Sorry, this story is unavailable
NZ has been at the top of Rankings for 80% + since 2002 when IRB rankings started. That is staggering statistic,considering how many tests each of the top 10 teams in the world play each year since 2002. And unrivalled by any other National team in any other sport.
Posted 00:30 07th March 2012
@ melkdave - I agree that playing the PIs at their home would be fantastic. But don't forget the logistics of getting all of their players back home too. Many (most) of their international players don't play domestically and play "overseas". As such, they'd probably all be on the same plane as the opposition.
Posted 15:47 01st March 2012
The big problem for any NH team touring the Pacific Islands is im afraid is the sheer distance they are from europe .Though i would love to see tours to them as ive no dought they are teir one countries now I think the last tour there was by Wales iirc pre RWC 07 or was that just Japan or just played in Japan ??Apart from that i think it was England in the 90s .I do think the IRB are now keen to encorage NH teams to tour the Pacific Islands so hopfully they will start to in the next few years on a rotational basis as they do the big 3 SH nations
Posted 13:48 01st March 2012
@ BDAUSSIE - I like the look of the twelve teams in your top ten. I don't necessarily agree with the order, but as maths is obviously not your strong-point, it's fairly moot anyway..!
Posted 10:28 29th February 2012
@ Fattysock: Agree with you. The rankings are not about final placement, but rather fairly looking at the actual individual games, results and "fairness".
@atg77: I can see where you're coming from. It seems Scotland are a bit hard done by. However, maybe I can suggest that Samoa and Tonga are above Scotland because they've never lost to Scotland on home soil. Beating these teams at home or at a tournament gets less kudos or points whereas, if Scotland goes to those countries then they'd get more valued points.
In other words; If Scotland draw with Tonga at Murryfield, then Tonga would get more points. And vice versa, if Tonga lose at Murryfield then they wouldn't really lose a lot of points. Where the game is played is a big factor.
Posted 01:34 29th February 2012
My top ten would be
(1) New Zealand
(4) South Africa
Posted 23:23 28th February 2012
Scotland are definitely better than their place suggests but their results don't reflect their ability much either. I also think Argentina will have its ranking dropped after its first tournament with SA, NZ and OZ. I wouldn't worry too much if I were Scotland and Ireland fans, things will sort themselves out soon.
People also forget how good Samoa and Tonga have actually performed lately. Samoa especially could, and regularly do give most teams in the 6N a close run. Ask Wales or SA what they thought about Samoa at the WC.
Posted 23:08 28th February 2012
@Ganor and atg77
Ganor you are rught it is possible for England to leap frog Wales in the rankings even if Wales beat Italy at home.The reason being France are a higher ranked team .The formula used is based on the points differance between the 2 teams and you get more for wining away than you do for wining at home .Wales actually got more for wining at Twickers than they would for wining at the Millilenium and for the fact at the time England where ranked higher .You can see the actual formula used if you google it .Conversly if Italy win (unlikely imo) they would climb the rankings quite a few places i suspect
Scotland lose ranking points and places because they havent won many matches recently against their peers .Who they play regually -Samoa -Tonga ect they dont play yearly or regular .So saying never lost to them is meaningless .The simple fact is Scotland i suspect have lost more games than Samoa and Tonga this year .Thus Scotland falling below them in the IRB rankings
Posted 22:56 28th February 2012
Harsh but true for England! Time to get serious about appointing a good coach and unleashing the considerable natural talent in England.
Posted 22:26 28th February 2012
Rankings are very important this year with the world cup draw being made later on. So if England dont get one of those top 4 seedings for their home tournament which top 4 team (although that may change) would the English fans prefer to have in their pool? Le crunch?
Posted 20:53 28th February 2012
how are Argentina so high? that is ridiculous
Posted 20:32 28th February 2012
The rankings are a little bit of a nonsense until you get to year end. the 3N sides can suffer quite a severe drop in form without losing their top 3 status simply because they are only taking points off each other. Conversely the 6N sides are bouncing around all over the place because (a) they aren't playing each other home and away and (b) they are playing 5 nations instead of two.
