"Stuart Lancaster seeks rankings climb" BBC

"If we can keep our winning record up, we'll close the gap," Lancaster said.
"I mentioned it as a goal right at the outset and we're close to achieving it ahead of schedule."
"Anything you can use to give the players an extra sense of motivation and reason why the next game is important, you use it," said Lancaster.

Oh dear, now England will stand accused of ambition.
Or translated for you ABE fanboys 'arrogance'.

No reason why they can't get above SA.

Wales could do England a real favour tomorrow.

Rankings don't mean a great deal in real terms but it's nice to get close to the top of the pile.

Sound like perfectly reasonable if not tautological statement, which applies equally to any team.

Not sure it actually says anything.

Akin to "the team that scores more points will win"

He needs to be careful though bringing up schedules I suspect - rookie mistake.

At least he doesn't mention the dates in the schedule. That would be rookie

Lancaster is a pretty canny operator at saying nothing much and nothing controversial. He's not as 'exciting' as Gats in that manner and won't make the name of any journalist (though headline writers have a good attempt).

Well he would do, wouldn't he. He's a greedy lad.

Unusual characteristic for an International coach..... I'm other words, move along folks, nothing to see here. Coach says he might rise one ranking level if his side keep winning. The cheek of him.

gregortree wrote:"If we can keep our winning record up, we'll close the gap," Lancaster said.
"I mentioned it as a goal right at the outset and we're close to achieving it ahead of schedule."
"Anything you can use to give the players an extra sense of motivation and reason why the next game is important, you use it," said Lancaster.

And that's a handy one for the new Pumas coach.

I think GE should write SLs speeches in future..... inject some outrageous comments into the text just for the fun of it.
Come to think of it, where does NZer Gatling Gob get his speeches from ?

I think chasing ratings points is a fool's errand. Just win and the silly rating points will take care of themselves.

doctor_grey wrote:I think chasing ratings points is a fool's errand.  Just win and the silly rating points will take care of themselves.  

This.

And surely his priority must be picking a starting 23 before the RWC ? He's had 20 plus games to do this

Ranking shows consistency. To win when you play bad is a good habit to get into.

It doesn't mean you win titles, it doesn't mean you win the games that matter. I think many in England would be happier to have Wales record over last 2 years then their own... but yet they're 5 points clear on ranking.

fa0019 wrote:Ranking shows consistency. To win when you play bad is a good habit to get into.

It doesn't mean you win titles, it doesn't mean you win the games that matter. I think many in England would be happier to have Wales record over last 2 years then their own... but yet they're 5 points clear on ranking.

I only want Wales wins over England. Nothing else.

doctor_grey wrote:I think chasing ratings points is a fool's errand.  Just win and the silly rating points will take care of themselves.  

One is the other...the other is the one.  He's just saying he wants to keep winning in a different way.  You don't collect the required points unless you win.  You have to train to win to get them.  So, I don't really see any fuss in his words.  It might be different if he was talking about being number 2 from a position of being 5th or 6th.  But he's only one step away from 2.

Are the pools for RWC20019 decided AFTER RWC20015 ?

Winning by more than 15 helps more than just winning.

And losing to lesser sides clambering the greasy pole can be disastrous to ambitious sides.

My point was, if the pools are decided AFTER RWC15 then its all a bit meaningless. I'd rather win tournaments then gain a ranking.

Lancaster is hoping for more assistance than just 15 points..... he's hoping Wales does and England on SA.

SecretFly wrote:Lancaster is hoping for more assistance than just 15 points..... he's hoping Wales does and England on SA.

Yes. Because the rankings depend on the relative outcomes and the sums.

The nearer you get to the top, the harder it becomes to stay there.

Try telling that to New Zealand. They've been trying their damndest to get off the top for two decades or so but nobody will help them out...............

Really doesn't matter at this stage, would have been useful to be in this position a year ago when the world cup seedings were done. Thats all the world rankings are for really, determining world cup seedings.

