England break into top 3

Without kicking a ball!


Australia have paid the price for their 47-29 loss to New Zealand in their Rugby Championship opener by falling one place in the latest IRB World Rankings, allowing England to break the southern hemisphere dominance of the top three.

The Wallabies could have climbed to second had they beaten New Zealand in Sydney, but the margin of defeat in Ewen McKenzie's first game in charge sees them fall below England by just over three tenths of a rating point.

With South Africa unable to improve their rating despite overwhelming Argentina 73-13 in Soweto, New Zealand's cushion at the top - a position they have occupied since 16 November 2009 - has grown to 4.52 rating points.

South Africa went into the match sitting eight places and 10.36 rating points above los Pumas, which meant that regardless of the margin of victory it would not have any impact on their rating in second place.

The only other change in the latest IRB World Rankings sees Canada climb one place to 14th - swapping place with Japan - after their 27-9 victory over USA in the first leg of the Rugby World Cup 2015 qualifier to determine the Americas 1 side at England 2015.

Canada now lie just under a point behind Fiji above them going into the second leg in Toronto this weekend, while despite the heavy loss on home soil, the USA Eagles remain 18th and still have a cushion of nearly three points over Russia below.

The IRB World Rankings:

1(1) New Zealand 91.55
2(2) South Africa 87.03
3(4) England 85.76
4(3) Australia 85.41
5(5) France 81.59
6(6) Wales 81.36
7(7) Samoa 80.42
8(8) Ireland 79.58
9(9) Scotland 76.95
10(10) Argentina 76.67
11(11) Tonga 74.77
12 (12) Italy 74.17
13(13) Fiji 73.56
14(15) Canada 72.68
15(15) Japan 71.98
16(16) Georgia 67.66
17(17) Romania 66.18
18(18) USA 64.91
19(19) Russia 61.99
20(20) Spain 60.44

I thought England put in a great performance on the weekend and deserve their promotion. 

Yawn. 

Steady on mate. A long way to go in the RC just yet! 

Personally I believe a team who has not played should earn "pending" or bracketed points that are only converted on their next success. That would prevent the kind of nonsense aberation like this one.

I think New Zealand deserves to go up a few more places.

The day Argentina beat one of the other three nations in the Rugby Championship the country losing is gonna take a HUGE knock in rankings.

What is Englands rise based on? Surely not the Summer tour?

GeordieFalcon wrote:What is Englands rise based on? Surely not the Summer tour?

Australia losing heavily Geordie

Now that they're in fourth place if Oz lose to the AB's again this weekend will it actually effect their placing any longer?

I actually agree with GE on this one

GloriousEmpire wrote:I thought England put in a great performance on the weekend and deserve their promotion. 

Yawn. 

Steady on mate. A long way to go in the RC just yet! 

Personally I believe a team who has not played should earn "pending" or bracketed points that are only converted on their next success. That would prevent the kind of nonsense aberation like this one.

England didnt earn any points though - they didnt loose any either

Well done England

IF you can keep your points when all about you
Are losing theirs...

I see ghostie wants to change yet more aspects of rugby.

Seriously dude, change sports. Rugby doesn't suit you!

Go home IRB, you're drunk

munkian wrote:Go home IRB, you're drunk

In the morning IRB will be sober and Wales will still be 6th.

So if Oz beat the ABs this weekend they could leap frog England? But being so far down the ranks at 4th they could stand to move up more than they dropped, that how it works?

Cyril wrote:

munkian wrote:Go home IRB, you're drunk

In the morning IRB will be sober and Wales will still be 6th.

And you'll still be a chode, next.

lostinwales wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I thought England put in a great performance on the weekend and deserve their promotion. 

Yawn. 

Steady on mate. A long way to go in the RC just yet! 

Personally I believe a team who has not played should earn "pending" or bracketed points that are only converted on their next success. That would prevent the kind of nonsense aberation like this one.

England didnt earn any points though - they didnt loose any either

Neither did South Africa, you can liken England's performance to that of SA, a 60 point win, and not a decimal point to show for it.  

munkian wrote:

Cyril wrote:

munkian wrote:Go home IRB, you're drunk

In the morning IRB will be sober and Wales will still be 6th.

And you'll still be a chode, next.