The reality is that if Wales beat Italy and England beat France they will probably trade places straight back again.
The other thing you have to remember with Wales in particular is that the highest ranked team they beat in RWC after Ireland was Samoa. Semi final or not.
Posted 20:12 28th February 2012
Zambia were not the the recent RWC. They are ranked 71 in the world.
You may have meant Namibia?
Same continent anyway.........
Posted 19:17 28th February 2012
I would like to point out that nobody should be making a fuss about the rankings in the top 10, if a team has it in them to win a world cup then so long as you qualify for the world cup it's irrelevant...
Posted 18:27 28th February 2012
Fatty Sock - Zambia or Namibia?
Posted 18:24 28th February 2012
The top six rankings are spot on but the rest are a joke. Ireland are streets ahead of Argentina who have done nothing since the 2007 world cup to justify their place at 7, with France being the only "Super power" they have managed to defeat. In that same time Scotland have defeated Australia and South Africa but find themselves at 11? I don't understand how Scotland can continually be loosing both ranking points and the ranking places themselves even for loosing to teams ranked several places above them. Please explain how Scotland can drop below Samoa after loosing to England? And how can Scotland be ranked below two teams they have never lost to in their entire history? The only reason Scotland should have dropped outside the top nine is if we actually lost to a team ranked below us, which we never did. Please IRB review this farcical world rankings system. If done fairly, I think the world rankings would be more like this:
1.New Zealand. 2.Australia.3.France.4.South Africa.5.Wales.6.England.7.Ireland.8.Scotland.9.Argentina.10.Italy.
Posted 14:44 28th February 2012
It does seem a little off.... but here's why I think it happened. You lost to South Africa, France and Australia, while beating Ireland, Samoa, Fiji and Zambia. That's 4 wins and 3 loss record, and at least one of those wins would have given you nothing (points wise - Zambia)
Overall, I can definitely see how that would be a reduction in Ranking Points. Then consider that France made teh Final, Ireland only lost to you (and beat Australia on the way). England also only lost one match, despite playing very poorly.. and even Argentina only lost two matches. They all probably improved their rankings, even if very slightly.
The problem is, of course, that losing in teh QF (one loss) shouldn't be a BETTER overall result than winning the QF, but then losing the SF and the 3/4 playoff. Were there no bonus ranking points issued for reaching specific stages? That would have easily solved the problem???
Posted 14:44 28th February 2012
@Garmor & Westywales: the IRB ranking is very accurate actually. Yes, Wales seems to be good, but has yet to prove it. Beating Ireland or England doesn't make you jump straight away to the 1st place ! As far as I remember, you lost the 2 occasions you had in the World Cup to beat 2 teams ranked above you (France and Australia) so at the moment 5th is pretty much the right place.
Posted 14:07 28th February 2012
Everyone knows the rankings are based on games won and lost.Last year England lost 2 matches while Wales lost 3 just at the RWC their reward for getting to the SFs was to be 5th in the IRB rankungs actually a rise from there original pre RWC ranking .As to the upcomming game against France well again as a England supporter i would be happy if they lost aslong as it was close just like the welsh game of course id love them to win it but that would be a bonus imo.After all i dont expect England to be world beaters when they have been together just a few weeks.As to the summer tour of SA well again SA are ahead in their development as they blooded alot of players in the opening matches of last years 3Ns but they also have a new coaching team so the games might be closer than SA fans would like .Oh and yes Argentina will win aleast one match against the boks in the championship maybe both depending if its at altitude or not lol Ill look forward to reading all the excuses from SA fans then lol
Posted 14:00 28th February 2012
with you on that one, I couldn't understand it but it turns out ranking points for WC matches were doubled, win or lose so we had the bizarre situation of the semi-finalists being ranked 8th at the end of the tournament. It's also the explanation for France being ranked at 4th whilst not really having performed particularly well over the last 6 months but reaching the final. I think apart from that though, the ranking system works fairly well.
Glad to see we're crawling back up there to what I see as being (currently) our rightful place.
Posted 13:21 28th February 2012