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

lauriehow wrote:Seems a travesty as if Wales had played France before England we would now be above England not behind, assuming all results were the same as they ended up. This is because Wales would have gained more from beating a team above them than they did by beating France when they had already gone below Wales. All will now depend on results in the summer tours I guess.

p.s. You can replay your fantasy scenario if you want to:

Rankings archive : http://www.irb.com/rankings/archive/index.html

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


but you'd have to reprocess all the results to get a definitive final picture.

Morgan,

A rare moment of sanity ..from you of all people. As I pointed out above, Wales are much more likely to be above England after this summer than they are below them.
Then we have the AIs which could cause some more significant readjustments.

The 4th spot is open for grabs, then we can FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU when we pull a 5th placed SA, a 9th placed Ireland and a 13th placed Samoa in our world cup group.

Yes, very very rare. And I commented that assuming fans were more concerned with the world cup seedings rather than being ranked above England.

and off course so are we, its only about the seedings- if you can win 1 or 2 of your games v aus and england can win one game v SA- both will be top 4 anyway

A 9th placed Ireland won't be acting like a 9th placed side by the time the WC comes around - can almost guarantee that.

And that's another reason why it's a little premature to be worried about seedings. Not wanting to meet strong sides in the Pool stages? Who is to say what sides will be the strong ones in 2015?

well secret its not just ireland that wnat to be in the top 8- its also the top 8 an all!!

we dont want a group of nz, ireland and england or wales for instance !!

You sure you want Argentina out the top 8? Look what happened last time they were....

I suppose, argentina are a half decent team lets be honest!

mystiroakey wrote:well secret its not just ireland that wnat to be in the top 8- its also the top 8 an all!!
we dont want a group of nz, ireland and england or wales for instance !!

Don't get you there, mystir? I wish Ireland were 3rd...just because I like the air up there and I've always loved heights

But I'm saying wanting to be high in the rankings this year so that you have less chance of meeting tough sides in the WC pools is all very well when you are ranking sides how they are now. But sorting out the WC pools in the next few months won't tell sides much about the quality of the sides they are going to meet in their pools come 2015.

NZ might stumble down into 3rd ranked by then. Scotland might have risen to 5th. England might have imploded and gone down to 6th. How tough a pool is is down to how tough the sides you meet are when you actually meet them - 2015. I wouldn't worry too much about Pools is what I'm saying. If you think you have enough to win you should be prepared to meet the best anyway, whenever that comes along, whether Pools or final stages.

As an english fan i dont really worry about pools either- we allways get out of em and have a good record..

however its the only thing that rankings effect- and about the only real debate that this thread has to offer in fairness!!

I can possibly see at least 2 NH teams in the top 4 come 2015 and i would put money on the fact that one will be england..

You can say with a fair degree of certainty that the 3 Southern Hemisphere "giants" are going to be strong. Getting in the top 4 with them would help. Yes, you may end up with a strong second and third seed, but you want to give yourself the best chance anyway.

PSW

Samoa will be a 3rd seed, regardless of where they are ranked. The top 12 at the last World Cup will be the top 12 seeds this World Cup, it's just who takes which seeding etc.

robbo277 wrote:...
Samoa will be a 3rd seed, regardless of where they are ranked. The top 12 at the last World Cup will be the top 12 seeds this World Cup, it's just who takes which seeding etc.

I thought the top 12 last time were automatically qualified, not automatically seeded?

If you're in the top 4 you have more chance in topping your pool (as one of the 3 'best' teams won't be in it). However if you have the strongest 3rd seed in your pool you have more chance of being knocked out.

That's all theoritical of course as France lost to Tonga and upsets do happen.

kiwre i suppose if they are doing the seedings in advance of the qualification then it makes sense that that the top 12 that have allready qualified will be also used as the top seeds

mystiroakey wrote:kiwre i suppose if they are doing the seedings in advance of the qualification then it makes sense that that the top 12 that have allready qualified will be also used as the top seeds

I had this debate on Saturday while watching the England match, I was of the opinion that the top 12 last time were seeded before that, but got talked around. Joys of trying to debate with a one-eyed 'Quins fan

Kiwireddevil wrote:

robbo277 wrote:...
Samoa will be a 3rd seed, regardless of where they are ranked. The top 12 at the last World Cup will be the top 12 seeds this World Cup, it's just who takes which seeding etc.

I thought the top 12 last time were automatically qualified, not automatically seeded?

Kiwi, that as I understand it is true this time.

I'm not quite sure why the pools have to be set in stone at RWCyear+1 but it's presumably because of the logistics of organising team bases, hotels, training facilities etc.

but I' guess that two rather than three years would be enough to arrange stuff.

Portnoy wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

robbo277 wrote:...
Samoa will be a 3rd seed, regardless of where they are ranked. The top 12 at the last World Cup will be the top 12 seeds this World Cup, it's just who takes which seeding etc.

I thought the top 12 last time were automatically qualified, not automatically seeded?

Kiwi, that as I understand it is true this time.