I had to look that up. Kids of today and their language, eh? Just plain obnoxious.

Back where we belong......one of the big 3

Knighthood for Stuart Lancaster. MBEs all round!  

Cyril wrote:

munkian wrote:

Cyril wrote:

munkian wrote:Go home IRB, you're drunk

In the morning IRB will be sober and Wales will still be 6th.

And you'll still be a chode, next.

I had to look that up. Kids of today and their language, eh? Just plain obnoxious.

Bloody hell, I'm only 23 and even I had to think about what that meant, making me feel old!

Got to love the personal attacks

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Got to love the personal attacks

Agree, it is quite entertaining, however such a waste of cyberspace.

and the cause of it is because someone doesn't agree with the ranking system.

The IRB must be laughing their ar$e$ off when they read these forums.

Hey, I've mis-quoted both Kipling and Churchill on this thread.

It's a very cultured read

PS The Ranking System RULEZ!!!!

if carlsberg did IRB rankings . . .  

Glad Wales are staying ahead of Samoa.

When's the open-top bus parade?  

At least Wales can finally claim that they have got a big win over one of the top 3

France at 5 is interesting. Were they not hammered in the summer 3-0, to follow-up a Wooden Spoon in the 6 Nations??

Still better than the 6 Nations champions according to the rankings....

lostinwales wrote:At least Wales can finally claim that they have got a big win over one of the top 3

   

You win this thread

 Excellent comment.

At least the Millennium stadium is still THE BEST in the world.

 

wales606 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:At least Wales can finally claim that they have got a big win over one of the top 3

   

You win this thread

 +1

ChequeredJersey wrote:I actually agree with GE on this one

Now there is a frightening phrase not often repeated.


Anywho...

Technically England didn't move up... Australia went down and leapfrogged past us. Call it an administrative promotion if you must.

funnyExiledScot wrote:France at 5 is interesting. Were they not hammered in the summer 3-0, to follow-up a Wooden Spoon in the 6 Nations??

Still better than the 6 Nations champions according to the rankings....

I guess its worse to loose to Japan than it is to loose to New Zealand

Metal Tiger wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I actually agree with GE on this one

Now there is a frightening phrase not often repeated.


Anywho...

Technically England didn't move up... Australia went down and leapfrogged past us. Call it an administrative promotion if you must.

Deep in your hearts , you all know I speak the truth.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I actually agree with GE on this one

Now there is a frightening phrase not often repeated.


Anywho...

Technically England didn't move up... Australia went down and leapfrogged past us. Call it an administrative promotion if you must.

Deep in your hearts , you all know I speak the truth.

Like when you said this?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Goodbye all. Thankyou to all those who indulged ina old debate and who brought a bit of humour, emotion Nd passion to 606v2.

I've enjoyed my time here immensely and have great respect for the many posters who I've crossed wills and exchanged opinions with.

Thanks to the tireless and professional moderation team who make this the cleanest, focused and open rugby forum on the net.

I'd like to personally thank some posters, such as Bluesman, Taylorman, Maes, Kiwireddevil, Biltong for giving me new perspectives and opening my mind to other points of view.

Also to those mischievous posters who kept the place lively, whom I won't mention for fear of blackening your names - you were awesome and I hope you keep seeing the light side of the sport and life.

I have to move along now because despite my love of this place my presence is too disruptive and unfortunately I can no longer express any opinions and be taken seriously on any level.

Enjoy yourselves and I will keep dropping by and reading on for my daily dose of wisdom, wit and WUM.

Enjoy yourselves!

The Saint wrote:At least the Millennium stadium is still THE BEST in the world.

True, they do cracking concerts, boxing,monster trucks, rallying, football. Great venue...

gregortree wrote: 

wales606 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:At least Wales can finally claim that they have got a big win over one of the top 3

   

You win this thread

 +1

 

nganboy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:France at 5 is interesting. Were they not hammered in the summer 3-0, to follow-up a Wooden Spoon in the 6 Nations??

Still better than the 6 Nations champions according to the rankings....

I guess its worse to loose to Japan than it is to loose to New Zealand

....and I guess the Wooden Spoon has considerably more prestige than the 6 Nations title. Surprising really.

Still, Wales really shouldn't be "loosing" to Japan, regardless of whether its a second/third string Wales. The rankings can't really adjust for countries putting out 2nd string sides.

