France's resounding victory over Australia was more than mere payback for a run of defeats stretching back to 2005 - it has also given Les Bleus a head start in the race to Rugby World Cup 2015.
The 33-6 win at Stade de France on Saturday evening ended a five-match losing sequence against the tourists and lifts the Frenchmen to the coveted fourth spot in the IRB World Rankings. That defeat has also cost Australia one place on the rankings as the Wallabies fall below South Africa into third position.
On 3 December, the rankings will determine the seedings for the 12 directly qualified teams for England 2015. The teams ranked one to four will be kept apart at the pool stage, which makes the battle for a top-four spot especially relevant.
England is the team to suffer most from France's win as it falls out of the top four. Stuart Lancaster's men were convincing in their victory over Fiji but did not benefit on the rankings table due to the sizable gap that exists between the two teams. Victory over teams ranked lower on the table are not as valuable as those against relatively stronger sides.
With plenty more international action coming up over the coming weeks, there will be ample opportunity for teams to make improvements on the IRB World Rankings table. France host Argentina in Paris on Saturday while England welcome Australia to Twickenham on the same day.
Further down the rankings, Ireland slipped one place to eighth after losing to South Africa in Dublin while Argentina made the most of beating Wales in Cardiff by progressing one place to seventh.
A comprehensive 42-12 victory over Canada in the IRB International Rugby Series in Colwyn Bay on Friday consolidated Samoa's position in 10th, while the USA (17th) notched a 40-26 away win over Russia to send them down one place to 20th.
Japan's 34-23 win over Romania in Bucharest, meanwhile, lifts them one place to 15th.
IRB Rankings
1 New Zealand 92.91
2 South Africa 85.50
3 Australia 84.82
4 France 84.58
5 England 83.09
6 Wales 80.60
7 Argentina 80.29
8 Ireland 79.04
9 Scotland 77.97
10 Samoa 77.14
11 Italy 76.61
12 Tonga 74.22
13 Canada 71.39
14 Fiji 70.60
15 Japan 68.89
16 Georgia 67.95
17 USA 67.15
18 Romania 63.58
19 Spain 61.63
20 Russia 61.51
As was the case for the RWC 2011 draw, the 2015 draw will include the 12 directly qualified teams (the top three teams in each RWC 2011 pool). Those teams will be split into three bands according to their position in the IRB World Rankings as of 12 midday (GMT) on December 3.
If the draw happened today:
Band 1: New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, France (currently 1-4 in IRB World Rankings)
Band 2: England, Wales, Argentina, Ireland (currently 5-8 in IRB World Rankings)
Band 3: Scotland, Samoa, Italy, Tonga (remaining four automatically qualified teams in order of rankings position)
The eight qualifying places will be allocated into the other two bands as follows:
Band 4: Oceania 1, Europe 1, Asia 1, Americas 1
Band 5: Africa 1, Europe 2, Americas 2, Repechage winner
Please note that the impact on the rankings can only be predicted for one round of matches at a time. The impact of future results cannot predicted until the week of those matches.
With thanks to the IRB
Comments
PREEST says...
Whoever ends up in the pool with the fourth ranked team as the top seed in the pool will have a hard time, as that is usually the pool of death. Usually there are 3 teams that are good enough to go through, and not one out right favourite to win the pool. Like the England/Argentina/Scotland Pool of last year and the France/Argentina/Ireland pool of 2007.
Posted 07:41 15th November 2012
Capedcrusader says...
@latin
No chance I'm afraid. Not if France & England continue to run their game the way they do - which they will as they can't turn the clock back. Their clubs come before their countries so your comment just doesn't wash.
Posted 16:49 14th November 2012
markpat says...
@latin, much as I would like to think the US will improve, it won't be as much of an effect as rugby fans would like to believe. There is still way too much money and focus on other sports for top athletes to choose rugby, so it will always be a bunch or rejects from other sports or imports. Russia is probably the most likely sleeping giant, maybe Brazil, in time, as I believe they were one of the most heavily invested countries regarding rugby in recent years and rugby and soccer don't use the same type of athletes.
I can't see New Zealand struggling at any point, rugby is played at low enough levels to always create competitive players.
Posted 12:06 14th November 2012
kennyisgay says...
Trinats... those Fijian and arsetralian players might just decide to stay home in NZ and avoid the humiliation of doing the haka by mistake
Posted 11:46 14th November 2012
hayj05 says...
@latin - It just doesn't happen like that.
Remember that a national side consists of your top 22 players & probably a rotation of around 50 - 100 players that make squads & push for selection. If you have a solid player base (maybe around 50K to 80K +) & good coaching systems in place then you will always have the potential to produce great sides, & great sides rely on management & leadership at the very top.
Australia is probably the best example of a country that can produce great sides where Rugby is not as prevelant as other codes & has a modest player base & If you switched the Springboks & the AB's management & leadership qualities, they're going to be two very different teams.
All 5 of those nations.. plus the other tier 1 nations will experience triumphs & failures in future years. It's just not as cut & dry as the nations with the most players & money invested winning all the time. If you're from Argentina then you should know that better than most.
It's been the AB's & NZ Rugby as a whole that have pushed on since Rugby turned pro in 1995. Not sure on the exact figures but I think the AB's have improved their all-time winning percentage by around 10% in those past 17 years. Not to mention some incredible records established by NZ age grade, 7's, & women's sides.
Granted they play a lot more test matches these days but it still shows how you don't have to be the largest union to master a professional environment.