Come world cup time the table will be completely rebalance anyway as you get double points during a world cup.

tomhughesnice wrote:Really doesn't matter at this stage, would have been useful to be in this position a year ago when the world cup seedings were done. Thats all the world rankings are for really, determining world cup seedings.

Come world cup time the table will be completely rebalance anyway as you get double points during a world cup.

My point exactly

England and to a lesser extent Wales like all RWC hosts will vulnerable to point exchange tectonic shifts though.

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I think chasing ratings points is a fool's errand.  Just win and the silly rating points will take care of themselves.  

One is the other...the other is the one.  He's just saying he wants to keep winning in a different way.  You don't collect the required points unless you win.  You have to train to win to get them.  So, I don't really see any fuss in his words.  It might be different if he was talking about being number 2 from a position of being 5th or 6th.  But he's only one step away from 2.

I know what you are saying, and you are right.  And I am not carping about what you said, so apologies in advance.  But it feels like bad Indian food passing through when iI hear about these rating points.    

I want my coach talking about real things:  Like saying 100% the right things, which is just effing win.  Rating points gets you..........what?  Doesn't even get you a kiss from Kelly Brooke.  They mean absolutely nada. Something to ignore.  

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing"  Vince Lombardi  
Don't recall him mentioning rating points.

Yes win one game at a time. Just like in 2002 -2003
PLUS psychologically you need to KNOW you are among the best in the world and have beaten the best in the world.
Just like in 2002-2003.
Then you know you can get to the RWC final and fear nobody along the way...except that SH bogey side who in my mind anyway are the Boks.

Arrogant barstewards.

Doc,
Vince Thingy
I had to look him up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Lombardi

wiki wrote:Vincent Thomas "Vince" Lombardi (June 11, 1913 – September 3, 1970) was an American football player, coach, and executive.

At the time he died, was there any International gridiron competition?
i.e. Would not the World Ranking in their totality have read:
1. USA

?

And that, like most American sports, would assume that they were just playing with themselves.

I understand what Lancaster is doing. He doesnt need to say anything to get the team motivated for Aus or NZ matches.

He's trying to find a positive spur ahead of the Arg potential banana skin, above and beyond the negative fear-of-losing motivation.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Doc,
Vince Thingy
I had to look him up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Lombardi

wiki wrote:Vincent Thomas "Vince" Lombardi (June 11, 1913 – September 3, 1970) was an American football player, coach, and executive.

At the time he died, was there any International gridiron competition?
i.e. Would not the World Ranking in their totality have read:
1. USA

?

And that, like most American sports, would assume that they were just playing with themselves.

I'd say that's more of a pastime than a sport.

 Saint
'Ambitious' does indeed = 'Arrogant' for ABEs. I did mention that in the OP.

Unfortunately on last Saturday's performance England would stumble against ABs and The Bokke, so in my mind we rank no higher than 3 at best. Plus England have a recent run of Wales hoodoo to get out of the system.
And Wales have a SH hoodoo to overcome ... maybe Saturday.
England confidence 2013 is not on par with the England of 2003.
Ambitious, yes we should be, confident I am not currently.

quinsforever wrote:I understand what Lancaster is doing. He doesnt need to say anything to get the team motivated for Aus or NZ matches.

He's trying to find a positive spur ahead of the Arg potential banana skin, above and beyond the negative fear-of-losing motivation.

So is SL playing mind games like Fatland? Gatland?

Scrumpy wrote:

quinsforever wrote:I understand what Lancaster is doing. He doesnt need to say anything to get the team motivated for Aus or NZ matches.

He's trying to find a positive spur ahead of the Arg potential banana skin, above and beyond the negative fear-of-losing motivation.

So is SL playing mind games like Fatland? Gatland?

LOL. i think i would call it team management. he's not getting involved in mind games with opposition like the rotund one.

Bolstering his position by verbally leveraging his success. Top skills. Good comment.

It's irrefutable that England are climbing and looking stronger under Lancaster. He appears to be doing a good job.

What will it take for England to go #1?

If sa lose to Wales and NZ get beaten by England will that do it?

