The unofficial International Rankings

First topic message reminder :

Wales Online published a piece today with a ranking as they see it, England top of the pile, Ireland a long way down the list.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/rugby-world-cup-power-rankings-16824473

Who do you see as the top 20 teams going into the RWC and in want rank do they sit currently in your opinion...?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Must make WPI’s earlier post redundant to you too then. Another worthless post 7.5. At least the WUMs I’m replying to here can be a little more astute, unlike you. It’s so boring reading your posts.

Mikey, I have never stated that Ludlum should be first choice, only that he has had a good start to his international career and that people were forgetting him in their teams for Friday. Please stop putting words in my mouth, a nice pint of IPA would be much better.

Who said that you stated that?
All I said was that we beat England with a bunch of first choice players missing, a lot of the same guys were missing for the twickenham game a week before that. We should hopefully know who the best Wales team is by the end of the warm-ups, which seems to be difficult for you and others to understand. Unless the real issue is with deflating a few ego’s around here?

Was there anyone minus the WOL (haven’t read the article, refuse to read most of them) that claimed we were the best in the world?

You've said ludlam was first choice then said that WPI stated he was. You seem really confused mikey. You ok?

Nothing to say about England's "full strength team" then Mickey

mikey_dragon wrote:

Was there anyone minus the WOL (haven’t read the article, refuse to read most of them) that claimed we were the best in the world?

Whatever about anyone being prepared to admit Wales are the best in the world, few can argue that you aren't up there amongst about three currently in that realm.... Wales, England, and New Zealand. At this moment in time, I think one of you is the best. Think it'll need a WC to find out.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Nothing to say about England's "full strength team" then Mickey

You’re the one who seems confused with the term full strength, hence why you avoided some of my posts, hence why you and others are confused so have to keep repeating lies in order to sleep at night.

As I’ve said, there’s one group ruining this forum with their posting and I’m not sure why it is allowed to continue.

So you're now saying that it wasnt a first choice england then mikey. Good to know.
'Wales without Anscombe, Faletau, Rob Evans, Lee, Hill, Tipuric, Webb, Liam Williams already beat a full strength England. There’s no sidestepping this most blatant of facts. '
That was a weird post.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've said ludlam was first choice then said that WPI stated he was. You seem really confused mikey. You ok?

Quote me saying Ludlam, or admit you’ve misquoted me. Your posts are so repetitive and boring. If someone posts that Wales were at full strength when they weren’t, why can’t I post the same about England? Why do you take issue with the one but not the other?

mikey_dragon wrote:England didn’t play NZ in the same period. Why don’t they tour NZ often nowadays?

How could we do more? We are following the SANZAAR requested schedule of playing three-match series against their sides. When you factor in the Lions, and the World Cup, then the cycle didn't allow it.

2012 - SA
2013 - Lions/England in Argentina
2014 - NZ
2015 - World Cup
2016 - Australia
2017 - Lions/England in Argentina
2018 - SA
2019 - World Cup

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you're now saying that it wasnt a first choice england then mikey. Good to know.

So childish and boring again, it always seems like you respond to something in your head. Try quoting so it gives us an idea, or copy and paste what your replying to.

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:England didn’t play NZ in the same period. Why don’t they tour NZ often nowadays?

How could we do more? We are following the SANZAAR requested schedule of playing three-match series against their sides. When you factor in the Lions, and the World Cup, then the cycle didn't allow it.

So why all the complaints about Wales? You guys are so biased with your posts it’s unreal

I did add the post but unfortunately the replies got there first mikey. I acknowledge you've admitted your mistake though. Fair play to you.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:England didn’t play NZ in the same period. Why don’t they tour NZ often nowadays?

How could we do more? We are following the SANZAAR requested schedule of playing three-match series against their sides. When you factor in the Lions, and the World Cup, then the cycle didn't allow it.

So why all the complaints about Wales?

Where did I complain about Wales?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I did add the post but unfortunately the rprli3s got there first mikey. I acknowledge you've admitted your mistake though. Fair play to you.

Are you crazy? Where did I admit mistake, or where did I say it wasn’t a full strength England?

Also as you keep tediously repeating yourself, see this, what I’ve already typed:
“If someone posts that Wales were at full strength when they weren’t, why can’t I post the same about England? Why do you take issue with the one but not the other?”

Now try discussing it like an adult. Maybe also nudge your pals and tell them to stop talking BS, you’re all just ruining the forum.

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:England didn’t play NZ in the same period. Why don’t they tour NZ often nowadays?

How could we do more? We are following the SANZAAR requested schedule of playing three-match series against their sides. When you factor in the Lions, and the World Cup, then the cycle didn't allow it.

