that.

Ok lets say this is a full strength aussie side for arguments sake , how does losing to them make Wales better than the Springboks? i really fail to see the logic in your argument.Sure of they won i might understand but they lost and whichever way you cut it they lost

Did you miss all that stuff about instincts? Or do you want to simply ignore it and get a retraction from me, Bullsbok?

The retraction won't be coming because the thesis is based on instinct. If you go back far enough (and yeah, I know, you won't be interested enough to) you'd find that I used a personal list and the offical list for a reason, to explain a point that irrational quick thoughts about who is best in the world (rankings if you like) don't really always diverge so much from the offical one! So................ I gave a quick mind read on the layout and I'm coming down on Wales as 3rd. The offical says 4th and my point is yep, that's in the right region, I'm not far off from the official reading.

Now - since I said all that, all I'm getting is the stabs about how i could consider that SA was lower by one placing than Wales? I'll tell you how, one last time - instinct. Thinking on my feet - not doing the analysis, thinking about the close call at the Wc between SA and Wales, thinking about 6N for Wales, thinking about Australia being Number 2 in the offical rankings (not 3 - 2) and Wales after an iffy beginning looks like they are chasing Australia down for the final game. It might happen, it might not - not the point. The point is those were my personal thoughts and personal thoughts don't diverge all that much from offical statements as regards rankings.

I'll state again - none of that is a crime. My thoughts won't change rankings - don't worry about me and my thoughts.

You too seem to be misunderstanding me . I read the entire thread and i still dont understand at least now you've given an explanation .And my argument based on your "instict" is this. Wales lost all these games you're referencing. they lost to Australia and they ran the Boks close but ultimately they still lost .and now it would look you're going back on your word of looking at current form. PDvs boks and meyers Boks are clearly very different teams after watching the last two games and it appears you're using pdvs boks as the judgement for where the Boks currently are .And even if you did use last years Springbok team ,Wales still arent better than them because they lost but a smaller margin than normal!!! Using my own instict i'd rate England better than Wales considering they've actually beaten the Aussies not almost beat them! So does that make England the 3rd best team in the world ?? i rather doubt it

Bullsbok wrote:
You too seem to be misunderstanding me . I read the entire thread and i still dont understand at least now you've given an explanation .And my argument based on your "instict" is this. Wales lost all these games you're referencing. they lost to Australia and they ran the Boks close but ultimately they still lost .and now it would look you're going back on your word of looking at current form. PDvs boks and meyers Boks are clearly very different teams after watching the last two games and it appears you're using pdvs boks as the judgement for where the Boks currently are .And even if you did use last years Springbok team ,Wales still arent better than them because they lost but a smaller margin than normal!!! Using my own instict i'd rate England better than Wales considering they've actually beaten the Aussies not almost beat them! So does that make England the 3rd best team in the world ?? i rather doubt it

I'll take those points one highlighted section at a time, Bullsbok.

First Highlight: I've been giving an explanation from the very beginning - the VERY beginning - don't deny it. You slid over it or ignored it but the idea of comparing instinct off-the-cuff perceptions (no explanations required for instinct as you know) and officaldom is there - clearly there.

Second Highlight: They lost but who were they playing? Against SA they were playing a side expected to have an easy game. They lost but ran the thing close = progress. The world sits up and notices. They have lost quite a number of times since to Australia and the pattern continues right up until now and the build up to the next one at the weekend. Australia are not 2nd ranked side in my opinion - they are 2nd ranked side. If I'm asked to honour the idea that SA are better than Wales at the moment, honour the idea of Australia being higher ranked than SA at the moment - I do. So Wales are fighting a 2nd ranked side and England are fighting the 3rd ranked side. I'm being silly and saying Wales have a tougher prospect. You don't think so but there's the conundrum between wanting to be high in rankings and then not believing in them when you ain't. My instincts believe them for a while and I'm saying I think if Wales beat Australia in their backyard then that's a bigger deal than England beating you right now. It is in terms of rankings anyway and beating Australia would not make them better than Australia (lost the series and other games besides) but it means they would have beaten all of Europe and 2nd ranked world team. I'd place them 3rd potential on those grounds. You think I should look at what's happening on the field rather than rankings and I say that can only come when Wales and SA meet. You say SA would beat Wales, I say that's presumptious when they're playing Australia not you.

