Sorry, this story is unavailable
I have to say the IRB rankings are spot on atm .Ireland rise because Argentina al;so got hammered and they where at home ,so lost more points because of it .Wales really played below what they can and should do ,and Australia rode their luck and scrapped victorys .If England played Australia now they would win ,just as the ABs and Bokkes will in the RC.Argentina will rise also after the RC and Australia drop a place or 2.Come the aurtum internationals i ecpect the top 3 to be 1st NZ 2nd SA and 3rd England with Australia 4th or 5 th depending on wheather they get hammered by both NZ and SA,and Argentina to be up to 6th after a home win against the wallabies and close games against the bokkes and ABs
Posted 00:08 08th August 2012
I think we ought to be third TBH. but SA and NZ are waaay better at the mo.
as far as Oz goes, they certainly rode their luck in the test series, but at the same time Wales cakked their pants everytime they got close to a victory. my abiding memory of the oz v wales test series will be the look of absolute terror on adam jone's face when defending that line out seconds from full time. Zero composure, seconds later he's given away a stupid penalty and handed the australian's the match. Wales are back where they deserve to be after a flattering 6n's decided on dubious refereeing decisions and Aus are going to be shown up badly in the rugby championship. The Pumas will be targetting Australia. They'll fancy themselves.
Posted 16:56 09th July 2012
Anyone seen any posts from gazzabok recently? I'd like to know if he's paid up, or whether he's a charity-cheating scumbag...
The English are delusional. That was't a competition once the Boks settled into the game.
Boks will win by 20+ tomorrow. If not, note this comment and I will donate 10 quid to Wooden Spoon.
Posted 13:12 15th June 2012"
I'm going to keep harassing the threads until they pay up. Firstly one shouldn't make such statements if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.
Then there's the matter of doing a (very worthwhile) charity out of promised funds. Added to which, another poster and I have agreed to match the £10 pledge once it's been paid, so gazzabok is potentially doing them out of even more, based on a flippant comment.
I have no doubt that gazzabok can afford to spare £10 and I'd like to know that they've paid up.
Ed - can you help track down the elusive gazzabok, as I've not seen any posts from them since their pledge? Thanks!
Posted 10:09 27th June 2012
Tha_Mai, have you got a day job? How long did it take to work all that out!!! I stand in awe.
Posted 22:49 26th June 2012
@kinsman & @tha_mai, the dribble you posted is exactly why we have the current and proper ranking system :D
Posted 16:47 26th June 2012
ok first off, using the standings from the end of 2012 to seed the 2015 world cup makes nooooo sense whatsoever.
england seem to be able to fart and rise up the rankings
Posted 14:41 26th June 2012
Sandal, regarding Barnes, I think the answer is that, while POB from NZ was heading the selection panel, the dropping of Wayne would be construed as a payback for 2007. We now have a new panel whose first action was to revise the list of international refs, thankfully in line with performance.
Posted 13:28 26th June 2012
My apologies, missed Cyprus which comes in at No. 1 with 95%
Posted 12:37 26th June 2012
That one may need a little expanding. I realise the current IRB rankings do cause some argument but think most people who take the time to read how they work, realise they are not a bad system.
If we take the actual percentage win ratios for matches played over the last 10 years, not many of your expected teams remain top...
84.76 New Zealand
72.00 Burkina Faso
66.66 Cayman Islands
62.69 South Africa
61.53 Niue Island
(All international games played between 23 June 2002 and 23 June 2012 with a minimum of 10 games played)
Posted 12:34 26th June 2012
@anotherfarce, the rankings are the rankings every team lives by them, you can knock it all you like.
So many people are so stupid with their short term memory capacity and their neanderthal (ugg ugg... we won da last game so we are da best) mentality ....
Big deal if the top ranked teams drop a game here or there, the rankings are designed on multiple results, not "oh we just lost a game by 1 point against SH oppo whilst they were playing at home.... we deserve something....???" Why, why do you? A loss is a loss the last time i checked... you people even want the ranking system to be politically correct so you can ease the sobbing into your tissues! ... sickening!!!
Posted 12:33 26th June 2012
@ pierredelot1 - actually it's of great consequence. These rankings dictate who is in the RWC pool come 2015, so they make a massive difference.
England go up because we drew and Wales lost, so lose points.
Wales won the 6N (and deserved to do so), but we came second. So it's no surprise that they're vying for the same place. France are always a good team and beat Argentina, so will go up.
I think the rankings are there or there-abouts, with the brackets being right:
Top 3 (until the Autumn...)
4 - 6 (and then the 6N...)
7 - 9 (although I'd love to see Samoa take on Scotland...)
@ jamesliveinhope - Hear! Hear!
Posted 11:26 26th June 2012
Tha_Mai: The flaw in your suggestion of ranking based on % wins over 10 years is that not all opposing teams are equally strong. If Ireland, for example, repeatedly thumped all other NH teams, but lost to SH teams, whereas SH teams got roughly equal results against each other, then Ireland would be rated no 1. Clearly, all 3 SH teams are superior and the current system is therefore the best.
Posted 11:25 26th June 2012
The top 3 are right, the teams in 4, 5, 6 and 7 could each beat each other on any given day. The rankings are telling us what we already know - the best 3 sides in the world are in the SH and there's not much between the next 4 "best" sides. Interestingly now the autumn tests take on even more significance, Wales will have to beat one of their 2 SH opponents or miss out on a top seed at RWC - my bet is they won't do enough but France will ..
Posted 10:52 26th June 2012
@ Sandal : The reason why NZ's ranking points didn't increase; was because there was more than 10 ranking points, between them and the opposition. The home team, also get a 3 ranking-point advantage, for playing at home, so would not gain any ranking points, if there were 7 or more ranking-points, between the two teams.
In other words; the sums were calculated, with N.Z on 94.43, because of the +3 for home advantage.
Posted 09:49 26th June 2012
The standings aren't kind to England.
The IRB rankings work on a ladder system, you can only take points off the team you play against and those points will only carry value if they are earned against teams higher in the ranking than you.
Wales, for all their RWC heroics have only beaten 6N opposition in the last couple of years. England have beaten Australia twice (once in Australia) and held South Africa (in South Africa). If Wales want to capture and hold onto 4th, they need a really good Autumn and hope that England/South Africa/France don't.
Alternatively, heaven forfend, wouldn't it be nice to have 2 of the home nations in the top 4 come RWC seeding cut off. Can't help feeling that SA and Aus are there for the taking come November for both sides.
Posted 08:51 26th June 2012
Well they didn't draw to England and have beaten Wales 5 times in a row now
Posted 08:45 26th June 2012
You say: "" I don't think Barnes is on the international panel any longer"".
(You read that far? I re-read my post and thought, y-a-w-n. Sorry about that.)
Anyway! Barnes is out? Oh happy day! Kahloo kahlay! Frabjous, glorious day!
But why did the IRB take five years to admit their mistake? That is the most astonishing instance of pigheaded, perverse, cussed denial. Five long years of it.
Posted 08:21 26th June 2012
My preferred ranking system - simply use the average win percentage for the past ten years (and with 5 yr figures in brackets) ; this gives a good spread of games and oppositions, including two RWC tournaments.
On that basis, the top five today would be
New Zealand 84.3 (83.3)
France 62.3 (59.7)
South Africa 61.6 (66.7)
Ireland 60.5 (50.8)
Australia 59.8 (61.8)
Posted 08:13 26th June 2012
Sandal, I don't think Barnes is on the international panel any longer
Posted 07:03 26th June 2012
Australia No2, who made that one up??
Posted 05:28 26th June 2012