....or for McBryde.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

nganboy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:France at 5 is interesting. Were they not hammered in the summer 3-0, to follow-up a Wooden Spoon in the 6 Nations??

Still better than the 6 Nations champions according to the rankings....

I guess its worse to loose to Japan than it is to loose to New Zealand

....and I guess the Wooden Spoon has considerably more prestige than the 6 Nations title. Surprising really.

Still, Wales really shouldn't be "loosing" to Japan, regardless of whether its a second/third string Wales. The rankings can't really adjust for countries putting out 2nd string sides.

You do know that the rankings are calculated to take into account results over a period of time? Wales had a good six nations but had lost something like 8 on the trot (including Argentina and Samoa) going into it. Hence, they are still have a fair bit of ground to make up (losing to Japan didn't help).

Losing 3-0 in NZ for France won't have affected their ranking at all because of relative weightings and even though they lost ranking points for a poor 6 Nations they had better results in the bank previously.

I do understand that Cyril. I'm not a fan of the rankings, I fail to see the point frankly. I hate the idea of teams winning tournament and beating opponents only to be told "well, at least we're still above you in the rankings".

Just my opinion, and if you're a fans of stats and maths then the rankings will no doubt float your boat. Where I suppose they are useful is in dealing with WC groups, as although they are flawed, they are a small improvement on the old system of simply going on performance at the previous World Cup four years ago.

I just find it odd that the 6 Nations champions are ranked lower than the 6 Nations Wooden Spooners only months after the end of the tournament (and neither side has won since). Does that not seem slightly odd to anyone else?

It's not about being a fan of stats it's just about fair placement and not constantly chopping and changing based on a very small set of results.

True, rankings don't really mean a lot except for WC group seedings.

If the wooden spooners had performed better than the champions for a fair while previously (beating a top 3 side for example) then, yes, they deserve to be above them.

Look at all other rankings in other sports. It's the same.

Funnyexiledscot

It depends on where they started from... the 2 sides in question weren't starting on a level playing field. Wales went through a massive lossing streak in 2012 losing to many sides ranked lower then them. France were the top ranked side in Europe prior to the 6N and near everyone's choice for the title.
They lost no points to NZ due to the points diff so all their points lost were due to their 6N exploits.

Ranking is a historical log not a current form status.

I actually quite like the rankings, its a reminder for Wales that we need to improve our consistency agaionst teams at our level/down to 10/11 (and even Japan apparently now).

Can't see anything wrong with the rankings, they reward teams that are consistently good, while teams that have massive swings in form will always struggle to get higher up in them. Especially if those teams keep losing to teams ranked far below them.

yappysnap wrote:Can't see anything wrong with the rankings, they reward teams that are consistently good, while teams that have massive swings in form will always struggle to get higher up in them. Especially if those teams keep losing to teams ranked far below them.

Well they are based on things that can be objectively measured, even if people argue over the actual measurements. You cant measure 'form' in the same way

Key to having the ranks be any use is to ignore position. Points is what matter. You can loose/gain up to 3 points in one game, so maximum change of 6 points between teams (this could only occur if they're at least 10 points appart so can't switch places).

Personally I look in 2 or 3 point bands.

So at the moment you have the following groups that can be considered (IMO) from the rankings 'equal':

1. New Zealand
2. South Africa, England and Australia (England artificially high because of fluke win over AB, won't last if it is a fluke. Also potentially helped by Argentina 2nds)
3. France, Wales, Samoa, Ireland (Wales artificially low due to loses against Japan, Argentina and Samoa, again, it won't last if there were flukes/blips)
4. Scotland and Argentina

Cyril wrote:It's not about being a fan of stats it's just about fair placement and not constantly chopping and changing based on a very small set of results.

True, rankings don't really mean a lot except for WC group seedings.

If the wooden spooners had performed better than the champions for a fair while previously (beating a top 3 side for example) then, yes, they deserve to be above them.

Look at all other rankings in other sports. It's the same.

Are you referring to France? They didn't fair much better the previous season...

The destroyed Australia though. Something Wales haven't managed to do  

True, but all their points would have been reversed in the following 6 Nations, where they gained a draw and one win over a lower ranked team.