So why all the complaints about Wales?

Where did I complain about Wales?

Analyse this thread and forum where Wales/rankings are the subject. Why do you need to be spoon-fed?

Well you're either saying ludlam is first choice or you're admitting England weren't at full strength. I ask again though, you ok?

Just read my posts, I’ve already covered it and the reasons why. If you’re overthinking it like you’ve been overthinking the full strength Wales team then it is another you problem. I really can’t be bothered for the tedious repetition so I suggest you move on from your own posts like I will.

Wasnt talking about Wales. If your point is that it wasnt a full strength england I fully accept that and we can both move on as you suggest. Your dancing around that simple point which we both agree on made this more arduous than it needed to be.

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:Subjective opinions are one thing, results another.

It is farcical t say that the team that squandered another 6 Nations and lost 2-1 to Wales this year is better. Unless you're English/newly promoted MOD

no more farcical to say that the side that has been thrashed four times by the number one side in the last two to three years has just overtaken them in the rankings. never mind any marginal 2-1seys. 4 straight thrashings home and away.

We still have a better record than NZ hence why we are No 1 and you ain't. Suck it up.

Hey its no skin off me thats the situation, you're the one bringing up the 'farcicals' - merely playing along pie.

Let me tell you a bit about being ranked no. 1 pie...the trick is to stay there. No pretenders please. No part timers or strays. We'll see how that goes huh. 10 years vs ...one week. And counting...tick, tock...

What will the conversation be next week if Ireland are then “The best ranked team in the world?

Old Man wrote:What will the conversation be next week if Ireland are then “The best ranked team in the world?

I think it would mean very little on the back of winning a warm up game

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Must make WPI’s earlier post redundant to you too then. Another worthless post 7.5. At least the WUMs I’m replying to here can be a little more astute, unlike you. It’s so boring reading your posts.

Mikey, I have never stated that Ludlum should be first choice, only that he has had a good start to his international career and that people were forgetting him in their teams for Friday. Please stop putting words in my mouth, a nice pint of IPA would be much better.

"I think that we’re doing pretty well lately, considering that Evans, Lee, Hill, Faletau, Tipuric, Webb, Anscombe and L Williams were missing."

The only person that has been out "forever" in that list is Faletau, Webb is barred due to taking the money, not injury, Anscombe has only just got injured and hasn't necessarily been first choice, Williams has been around most of the last two years. The others are not certain starters of even squad members now Wales have such strength in depth.

You must have edited this recently. Are you trying to dodge something by now quantifying it differently? It doesn't matter if they have been away temporarily or forever as you put it, they weren't around. It must be an ego thing for you to not acknowledge this whilst you're busy repeating "It was an England 2nd or 3rd team" over and over again. You're not the only one though.

Oh so now you're deciding who is first choice for Wales? Oh dear.
The way you and others go on about Courtney Lawes is like he's the best thing since sliced bread, now all of a sudden he's 5th choice or something .

Wales depth did okay against SA, Arg x 2, Tonga and Italy x 2. Ireland will be a different test so we'll have to wait and see, and then we'll have a good idea of what the best team should be. Oh and yes it will be better than your choice.

You do know Lawes actual position Mikey?

I don't understand why you care so much about such irrelevant things.

Lock and blind-side, not sure why you ask? You all keep going on about him like he's some amazing messiah. Suddenly he isn't good enough to be in the first team.... when it suits someone's argument.

"I don't understand why you care so much about such irrelevant things."

I take it you didn't scroll up to see what I've been replying to.

mikey_dragon wrote:...You all keep going on about him like he's some amazing messiah....

No we all don't.

I think Lawes is a top quality lock but I'd probably start Kruis and Itoje at this juncture. Others would start Itoje and Lawes, and I think that's the main debate over locks. There might be some who want Launchbury to start, or be 3rd choice, but I haven't heard anyone say that recently.  I'm less confident of the value of Lawes at six but he can probably be more effective there if we have a good openside working in tandem, and that's only recently been an option Jones has been able to explore.

In general, Mikey, it would help a great deal when you discuss opinions, to attribute them to the people who are actually hold them (It's something I need to remember too). It makes it easier for others follow the point you are trying to make, and see with who you are disagreeing.. It might also all cut down on all the posts where people are saying "I never said that".

mikey_dragon wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Must make WPI’s earlier post redundant to you too then. Another worthless post 7.5. At least the WUMs I’m replying to here can be a little more astute, unlike you. It’s so boring reading your posts.

Mikey, I have never stated that Ludlum should be first choice, only that he has had a good start to his international career and that people were forgetting him in their teams for Friday. Please stop putting words in my mouth, a nice pint of IPA would be much better.

