IRB World Rankings ... Part 1

First topic message reminder :

Current World Rankings

IRB
http://www.irb.com/rankings/full.html

4Ns Round 1
http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/match/fixtures/international.html

September 2012

Sat 15 Rugby Championship / Freedom Cup
New Zealand v South Africa, Dunedin
19:35 local, 07:35 GMT, 08:35 BST

nzl (on 92.43 points) at home -vs- rsa (on 84.20 points)

If nzl win by 1-15 points 0.000 92.43 84.20 No
If nzl win by more than 15 0.000 92.43 84.20 No
If result is a draw 1.000 91.43 85.20 No
If rsa win by 1-15 points 2.000 90.43 86.20 No
If rsa win by more than 15 3.000 89.43 87.20 No

Sat 15 Rugby Championship
Australia v Argentina, Gold Coast
20:05 local, 10:05 GMT, 11:05 BST

aus (on 86.62 points) at home -vs- arg (on 79.34 points)

If aus win by 1-15 points 0.000 86.62 79.34 No
If aus win by more than 15 0.000 86.62 79.34 No
If result is a draw 1.000 85.62 80.34 No
If arg win by 1-15 points 2.000 84.62 81.34 No
If arg win by more than 15 3.000 83.62 82.34 No

[ed]

Original post:

Pretty much World rankings provide both an 'official' balance sheet and P/L account of international bragging rights.

Sources:
IRB Rankings : http://www.irb.com/rankings/index.html
Rankings explanation : http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html
Rankings archive : http://www.irb.com/rankings/archive/index.html

Online calculator (Courtesy of Robbo277 (thanks)) : http://www.lassen.co.nz/pagmisc.php#hrh

so if France win they go top? Awesome! Allez les Bleus!

So, Wales drop to 8th in the world after another defeat?

SafeAsMilk wrote:So, Wales drop to 8th in the world after another defeat?

Looks like it - but tomorrow's results will provide clarity.

I know how the rankings work, but for the first time they just don't seem quite right to me, with Wales in 8th

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:I know how the rankings work, but for the first time they just don't seem quite right to me, with Wales in 8th

I am beginning to sympathise with that view As.

I have found it quite interesting to track and trace the machinations and churn of the ranking during a RWC. And with >5000 hits, so have plenty of others.

It might provide a an interesting debate next week to discuss the fall-out.

Are there ways to make it better, Portnoy? I'm not convinced by the double points in world cups?

I'd prefer to keep out of the debate for now As.

I had resolved to refrain from commenting about my view of the rights and wrongs. I'll come out of that mode after the official rankings are announced on Monday.

I still don't want to be shot as a messenger.

Portnoy wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:So, Wales drop to 8th in the world after another defeat?

Looks like it - but tomorrow's results will provide clarity.

Dude you made a mistake in your calculations, they are 8th regardless of tomorrow


If aus win by 1-15 points
If nzl win by 1-15 points

1 NEW ZEALAND 91.43
2 AUSTRALIA 87.41
3 FRANCE 84.70
4 SOUTH AFRICA 84.34
5 ENGLAND 81.58
6 WALES 80.18 MISTAKE HERE
7 IRELAND 80.65
8 ARGENTINA 80.28
9 TONGA 76.63
10 SCOTLAND 76.2

If aus win by 1-15 points
If nzl win by more than 15

1 NEW ZEALAND 91.48
2 AUSTRALIA 87.41
3 FRANCE 84.66
4 SOUTH AFRICA 84.34
5 ENGLAND 81.58
6 IRELAND 80.65
7 ARGENTINA 80.28
8 WALES 80.18
9 TONGA 76.63
10 SCOTLAND 76.2




And ye sit doesnt seem qquite right, but again look at the ratings gap...thats the real key. Lets not foget that Wales only beat Ireland of the top 10 sides, and struggled against a lowly ranked Samoa side. Their rankingw as poor pre torunament, their record against their peers has been poor.

The rankings system is results based, not performance based.

Wales have been at a high point but that doesnt suddenly make them better than an French side they keep on losing to.

Its ridiculous thatToinga are so high up though.

