Change to IRB Ranking System

First topic message reminder :

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.

history...but that's a whole other topic!!!

SecretFly wrote:

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.

Fly in no way am I offended mate. you could rank us anywhere you like, it is merely an opinion. However I may be silently smiling away.

A smile is better than a frown between us, biltong..and I'll settle for that

I think I'll go cause mischief on the cricket threads tomorrow... a sport I know absolutely zilch about but I'll do the "I think Wales are the 6th best International side" on that and see how things kick off!

Wait for the England vs SA test sries, those guys are very precious about their ranking, I have been ragging them about it for a couple of months now, when we play them I am going to dig real deep, they get nervous quickly.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.... my baby son believes a cardboard cylinder to be the best toy in the world, and to him it is.

However stating that a team is better than another who they have only ever beaten once in their history... and have suffered 12 straight losses in the last 10 years (and 1 in the last 12 months) is a little baseless.

WAL went to the world cup and were lauded by every armchair fan but who did they actually beat in the competition... Fiji, Samoa and Ireland. They lost to France, SA & AUS. They won a GS in the 6N... brilliant and in the final match beat a side who have just lost to Argentina. Now they have lost 2 straight matches to a near 2nd string AUS team.

AUS have been missing their first choice captain & lock, flyhalf, winger, inside centre and fullback (i.e. all key positions) and still won both matches.

Had they played SA would they have won just because technically SA are ranked lower than AUS???

Well AUS have been very comfortable with WAL pack, if anything they have had the upper hand in the scrum, the lineout and the loose. If WAL struggles against AUS (who have the worst set piece out of all tier 1 nations).... what chance would they have against the best?

SA is certainly a tougher place to tour than AUS... regardless of the ranking points.

No one has a right to ranking spots and the system is far from perfect, SA have fallen to as low as 6th (2004) and back then no one in SA believed they were near the top 4 sides in the world, believe me.

If WAL, FRA, ENG or anyone else wants to enter the top 3 they have to do it where it counts.... not on a bloggers rugby chat room but on the pitch... they are yet to do this so in my mind and in that of every sane person not wearing tinted glasses... none of those teams are in the top 3 sides... and they are quite a way off achieving that status too.

fa0019 wrote:Everyone is entitled to their opinion

I gave you the respect of reading all of that but the line above is the only one that matters...without the gritted-teeth baby son analogy...! So you're right in that bit.
+1 for you.

The ranking system is rubbish for any team below 3rd,

Wales beat England just before the RWC and performed much better than England during the RWC in a tougher group but came out of the competition ranked 8th, how does that work! Wales go on to win the GS beating England in England and still finished ranked below England!! In truth there is little between Wales, Ireland and England but the ranking system can't take into account Wales playing with 14 men against 15 and 1/2 French losing by a single point during the RWC.

is it me or does it seem something of a coincidence that just after wales hop over england in the rankings the whole system comes under scrutiny?

does a bear s... in the woods- happens both ways . england/wales are so close and all- i predict it going on for a long time

glamorganalun wrote:The ranking system is rubbish for any team below 3rd,

Wales beat England just before the RWC and performed much better than England during the RWC in a tougher group but came out of the competition ranked 8th, how does that work! Wales go on to win the GS beating England in England and still finished ranked below England!! In truth there is little between Wales, Ireland and England but the ranking system can't take into account Wales playing with 14 men against 15 and 1/2 French losing by a single point during the RWC.

Wales lost to SA, Fra and Aus nearly half the games!, but Eng only lost to FRA. So is make a sense to me this. Is more wonderment to how Wales think they have the good world cup. The real "top" country all devastated to lose like that. So the mind about fans to Wales showing clearly that Wales not a top side to be so happy about it.

so is make a sense to me- lols

wonderment- lols

anotherworldofpain wrote:

glamorganalun wrote:The ranking system is rubbish for any team below 3rd,

Wales beat England just before the RWC and performed much better than England during the RWC in a tougher group but came out of the competition ranked 8th, how does that work! Wales go on to win the GS beating England in England and still finished ranked below England!! In truth there is little between Wales, Ireland and England but the ranking system can't take into account Wales playing with 14 men against 15 and 1/2 French losing by a single point during the RWC.

Wales lost to SA, Fra and Aus nearly half the games!, but Eng only lost to FRA. So is make a sense to me this. Is more wonderment to how Wales think they have the good world cup. The real "top" country all devastated to lose like that. So the mind about fans to Wales showing clearly that Wales not a top side to be so happy about it.

As you know I was just using the Wales/England comparison as an example the ranking system is rubbish but being as you brought up Wales lack of success in the RWC, I agree with you but, England did not play SA, they did not play Aust and they lost to France with a bigger margin than Wales with 14 players most of the game. Wales lost to the 3 teams as you correctly stated with a total number of points less than England lost too SA development team last weekend, that suggests Wales should be ranked higher than England over the last 9 months.

wales are above- what you on aboot

Only since Monday, they should have been 4th after the RWC or at the latest 6N. I was just proving a point that the ranking system is meaningless as it stands unless the team below does not beat any of the teams above over a long period.