"I think that we’re doing pretty well lately, considering that Evans, Lee, Hill, Faletau, Tipuric, Webb, Anscombe and L Williams were missing."

The only person that has been out "forever" in that list is Faletau, Webb is barred due to taking the money, not injury, Anscombe has only just got injured and hasn't necessarily been first choice, Williams has been around most of the last two years. The others are not certain starters of even squad members now Wales have such strength in depth.

You must have edited this recently. Are you trying to dodge something by now quantifying it differently? It doesn't matter if they have been away temporarily or forever as you put it, they weren't around. It must be an ego thing for you to not acknowledge this whilst you're busy repeating "It was an England 2nd or 3rd team" over and over again. You're not the only one though.

Oh so now you're deciding who is first choice for Wales? Oh dear.
The way you and others go on about Courtney Lawes is like he's the best thing since sliced bread, now all of a sudden he's 5th choice or something .

Wales depth did okay against SA, Arg x 2, Tonga and Italy x 2. Ireland will be a different test so we'll have to wait and see, and then we'll have a good idea of what the best team should be. Oh and yes it will be better than your choice.

Not edited for more than spelling mistakes prior to your comment. So now when you are proved wrong, the post has been edited, "it really did say what I said, really, scouts honour".

Players can't be missing if they are not in the squad as they do not qualify.

Ironic that I am accused of picking who is in the Welsh 1st XV from the person who stated that the England side with only 5 players who would be considered 1st choice in their positions are the England 1st XV.

Mickey, a little lesson on Lawes, he is a lock, they play with numbers 4 and 5 on their backs unless they are a replacement when it is usually 19. Now because he is the great player he is, he can cover 6 (that is blind side flanker by the way) at a standard that is acceptable at international level, but unless paired with a pure open side flanker (that is number 7) he is not very effective, Wilson would be the normal 6 if he hadn't been injured, hence Lawes was not in the team as a first choice 6. If you want to know more about his abilities ask WG, he seems to rate him very highly especially as a Lion.

The way Kruis and Itoje played last week, even I would not have Lawes in the 1st XV

mikey_dragon wrote:Lock and blind-side, not sure why you ask? You all keep going on about him like he's some amazing messiah. Suddenly he isn't good enough to be in the first team.... when it suits someone's argument.

"I don't understand why you care so much about such irrelevant things."

I take it you didn't scroll up to see what I've been replying to.

I didn't ask where he can cover I asked what his actual position is and that's lock so no he is not Englands first choice blindside flanker.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Not edited for more than spelling mistakes prior to your comment. So now when you are proved wrong, the post has been edited, "it really did say what I said, really, scouts honour".

Players can't be missing if they are not in the squad as they do not qualify.

Ironic that I am accused of picking who is in the Welsh 1st XV from the person who stated that the England side with only 5 players who would be considered 1st choice in their positions are the England 1st XV.

Mickey, a little lesson on Lawes, he is a lock, they play with numbers 4 and 5 on their backs unless they are a replacement when it is usually 19. Now because he is the great player he is, he can cover 6 (that is blind side flanker by the way) at a standard that is acceptable at international level, but unless paired with a pure open side flanker (that is number 7) he is not very effective, Wilson would be the normal 6 if he hadn't been injured, hence Lawes was not in the team as a first choice 6. If you want to know more about his abilities ask WG, he seems to rate him very highly especially as a Lion.

The way Kruis and Itoje played last week, even I would not have Lawes in the 1st XV

Oh dear more strange posting from a certain group. So now you’re deciding which unavailable players to include and not include. Hey you said it was a full strength Wales for 2 weeks running. All the endless chat of amazing England beating a full strength Wales when it wasn’t, only to have their best lose a week later against Wales missing Anscombe, Faletau, Rob Evans, Lee, Hill, Tipuric, Webb, Liam Williams.

Wilson originally came into the England squad as 8 cover. All the chat has been Lawes is the better 6, or should be lock with Itoje at 6, then an open-side. You were changing the argument again. As I said it must be an ego thing because the attitude from English on here lately has been embarrassing.

I was asked Lawes position to which I responded, he is a lock and blindside, which he is. What a strange thing to do to try and suggest I’m wrong.

No wilson came into the group as a 6. Keep up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No wilson came into the group as a 6. Keep up.

He entered the group in 2017 as 8 cover, keep up chum.

Ha. And ludlam is first choice 7!

...although I don’t believe he played 8 until 2018. Sorry, meant to add that to previous comment.

Wilson came into the squad, none of us really know what position for as EJ didn't tell us. He did come into the squad on the back of his performances at 6 as he was not a regular 8 for Falcons