Positive England comments GE  but no, I do not think England will beat the ABs this autumn, and England still have unresolved mental and physical issues with the Boks.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Bolstering his position by verbally leveraging his success. Top skills. Good comment.

It's irrefutable that England are climbing and looking stronger under Lancaster. He appears to be doing a good job.

What will it take for England to go #1?

If sa lose to Wales and NZ get beaten by England will that do it?

more chance of my 4 year old getting an England cap next year than England reaching #1 ranking anytime soon.

what will it take? time, consistency of performances, consistency of team selection in key positions, a world-class 10 decision-maker, and more time, and some luck.

i dont honestly think many people in many countries care about the ranking, they care about the big tournament wins. I would happily trade not being #1 for a win at a RWC.

Oh Stewie you rascal, methinks you're avin a giraffe. With a midfield of Dickson/Farrell/12T/Tomkins, and the ABs to play, it's more a case of mind the gap than close it.

Quins - exactly right, anyone think being ranked #1 matters, winning things matters.
At the risk of a bite from GE during most of the period when the AB's didn't hold the RWC do you think they went home from the tournament going "don't worry lads we're still ranked #1" or when England under Woodward contrived to throw away three Grand Slams I don't think their ranking worried them as much as the result.
Also if you are not ranked as the top side it makes the winning against them all the sweeter.

gregortree wrote:Positive England comments GE   but no, I do not think England will beat the ABs this autumn, and England still have unresolved mental and physical issues with the Boks.

Speaking hypothetically. How far away are they?

Irish Londoner wrote:Quins - exactly right, anyone think being ranked #1 matters, winning things matters.
At the risk of a bite from GE during most of the period when the AB's didn't hold the RWC do you think they went home from the tournament going "don't worry lads we're still ranked #1" or when England under Woodward contrived to throw away three Grand Slams I don't think their ranking worried them as much as the result.
Also if you are not ranked as the top side it makes the winning against them all the sweeter.

Well from an NZ perspective we want it all. Not being #1 hurts and not winning the RWC hurts. And not winning every game hurts.

The RWC became a bit if a saga, so obviously that hurt a little more.

Now however, I think losing the #1 ranking to say, England over the three test series next year would bite more than being #1 and losing in the 2015 final.

Losing the #1 ranking to say, SA and then winning the RWC? Well who can say? Tricky to call.

Thing that skews it is I think any of the top 3 win the RWC pretty much guarantees the #1 spot anyways.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Doc,
Vince Thingy
I had to look him up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Lombardi

wiki wrote:Vincent Thomas "Vince" Lombardi (June 11, 1913 – September 3, 1970) was an American football player, coach, and executive.

At the time he died, was there any International gridiron competition?
i.e. Would not the World Ranking in their totality have read:
1. USA

?

And that, like most American sports, would assume that they were just playing with themselves.

Vince Lombardi's statements far transcend sporting lines, and apply to sports and many to life.  He would have no truck with any theoretical arcane concepts such as rating points.  After all, the only numbers which matter are the final score (as long as you have more than the other team) and the number of wins (as long as you have more than the other teams).  He was so competitive that if playing with oneself was a competition (see the Heineken Cup negotiations), he would demand his team to be the best at that too.

The man was a sporting genius

doctor_grey wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Doc,
Vince Thingy
I had to look him up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Lombardi

wiki wrote:Vincent Thomas "Vince" Lombardi (June 11, 1913 – September 3, 1970) was an American football player, coach, and executive.

At the time he died, was there any International gridiron competition?
i.e. Would not the World Ranking in their totality have read:
1. USA

?

And that, like most American sports, would assume that they were just playing with themselves.

Vince Lombardi's statements far transcend sporting lines, and apply to sports and many to life.  He would have no truck with any theoretical arcane concepts such as rating points.  After all, the only numbers which matter are the final score (as long as you have more than the other team) and the number of wins (as long as you have more than the other teams).  He was so competitive that if playing with oneself was a competition (see the Heineken Cup negotiations), he would demand his team to be the best at that too.