My own "how good are they really" rankings would be
NZ
SA
Aus
France
Wales
England
Ireland
Argentina
Scotland
Samoa
Italy

trouble is, if you look at Wales from a strictly statistical point of view, they didn't have a great world cup, with three defeats, and only one win against a top tier nation, and ultimately the rankings can't take performances into account. Maybe you could make points worth more as the comp progresses (ie you get more points for beating Ireland in the QFs than you would for beating them in a group stage match)

I'd have Samoa above Scotland and Argentina.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:So, Wales drop to 8th in the world after another defeat?

Looks like it - but tomorrow's results will provide clarity.

Dude you made a mistake in your calculations, they are 8th regardless of tomorrow


If aus win by 1-15 points
If nzl win by 1-15 points

1 NEW ZEALAND 91.43
2 AUSTRALIA 87.41
3 FRANCE 84.70
4 SOUTH AFRICA 84.34
5 ENGLAND 81.58
6 WALES 80.18 MISTAKE HERE
7 IRELAND 80.65
8 ARGENTINA 80.28
9 TONGA 76.63
10 SCOTLAND 76.2

If aus win by 1-15 points
If nzl win by more than 15

1 NEW ZEALAND 91.48
2 AUSTRALIA 87.41
3 FRANCE 84.66
4 SOUTH AFRICA 84.34
5 ENGLAND 81.58
6 IRELAND 80.65
7 ARGENTINA 80.28
8 WALES 80.18
9 TONGA 76.63
10 SCOTLAND 76.2




And ye sit doesnt seem qquite right, but again look at the ratings gap...thats the real key. Lets not foget that Wales only beat Ireland of the top 10 sides, and struggled against a lowly ranked Samoa side. Their rankingw as poor pre torunament, their record against their peers has been poor.

The rankings system is results based, not performance based.

Wales have been at a high point but that doesnt suddenly make them better than an French side they keep on losing to.

Its ridiculous thatToinga are so high up though.

My own "how good are they really" rankings would be
NZ
SA
Aus
France
Wales
England
Ireland
Argentina
Scotland
Samoa
Italy

Having said that I headed that particular post "I'm pretty sure that I have made a mistake or two somewhere

But this is my first attempt at all the possible rankings outcomes after the final matches are completed."

Ozzy3213 wrote:I'd have Samoa above Scotland and Argentina.

They lost to fricking Wales!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:I'd have Samoa above Scotland and Argentina.

They lost to fricking Wales!

And your point is?

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:I'd have Samoa above Scotland and Argentina.

They lost to fricking Wales!

And your point is?

They must be terrrible...Wales are only ranked 8th

It was a joke.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:I'd have Samoa above Scotland and Argentina.

They lost to fricking Wales!

And your point is?

They must be terrrible...Wales are only ranked 8th

It was a joke.

Don't give up the day job will you.

Boys, that is why the rankings don't carry any weight for me. It is a couple of gents with thick glasses and doctor whites that sat in a laborator one weekend with nothing better to do.

They have devised a system that takes results only in calculation, there is no room for conditions, weight of importance of matches, injuries, referee impact etc.

A whole big bag of hogwash.

biltongbek wrote:Boys, that is why the rankings don't carry any weight for me. It is a couple of gents with thick glasses and doctor whites that sat in a laborator one weekend with nothing better to do.

They have devised a system that takes results only in calculation, there is no room for conditions, weight of importance of matches, injuries, referee impact etc.

A whole big bag of hogwash.

Crikey! Enough about the ref!

Would that be the Bryce Lawrence-factor, biltong?!

Maybe

So from a purely rankings point of view Wales would have been better off not getting out of their group?

doctornickolas wrote:So from a purely rankings point of view Wales would have been better off not getting out of their group?

Probably not, as the loss to Samoa/Fiji would probably have pushed them even lower with the points exchange. DOnt forget they gained some points for the bnnarrow victory against Samoa, and would have lost quite a lot had they lost it ( which would have gone to Samoa)

Fact is since getting through their group they won 1 lost 2.


The rankings system isnt perfect, but neither is the paper rock scissors.
If you look at broad trends its about right.

You have New Zealand.

Then you have the Sans

Then you have a tier of 4 6 nations sides that are occassionaly capable of nicking results against them
Then you have Argentina
Then theres Scotland and a bunch of Pisland nations who get the occassional win against those sides.


This pattern has broabling been the same since 2004 and reflected in the rankings and ratings gaps. Dont get too fixated on exact position at any given day unless youre looking for a way of scoring cheap points against Welsh fans.

So long as the rankings count for nothing, it's neither here nor there.

