Wales have been handed a further boost after returning from Paris with a win as they moved up three positions to seventh in the IRB World Rankings.
Wales ended an eight-match losing streak with hard-fought 16-6 success over France in Paris.
The Welsh had slipped to tenth - equalling their lowest ever position since the rankings were introduced in 2003 - but a first win over Les Bleus in Paris has lifted the defending Six Nations champions above Italy, Samoa and Argentina.
France are now the only Six Nations side without a victory and they remain fifth in the rankings, albeit now 3.38 points behind England who are the leading northern hemisphere nation behind New Zealand, South Africa and Australia.
England went into round two with just a 0.51 cushion over France, but a 12-6 victory over Ireland in Dublin - their first win in the Irish capital since their last Grand Slam winning campaign in 2003 - and France's loss has increased that considerably. England now trail Australia by just under two points.
Ireland remain sixth despite the defeat in the pouring rain at the Aviva Stadium on Sunday, little more than a point behind France and above Wales as the Six Nations takes a break.
The other side on the climb in the rankings after a first victory of 2013 are Scotland, who jump two places to 10th on the back of a 34-10 defeat of Italy at Murrayfield. Italy slip two places to ninth after being unable to reproduce their heroics of a week earlier in Rome.
IRB World Rankings
Old position bracketed
1(1) New Zealand 90.08
2(2) South Africa 86.94
3(3) Australia 86.87
4(4) England 84.94
5(5) France 81.56
6(6) Ireland 80.29
7(10) Wales 79.19
8(7) Samoa 78.71
9(8) Argentina 78.71
10(12) Scotland 77.18
11(9) Italy 76.47
12(11) Tonga 76.10
13(13) Fiji 71.52
14(14) Canada 71.41
15(15) Japan 70.09
With thanks to the IRB
Comments
three6three6 says...
Any continuous ranking system will throw up some anomalies from time to time.... and some of these have been noted in the comments. Should England go on to win a Grand Slam, then their ranking will rise to no. 2 (ahead of Australia and South Africa). Such a ranking would continue until 'adjusted' by results from The Rugby Championship later in the year.
What these rankings do measure is relative consistency..... but there certainly are anomalies.... For example why is Australia ranked no. 3, when we know that in the medium term (say last four years) they have won fewer than 60% of their matches? Well the explanation might be that many of their losses have been to teams ranked above themselves (the Bokke & ABs) and many of their wins have been against teams ranked below themselves (NH nations).
Perhaps the more interesting question woukd be - who could possibly knock New Zealand out of the number one spot? The Bokke or England? England are now starting to shape up as a team that can win the tight matches....
For those of you interested in understanding the ranking system a little better then please visit;
http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html
Posted 03:28 15th February 2013
makemehappy says...
@jamesliveinhope - spot on. The whole rankings are a joke.
Some on this page have remembered very recent results, but forgotten a grand slam and semi in the RWC.
Clearly the calculations are far too simplistic.
Perhaps the RWC games should have a greater weighting.
Posted 13:13 12th February 2013
ironmani441 says...
what a joke the rankings are... I think the top 4 are probably right and possibly the top 6, but everything under that just fluctuates with a single big win or loss. Also who cares, I mean they already decided the 2015 about 2 years too early so I am guessing the 2019 draw will be sometime next fall probably.
Posted 11:58 12th February 2013
jamesliveinhope says...
Rankings are completely irrelevant at this point in the RWC cycle and, given the fact that a side has gone from tier 3 to tier 2 on the strength of a single game (pushing a side out of tier 2 who haven't even played) you have to question their value in terms of RWC seeding.
Posted 08:23 12th February 2013
porridge_time says...
Lions results have no and quite right so no baring on world rankings.
Posted 05:36 12th February 2013
cuw3100 says...
The rating are based on self and opponent rankings. since Wales were 10 and France 5 , this win has more ranking points.
Same applied to Italy when they bear higher ranked Wales, hence their jump.
The reverse happened when Italy lost to lower ranked Scotland.
However it is not a fair reflection of teams' performance compared to a game like cricket, where there are less injuries and the core team remains the same when playing against each other.
RU on the other hand has more injuries and it is rarely that a core set of players match up against each other on a constant basis. Its the nature of the game.
However if one looks at any successful team, it is evident that cohesiveness is derived from playing together as a unit for a long time. Best examples of this IMHO are the NZABs (and Crusaders to some extent) and South Africa Cricketers and Spain Football team (and ofcourse Barcelona). Team games depend on the consistancy of player group
Posted 04:42 12th February 2013
side_stepper says...
How are the rankings done with the Lions series? Do the Home Nations get a four-way share of points for victory and likewise for losses?
Posted 20:27 11th February 2013
ArmchairGeneral says...
Between Scotland (below) and Italy (above) would have been more accurate. Samoa and Argentina should remain above Wales.
Posted 16:05 11th February 2013
ArmchairGeneral says...
@Fish wow... I agree with you! And they've jumped two teams that beat them in Cardiff! Can't be right!
Posted 16:02 11th February 2013
rugby_rockstar says...
THREE PLACES FOR THAT EFFORT!?!?! Ohhhhh wait a sec, they were tenth.
Posted 15:48 11th February 2013
FISH says...
you win one game after a substantial losing streak and you jump up 3 places? what a joke
Posted 14:52 11th February 2013
Sasquatch says...
Why is this the top story on South Africa's page?
Posted 14:20 11th February 2013