The man was a sporting genius

That's surprising, Doc. My limited experience of American Football presents a vision of a bunch humanoid freighters loaded to the gunnels with steroids and which is commentated on by idiots obsessed by the All-American sports' love affair* with statistics.

It has been known to be played by University graduates who are barely literate.


How did your genius feel about that?

* Sadly an epidemic that's becoming Global - the mildest form of which includes an interest in RWC rankings although Opta Stats addicts may disagree.

doctor_grey wrote:I think chasing ratings points is a fool's errand.  Just win and the silly rating points will take care of themselves.  

All the more so when England can't actually get any this weekend... the only way we can go above South Africa now is if we they get badly beaten by Wales, which is hardly a testament to England.

gregortree wrote:Positive England comments GE   but no, I do not think England will beat the ABs this autumn, and England still have unresolved mental and physical issues with the Boks.

They're smarter than our lot and in better shape?

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Doc,
Vince Thingy
I had to look him up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Lombardi

wiki wrote:Vincent Thomas "Vince" Lombardi (June 11, 1913 – September 3, 1970) was an American football player, coach, and executive.

At the time he died, was there any International gridiron competition?
i.e. Would not the World Ranking in their totality have read:
1. USA

?

And that, like most American sports, would assume that they were just playing with themselves.

Vince Lombardi's statements far transcend sporting lines, and apply to sports and many to life.  He would have no truck with any theoretical arcane concepts such as rating points.  After all, the only numbers which matter are the final score (as long as you have more than the other team) and the number of wins (as long as you have more than the other teams).  He was so competitive that if playing with oneself was a competition (see the Heineken Cup negotiations), he would demand his team to be the best at that too.

The man was a sporting genius

That's surprising, Doc. My limited experience of American Football presents a vision of a bunch humanoid freighters loaded to the gunnels with steroids and which is commentated on by idiots obsessed by the All-American sports' love affair* with statistics.

It has been known to be played by University graduates who are barely literate.


How did your genius feel about that?

* Sadly an epidemic that's becoming Global - the mildest form of which includes an interest in RWC rankings although Opta Stats addicts may disagree.

Disagree.

There are certainly some players who do their 4 year apprenticeship in American universities.  The American universities are the minor leagues or in Rugby parlance the lower level clubs.  And the universities make huge money from football (American).  However, there are many more players who graduate.  It used to be worse.  Besides only about 1% of uni graduates make it in the NFL

The NFL - now - has a very strong PED testing program.   So the stereotype is out of date.  How do these comments tie in to the point of the thread?   The NFL is a real meritocracy.  Win your division, then enter the knock-outs which even up for a long season (plus bring in huge money).  The two finalists are in the Super Bowl, always one of the most watched TV events of the year.  

The NFL still comes back to wins and losses.  Silly things like ratings have zero value and are good for chat and, well,  nothing.  My team could be rated tenth, but put together a nice playoff run and are Super Bowl champs.  No one cares what their rating is.  To, me just a waste of time.  

Do we need ratings to know the ABs are best in the world?  And if your team is not the best, then who cares what your rating number is.  The goal is to be the best.  Everything else is just hanging with the great unwashed.

doctor_grey wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Ranking shows consistency. To win when you play bad is a good habit to get into.

It doesn't mean you win titles, it doesn't mean you win the games that matter. I think many in England would be happier to have Wales record over last 2 years then their own... but yet they're 5 points clear on ranking.

I only want Wales wins over England.  Nothing else.

I really dont think they would mate.. The two records are vastly different

a draw v SA, win v aus and nz, against no results v those teams and losses to japan!

We have only had one bad game!!

doctor_grey wrote:I think chasing ratings points is a fool's errand.  Just win and the silly rating points will take care of themselves.  

thats just a semantic arguyment.

chasing ranking points means been ultra constant and trying to get the best possible result in every game you play

NZ do this...

To say chasing ranking's points is a fools errant is just daft. An increase of rankings points is the same as constantly winning. You can't have one or the other.