But once they start affecting RWC qualifications they may become more influential.

And as I said before, I'll not be drawn into any contentious debate about it until after the final rankings are announced officially.

Thats what I dislike about rankings, Wales drop below 3 teams they beat within the last 2 months (England beat them aswell). None of whom reached the stage of the World Cup they arrived at.

Im sure theyre based on results/consistency overtime blah blah blah. But for me, they're no good.

Just had a look at the IRB rankin points.

At the moment New Zealand are number 1

Australia are 2

France are 3rd

Sa Are 4th

England 5th

Wales are 6th

Ireland are 7th

Now every body is expecting NZ to win and win comfortably, So if NZ do win where will that leave France in the IRB rankins?
Will they drop to 4th or will they drop below Wales and Ireland?

Any one know.

Nah, you don't lose points if you lose against a team ranked higher than you are.

Wales are dropping down to 8th due to their loss to the Aussies

wrfc1980 wrote:Wales are dropping down to 8th due to their loss to the Aussies

.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Want awere of that to be honest. I thought that the tables had been updated before now.

wrfc1980 wrote:Wales are dropping down to 8th due to their loss to the Aussies

Well I may be wrong then, but as far as I knew you could only take points off teams that are ranked higher than you, otherwise NZ would have 345,000 ranking points.

You can't lose points by losing unless it's to a team ranked below you, in which case the team that beats you gets them - if you know what I mean?

I'm not sure I know what I mean now, but I am fairly certain that Wales can't lose points by losing to Oz as Oz were ranked higher going into the game.....

Whatever.

PJHolybloke

You can lose points to teams ranked higher than you if you lose as long as the team you lost to is within 10 ranking points of your own.

It works like this

Aus 86.49
Wal 81.10 (diff -5.39)

Given the match is neutral there are no points for home advantage (+3 points added to calc.)

Divide points diff by 10 to make 0.539.

If Wales had won you add 1+ 0.539. for Wales point gain and Aus loss.

If Wales lose you take 1 - 0.539 for WAL point loss and Aus gain.

So as Wales lost they lose 0.461.. but given its a RWC match the points are doubled so they lose 0.922.

New points

AUS 87.41
WAL 80.18

so they will fall to 8th bizarrely.

Anyone know why world cup is double positive/negative points??? What does that achieve, apart from unnecessarily distorting the rankings? Why does a loss to Aus in the world cup cost more in a world cup than a normal season? What's the point? No one has been able to answer this question when I've asked it elsewhere! Yes, I sound like a bitter Welshman, but I still don't understand the need to award double points.

Because it means more... some teams won't put their full side out in friendlies... but everyone puts in everything in a RWC match.. according to the theory.

Probably also so that its built so that whoever wins the RWC becomes the No.1 ranked side

Nice one fa0019

Thanks for the info, it's true - you do learn something everyday.

Today I've learnt about ranking points and not to squeeze a spot inside your nose.

The most important lesson though, is that ranking points are pants.

Thanks bud.

The silly thing is that normally if Wales were to lose to Australia, who are consistently ranked 2nd or 3rd in the world, by 3 points as we did today then we'd climb the rankings a bit and they'd drop a bit. Why then do we drop points? Maybe I've got it wrong?

PJHolybloke wrote:Nice one fa0019

Thanks for the info, it's true - you do learn something everyday.

Today I've learnt about ranking points and not to squeeze a spot inside your nose.

The most important lesson though, is that ranking points are pants.

Thanks bud.

Dude, that made me wince more than a James Hook penalty

Griff wrote:The silly thing is that normally if Wales were to lose to Australia, who are consistently ranked 2nd or 3rd in the world, by 3 points as we did today then we'd climb the rankings a bit and they'd drop a bit. Why then do we drop points? Maybe I've got it wrong?

You never gain points for losing.
This will tell you exactly how it works.
http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html

Ok I was obviously mistaken.

munkian wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:Nice one fa0019

Thanks for the info, it's true - you do learn something everyday.

Today I've learnt about ranking points and not to squeeze a spot inside your nose.

The most important lesson though, is that ranking points are pants.

Thanks bud.

Dude, that made me wince more than a James Hook penalty

S'okay, sniff, once the tears had gone, sniff, two quick punches in my own face have deterred me from any further stupidity, sniff.