I'm not quite sure why the pools have to be set in stone at RWCyear+1 but it's presumably because of the logistics of organising team bases, hotels, training facilities etc.

but I' guess that two rather than three years would be enough to arrange stuff.

I agree. I had thought that it was done early last time because New Zealand's low population density made the planning more difficult.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

robbo277 wrote:...
Samoa will be a 3rd seed, regardless of where they are ranked. The top 12 at the last World Cup will be the top 12 seeds this World Cup, it's just who takes which seeding etc.

I thought the top 12 last time were automatically qualified, not automatically seeded?

Kiwi, that as I understand it is true this time.

I'm not quite sure why the pools have to be set in stone at RWCyear+1 but it's presumably because of the logistics of organising team bases, hotels, training facilities etc.

but I' guess that two rather than three years would be enough to arrange stuff.

I agree. I had thought that it was done early last time because New Zealand's low population density made the planning more difficult.

Surprising, most of the Kiwis I have met are quite dense

It would be better for all involved if the rankings from a year prior to the tournament set the seedings, I believe that way Wales wouldve been in pot 3 and couldve avoided the mighty Fiji.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

robbo277 wrote:...
Samoa will be a 3rd seed, regardless of where they are ranked. The top 12 at the last World Cup will be the top 12 seeds this World Cup, it's just who takes which seeding etc.

I thought the top 12 last time were automatically qualified, not automatically seeded?

Last time out the pre-qualified 12 were put into the top 3 pots and then drawn, with "Europe 1", "Europe 2" etc in Pots 4 and 5. I thought it would be the same again, I mean, you can't seed a team who hasn't even qualified yet.

Think youre right Robbo. The top 3 from each group are pre qualified and would go into the first 3 pots, even if one drops below 12th in the world rankings.
Scotland can breath again.

Samoa could be a 2nd seed though.

Just tested the Rankings calculator.

The IRB rankings do not count RWC qualifying games as counting double ranking points unlike the RWC finals.

Which imo, is unfair on the t3-4 nations as they put them at a disadvantage to climb the greasy poll.

Perhaps, but theyre also matches that the teams that dont need to climb dont have...good point though as it might see some turbulent movement at the cusp of qualifying...

Taylorman wrote:Perhaps, but theyre also matches that the teams that dont need to climb dont have...good point though as it might see some turbulent movement at the cusp of qualifying...

For most teams in the qualifiers, these games are their RWC finals.

Should Barbarian games count for IRB ranking? and be capped?

If was true, would England go up in the ranking after such big win over very strong Barbarian team?

So would that give Mils another over 100?

I dont see why not, over the last few years everyone else was getting ranking points for beating a bunch of clapped out englishmen who shouldve retired a decade ago mixed with various sanzars who needed the money

Summer Internationals to Jun 10: see OP.

Please PM me if you have problems with the new layout. (e.g. access from work).
But it saves me time.

With Scotland beating Australia what do you think Wales chances are in OZ now, and with England in with a big shot I think of beating the Boks in at least 2 tests could we see 2 Home Nations in the top 4 when the draw comes round in December? I'm inclined to think its a real possibility, and could even envisage seeing France joining them to make 3 NH in the top 4.

certainly a possiblilty - i see it ending with wales 2nd, sa third and england 4th

mystiroakey wrote:certainly a possiblilty - i see it ending with wales 2nd, sa third and england 4th

Wales can't win enough points for that! unless England take the points from SA in that case will be Eng 2nd Wal 3rd.

ok ta.

I am talking about year end though- surely that could be a possibility?

Only if NZ beat Ire 3-0, SA beat Eng 3-0 and then Wales beating NZ. (I can't work out what if RC outcomes in the rest time so might make messy up this one)

ok so its probally not the outcome then.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:certainly a possiblilty - i see it ending with wales 2nd, sa third and england 4th

Wales can't win enough points for that! unless England take the points from SA in that case will be Eng 2nd Wal 3rd.

After this weekends games Wales could go second with a big win if england win small. Both are pretty unlikely though.

so my predo could happen next game then

also going for a wales good win and a small eng win. so thats sorted

There is the 4Ns and AI before the draw.

Im sure the All Blacks could be out of the top4 if they lose everygame, so anyone in the top6 has a chance of finishing top4.

Congratulation to India who climb an amazing 12 places after beat Pakistan and Guam in the A5N !

The highest climb of any team (even Scotland!)

Highlights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZaSObwXNWA&feature=share
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR0pCa92VJA&feature=relmfu

Cant OP update the Wales vs Aus result now...please?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

robbo277 wrote:...
Samoa will be a 3rd seed, regardless of where they are ranked. The top 12 at the last World Cup will be the top 12 seeds this World Cup, it's just who takes which seeding etc.

I thought the top 12 last time were automatically qualified, not automatically seeded?

Kiwi, that as I understand it is true this time.

I'm not quite sure why the pools have to be set in stone at RWCyear+1 but it's presumably because of the logistics of organising team bases, hotels, training facilities etc.

but I' guess that two rather than three years would be enough to arrange stuff.

I agree. I had thought that it was done early last time because New Zealand's low population density made the planning more difficult.