Third Highlight: This is the bit we all think the accused will slur over and not answer. But no, I like them because I think they're inserted to suggest the poster would like to say they are wrong but don't have the courage to do so. I'm never wrong because I always only express an opinion. Current form is that you are beating England... not Wales. Current form is saying that Australia are still beating Wales but that Wales have also beaten England - your perfomance against England is therefore negated as a selling point for being better... on strictly recent form. Australia remain 2nd ranked side in the world although you claim SA is better. So be it, the future will prove it, the present doesn't as you're not playing Australia and beating them, you're playing England.

Fourth Highlight: Your instincts, once again, preclude Ireland from discussion. In your team selection of the week for last weeks games, you didn't include one Irish player. Your prerogative of course but it's telling that a side that pushed number 1 side and world champions (officially) to the edge didn't have a player to merit inclusion on your list. I say all this because those players also beat Australia and didn't beat Wales...and no, I wouldn't begin to claim them to be 3rd because of it...as, of course, Wales have beaten more top sides than us in recent history England beat Australia and didn't beat Wales... there you go, the uselessness of doing a "Who Beat Who" determination on merit as the who who beat who tends to have been beaten by who who beat who. The circle of unending competition. I beat you and the person you beat, beat me..... In a sense, that's why I'll stick to instincts for now - at least they admit they know nothing and guess at much.

I'm tired of arguing with you , as you've said its just your opinion. My opinion is this . to be the 3rd best team in the world requires more than just potential and ALMOST winning. You have to win end of story .it would be a travesty imo if the 3rd best team in the world (wales in your view) has only won 1 game against an SH giant in the last 5 years or so and are only there because of instinct and current form which have somehow never translated into results

Bullsbok wrote:I'm tired of arguing with you , as you've said its just your opinion. My opinion is this . to be the 3rd best team in the world requires more than just potential and ALMOST winning. You have to win end of story .it would be a travesty imo if the 3rd best team in the world (wales in your view) has only won 1 game against an SH giant in the last 5 years or so and are only there because of instinct and current form which have somehow never translated into results

I'm tired too Bullsbok...but then again, it's you who shot the rapidfire number of posts at me looking for explanations.

Your final point and my final reply... ranking points will dictate who is 3rd best side not opinions. Opinions don't count because as this post is showing us - none of us agree. So ranking points take the argument from us and say this is how it will be based on the science of winning not the idea that history counts.

If Wales do manage 3rd in official rankings, or indeed whatever side achieves it, deserves it - deserves it on merit - because the number crunching without emotion dictates so. The travesty is that your heart wouldn't allow such a conclusion based on proud histories and the concept of 'SH giants'. See you around, Bullsbok.

SecretFly wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:I'm tired of arguing with you , as you've said its just your opinion. My opinion is this . to be the 3rd best team in the world requires more than just potential and ALMOST winning. You have to win end of story .it would be a travesty imo if the 3rd best team in the world (wales in your view) has only won 1 game against an SH giant in the last 5 years or so and are only there because of instinct and current form which have somehow never translated into results

I'm tired too Bullsbok...but then again, it's you who shot the rapidfire number of posts at me looking for explanations.

Your final point and my final reply... ranking points will dictate who is 3rd best side not opinions. Opinions don't count because as this post is showing us - none of us agree. So ranking points take the argument from us and say this is how it will be based on the science of winning not the idea that history counts.

If Wales do manage 3rd in official rankings, or indeed whatever side achieves it, deserves it - deserves it on merit - because the number crunching without emotion dictates so. The travesty is that your heart wouldn't allow such a conclusion based on proud histories and the concept of 'SH giants'. See you around, Bullsbok.

My final parting shot, i would gladly see an NH team at the top of the pile.England for one beat all 3 en route to the top step. France have beaten all 3 too , Boks and All blacks most recently , Scotland funnny enough has done the same .

We definitely need an overhaul of the rankings system. We need to engineer a way to make England look half decent as it will never happen on the rugby field.

World Rankings are not supposed to tell you which is the best or 2nd best team in the world, it only tells you which is team is currently performing the best, there is a difference.

sorry whats the difference between teams perfoming better and better teams?