Basically take the difference in ranking points. If it more than +/-10 then it's taken as 10. Then add 10 and multiply by 0.1. So if you're 10 points ahead you get 0 and if you're 10 points behind you get 2 (for winning). Then it linear between (so equal ranking points would result in 1 point gained or lost)


On top you add 3 to ranking points for home advantage and you multiply by 0.15 if more than 15 point victory.

It really is an odd system that Wales will drop to 8th after finishing 4th in the world cup. Especially after they knocked Ireland out who will now be ranked above them

But Wales lost 3 matches at the World Cup, and only would have gained serious ranking points against Ireland.

England, Ireland and South Africa (who were only quarter-finalists and now sit above Wales) all only lost once. They all started above Wales before the World Cup, so they had a bit of a gap as well.

IRB Rankings look purely at wins and losses (and the nature of those wins and losses), not competition standings. After England won the Six Nations, Ireland were still ranked ahead of them.

I understand that robbo but it just still seems a bit odd to me thats all.

Still doesn't explain why worldcup games are double points? The only reason that's been suggested is because 'worldcup games mean more'? What, so 6N games don't mean as much? It's hardly a development tournament or a friendly tournament. And to suggest that teams don't always put out full strength teams outside of the world cup, what about the world cup pools stages??? France v NZ, France put our a weak team, etc.

I don't see what's wrong with normal points for the worldcup instead of double, regardless of where Wales may end up in the rankings as a result. Because, for me now the rankings table isn't a true reflection as they've allowed the worldcup teams a different scoring system than the non-worldcup teams.

Griff, isnt it the same in all major sports though? Double points at worlds?
I am not sure why but i think its because its considered the biggest stage and thus more pressure, that coupled with the fact that it is only every 4 years?

griff the world cup is offcourse the most important therefore should be weighted as such.

The problem is how its weighted- should standard tests match be less important tha n 6 or trinations, maybe.

should we give double points to the world cups.

maybe a fairer approach would be

test matchs - 1
6 nations - 3nations(soon to be 4) - 1.25
world cups 1.5

i dunno but even i agree that wales dropping to 8th isnt exactly telling us where they fit into world rugby at present, but then would my above changes even change there outcome?

However i dont think a 3rd and 4th playoff(meaningless game) should be weighted at all

Griff wrote:Still doesn't explain why worldcup games are double points? The only reason that's been suggested is because 'worldcup games mean more'? What, so 6N games don't mean as much?

That's the explanation they give,I think everyone agrees that it's stupid but it's the way it works.

After th elast WC Argentina were ranked way higher than they should have been for almost 2 years simply because they played so few games and so didn't lose many points.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Griff wrote:Still doesn't explain why worldcup games are double points? The only reason that's been suggested is because 'worldcup games mean more'? What, so 6N games don't mean as much?

That's the explanation they give,I think everyone agrees that it's stupid but it's the way it works.

After th elast WC Argentina were ranked way higher than they should have been for almost 2 years simply because they played so few games and so didn't lose many points.

when is the decay period(is it two years), or do they even have one- maybe thats the bigger problem.

How the hell are Wales 8th?! I'm embarrassed that England is above them.

When you look at it though, Wales are very low but are playing much better rugny than those above them and winning against higher ranked teams gets you the points. So, If Wales have a decent AI and 6N they could shoot up the rankings in no time as well.

Ok, the other issue for me is the reason we dropped: had we faced Ireland or England in the 3rd place playoff and been thrashed then I can se that a double points negative effect may be a drop to eighth. However, I think I'm right in saying that before yesterday's match we were 6th and Aus were 2nd? 6th in the world only losing by 3 points to second place should not result in a drop to 8th, even with double points. A thrashing maybe, especially if it's dealt by a team close to you or below you, but not a narrow loss to a team ranked way above you, surely?!

Griff wrote:Ok, the other issue for me is the reason we
dropped: had we faced Ireland or England in the 3rd place playoff and
been thrashed then I can se that a double points negative effect may be a
drop to eighth. However, I think I'm right in saying that before
yesterday's match we were 6th and Aus were 2nd? 6th in the world only
losing by 3 points to second place should not result in a drop to 8th,
even with double points. A thrashing maybe, especially if it's dealt by a
team close to you or below you, but not a narrow loss to a team ranked
way above you, surely?!

Griff the drop from 6th to 8th only happened in this case due to the closeness of 6th 7th and 8th point, there was less than 1pt between them before the game, yoiu have to take that into consideration.