Posted 10:15 14th November 2012
JayStarr says...
@ LeftRightOut: Thanks for that - I just guessed! Where do you find that out?
@ latin: Interesting perspective. But you are not taking into consideration NZ's real reason for their success - their rugby culture and playing style that kids learn from early ages. You can't put a price on that, it is something which developed organically over more than a century. England already has WAY more players and resources, but you don't see them coming close to being as good as NZ... And then look at Argentina - practically no resources in comparison to the major rugby playing nations, but beating the multiple 6 Nations champs convincingly in their own back yard (and beating France twice in France at the 2007 World Cup). My point is that resources don't buy you success.
Also, you must be new to this... Latin, Trinats - Trinats, Latin. (Yes, he is the local crazy person who walks around naked in the street and screams at everyone... Just smile and ignore him;)
Posted 10:15 14th November 2012
latin says...
these rankings are going to change a lot in future. in 10 years i reckon as the sport becomes more and more global the ones near the top are going to be france, SA and england. NZ and Aus will always be close but they will tail off due to less resources round the 3rd, 4th and 5th places i reckon - mark my words. the usa and japan may also really improve alot.
the man trinats on here...........does he have a psychiatric disorder?
Posted 08:23 14th November 2012
LeftRightOut says...
@JayStarr - I stand corrected - the only important thing for teams that can reach is to make the top 4 - their actual placement in the top 4 is irrelevant. I can't wait for the draw!
Posted 22:24 13th November 2012
markpat says...
On that calculator, assuming no-one wins by over 15, if Australia beat Wales but lose to England, France beat Argentina and England beat both Australia and South Africa, England still finish below France and Australia. :-(
Here's rooting for Argentina against France!
Posted 15:53 13th November 2012
JayStarr says...
Looking at this log I suddenly feel more positive about Springbok rugby right now... With so many players out, so many green young guys and a coach still finding his feet, it is not too bad being at no.2! If guys like Schalk Burger, Juan Smith, Jaque Fourie, Francois Steyn, Bryan Habana, Bismarck du Plessis, Heinrich Brussouw, Andries Bekker, Johan Goosen, Coenie Oosthuizen and the Beast finally make their way back, and the young guys and coach start to find their rhythm... watch out world! ;)
@ LeftRightOut: I don't think they are actually placing the no.1 team in Pool 1, no.2 team in Pool 2, etc., are they? I thought those 4 teams just automatically go into Band 1, and that a draw then takes place to see which pool they end up in?
Anyway, I don't mind facing the All Blacks at a World Cup... I prefer facing them than facing France. Especially since we're playing in Europe. SA know the NZ players inside out - France is too unpredictable. And the men in blue will be really fired up at the next World Cup - they've been in the final three times, but have still not won it. And they'll have stadiums full of fans behind them... So purely based on who wants it most and who'll be more in their element, they are my favourites for 2015. So I'll prefer to stay out of their way!
Posted 13:06 13th November 2012
Trader2 says...
Thought you would Trinats, you are as silly as he is.
Posted 13:01 13th November 2012
7ton says...
tri-nats Telling porkies! yet again
Posted 12:07 13th November 2012
Trinats2 says...
curlymac:
I agree 100% Years from now (2) every team could have a completely different set up. EG Fiji and Aus could have all their players back from NZ.
Posted 11:23 13th November 2012
rugby_rockstar says...
I'm wondering who the top four would prefer to face in their pool, England or France.
England have a massive amount of catching up to do and its not looking likely that we'll get there in time. That said we're more likely to make the effort in our own country with the spotligh on us to perform and the media talking about the non-effort we put in in 2011.
France just can't be bothered until the knock out stages. They're happy to come 2nd and then turn up to the party in week 5.
So I reckon France are probably be the easier pool opponent.
Posted 09:40 13th November 2012
jontheref says...
leftrightout
being in pool 1 or 2 has a perceived advantage.
look at how Ireland beat Aus in the last RWC, but then lost to a 2nd placed pool team?
As you say, at this point in time, it is about avoiding the AB's in the knock out stages.
Being in the same pool as them may be beneficial.
Run of fixtures is also what can impact.
We were proised last time that teams will not have to back up to a second game in a short space of time.
We'll see.
Anyone read Clive woodwards article in the Times?
he ranks England as tier 1, with France Wales Ireland and Argentina as tier 2.
What is he on, and can I have some?
Posted 09:28 13th November 2012
Herbman says...
@curlymac maybe you should be the one using your head. Fixtures have to be determined a very long time ahead of the world cup, purely for logistics. I agree three years is a long time though,
Posted 08:01 13th November 2012
Trader2 says...
Curlymac
It is about hard to play all the qualifiers before the rankings are known. Are you advocating just having the WC for the top 8 or 10 countries, not very fair.
Posted 07:01 13th November 2012
Startledwombat says...
@georgesmith
Nathan please stop making posts under this silly pseudonym. We can all see through you.
Posted 06:55 13th November 2012
curlymac says...
why are rankings being sorted now?
if it happened the year before the cup all the games till then would actually mean something.
use your head IRB
Posted 05:13 13th November 2012
georgesmith says...
Will grandpa N.Sharpe start against England? It will be a bad decision to play him considering the legs and intensity of the English. I'd say N.Sharpe doesn't even deserve to be on the bench. Past his prime, bad news, liability-type player.
Posted 01:05 13th November 2012