The rankings are designed to show which teams are performing over a period of time and give an indication of the likely result if they played another one based on that
Its not the "team that played best last weekend" rankings or the "who doesnt have their star fly half injured this week" rankings, its the "who regularly manages to put out a successful side" rankings

glamorganalun wrote:Only since Monday, they should have been 4th after the RWC or at the latest 6N. I was just proving a point that the ranking system is meaningless as it stands unless the team below does not beat any of the teams above over a long period.

No you were proving a point that short term fluctuations in form are deliberately not reflected in the rankings. Bear in mind Wales record prior to the world cup, it had been truely woeful for a year plus. Its not unreasonable that a ranking system would expect a year of good performances to turn that around?
Should Scotland be ranked above Wale because they beat the side that Wales keep losing to? No, otherwise we end up with a paper rock scissors ranking system.
As for Wales' record at the world cup...although the progressed further their results were worse than Englands. But lets not get into stupid arguments about " ah yeah but we won by 3 more points and player x was injured and and" thats exactly why the rankings are base don results over time, so those factors are evened out. We could equally look at the ridiculous number of injuries England currently have. No excuses, Wales are now ranked above based on results over a period of time, reflecting their shift from laughing stock to chief bridesmaid in only 12 months.

glamorganalun wrote:Only since Monday, they should have been 4th after the RWC or at the latest 6N. I was just proving a point that the ranking system is meaningless as it stands unless the team below does not beat any of the teams above over a long period.

Wales never beat sh opponenets, Engalnd has- What the foook you ons aboot

Me thinks you are making too much of this ranking thing.

yessir- Its nice being no.1 , especially in sports like test cricket- because is kind of the ultimate goal for teams. but in sports like rugby or football its immaterial- lets be honest.. I love rankings from a statistical viewpoint. but the weslhie fan seems like he is having a bad day because wales didnt get above england quicker??? wtf is dat all aboot

No I think you´ll find it's nice being number one in rugby as well mate because believe it or not it's the AB's ultimate goal as well. Winning every match is the goal and if you go close to achieving that impossible goal, you stand a very good chance of being the number one ranked team.

no.1 is very good and a great acheivement- obviously in cricket it really is the no.1 priority for me- but argueing over 4th and 5th is just simply sadder than sad.

but then again ask lee westwood or luke donald what they would rather- however there acheivement is noted.

Well no argument from me on arguing over 4th and 5th. It's like saying which supermodel you're most proud of scoring. Giselle or Heidi. An exercise in futility. No one cares. Because nobody will ever talk to you about it.

Well yes - no difference between 4th and 5th.... except the difference, which is often minute but wars are often started on minute detail magnified.

People in 2nd don't rightly care about the poor misleaded beneath them having the fight about 4th and 5th; but that's only because they're happy to be having a better view in second, higher up the ladder.

It's all meaningless but we all attach meaning to it - I can certainly prove that people care pasionately about the 'perceived' difference between 3rd and 4th! So isolating 4th and 5th as the cut-off numbers for meaning is a little rash

i am not isolating 4th and 5th. its the welsh fan on here that is arguing his case that wales should have been ranked 4th way before they were..

so i am concentrating on his attitidue.

you wanna argue 3rd and 4th then i agree its just as sad.

1st and 2nd isnt so much because they at the pinnacle. but still abit pointless- winning tournies is what counts in rugby

Level 1:
NZ - Unreal

Level 2:
OZ - Very good. Will improve.
SA - Powerful. Dormant like a volcano. Will explode soon.

Level 3:
Wales - Potential. The nearly men.

Level 4:
Argentina - World force soon.
France - Erratic.

Level 5:
Everyone else.

Nice one mate.

Accurate though.

biltongbek wrote:Me thinks you are making too much of this ranking thing.

Yeah and all we heard from "your lot" when we were world champions was that we were making too much of this world cup thing

Moral of this story, dont go thinking your team is good because the SANZARS will prove you wrong.

Don't know why you've put Argentina ahead of England

gowales wrote:Don't know why you've put Argentina ahead of England

Because he wants to provoke a stupid argument?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Me thinks you are making too much of this ranking thing.

Yeah and all we heard from "your lot" when we were world champions was that we were making too much of this world cup thing

Moral of this story, dont go thinking your team is good because the SANZARS will prove you wrong.

Who spat in your soup?

Us lot weren't around on the net when you won the RWC we still used abacusses in those days.

Biltongbek....When are you going ban this er??

Breadvan wrote:Biltongbek....When are you going ban this er??

The same procedure for everyone mate.