Surprising, most of the Kiwis I have met are quite dense

It would be better for all involved if the rankings from a year prior to the tournament set the seedings, I believe that way Wales wouldve been in pot 3 and couldve avoided the mighty Fiji.

Too good.

Its ok Kiwi. Im a Mick.

Am I right in thinking that:
Australia are still 2nd (albiet by a very small margin)
Scotland are now 10th (just ahead of Samoa)

england or wales are gonna be no.2 very soon

blackcanelion wrote:Am I right in thinking that:
Australia are still 2nd (albiet by a very small margin)
Scotland are now 10th (just ahead of Samoa)

Scotland gain 2pts, so go 9th I think

mystiroakey wrote:england or wales are gonna be no.2 very soon

Mysti,

1,2,3 is set in granite. Ye just may sneak a view from the top, for a nano-second.
But. Do not adjust your head-set. Normal service will be resumed.

Lets stop kidding ourselves here. It will take another 2 x RWC for us (the Home-nation teams) - to even challenge for it. That is, if we up our game considerably.

England or Wales will not win the next RWC. We all know this to be true. Thats what really matters. Not temporary rankings. They mean nowt.

Only France can confound that.

Just sayin bud.

I am not gonna right off england for the next world cup. and i doubt SH fans would either in all honesty... i know many NH fans that would mind

england have the depth and the grass roots talent. we will start seeing that very soon.

wales are a good young side.

times are changing.. its the NH times

Ok Mysti. Maybe England can rig it at home, like the Kiwis blatantly organised it down in NZ. Even down to buying the SH ref in the Final. But, definitely not Wales.

Have the talent. But. They dont have enough money or clout.

IMO, Wales and England will both be challenging at the next world cup.

France, Ireland and Scotland have a lot of work to do if they won't a chance, there teams need to be rebuilt substantially (or in Scotland's case, find a balance between their backs and forwards)

wales606 wrote:IMO, Wales and England will both be challenging at the next world cup.

France, Ireland and Scotland have a lot of work to do if they won't a chance, there teams need to be rebuilt substantially (or in Scotland's case, find a balance between their backs and forwards)

Challenging at. Not for, 606. Same ol. Same ol.

England are the only Home-Nation or NH side to have won it. I cant see that changing in 2015. Maybe France to do it. They made Finals.

But, it's nice to Believe/Credu.

Not a WUM.

Just been watching rugby for far too long.

Love to be wrong. Ireland should be ready by then. When we get rid of Kidney and get a man in, that is.

Gibson wrote:

wales606 wrote:IMO, Wales and England will both be challenging at the next world cup.

France, Ireland and Scotland have a lot of work to do if they won't a chance, there teams need to be rebuilt substantially (or in Scotland's case, find a balance between their backs and forwards)

Challenging at. Not for, 606. Same ol. Same ol.

England are the only Home-Nation or NH side to have won it. I cant see that changing in 2015. Maybe France to do it. They made Finals.

But, it's nice to Believe/Credu.

Not a WUM.

Just been watching rugby for far too long.

Love to be wrong. Ireland should be ready by then. When we get rid of Kidney and get a man in, that is.

But in the time you have been watching, you haven't seen the NH as professional as it is now.

Wales have a young team who have been through a lot. If they do well over the next 12 months, comparisons could be drawn to the English team at the turn of the millennia.

England are building a young team quicker than the other NH team, and they have the depth to bring in some quality players - in 4 years time, they will have a lot of still young players, with experience - they won't have the hangovers of 2003 around next time as they did in 07 and 11.

Ireland need to do a lot to replace POC, BOD, Darcy etc as I don't think any of them will be in shape to face 2015. On the other hand, Leinster are an incredible team, and if Ireland can get Smidt involved and get rid of the Munster hang-up in Kidney - they could well have a competitive side to cross over to the 2015 WC.

New Zealand, Australia and South Africa will be strong as ever - BUT, they won't be stronger - they are losing a lot of talent to the NH (particularly France) and they have financial troubles of their own. The gap is closing. Also, New Zealand and SA have a lot of talent to replace from their WC winning sides, Matfield, Thorn, Botha, FDP etc will be gone and players like McCaw and Carter will be well past their peak.

Australia will be the dangerous ones, they already have a young and talented side - however, the Aussies are not the most resilient team in world rugby, don't have the greatest depth and are the most likely of the SH sides to fall to weaker opposition.

The 2015 WC is still wide open - and the Bookies have Wales and England as joint 3rd to win, behind NZ and Aus.

wales606 wrote:IMO, Wales and England will both be challenging at the next world cup.

France, Ireland and Scotland have a lot of work to do if they won't a chance, there teams need to be rebuilt substantially (or in Scotland's case, find a balance between their backs and forwards)

Walking please, before you try to run!

Wales not showing any kind of form against SH teams to be make such a bold comment. They really just win 6N with help of a few referee decision against rebuilding England and Ireland. I don't see so much difference today as 2008 when was so same.

Also the same is confident about the fans. But always is going from so good to so complain about coach is the history.