International teams tiers

[Petrichor]

Hi guys! Been reading this forum since the start of the RWC, really interesting discussions and such so decided to join! Congrats to NZ for winning the final.

One thing I've seen so much of this world cup is talk about the different 'tiers' in rugby. Obviously, they're just a guideline, but the line between the tiers is becoming increasingly blurred. I was curious as to how you guys rank the different teams. Obviously there is the world rankings, and these are generally accurate, but I thought this might be fun. Basically, you job is to rank all the teams at the RWC from 1 to 20. After a lot of people have ranked, I'll rank the teams by giving 20 pts to the no.1 pick, 19 to no.2 etc down to no.20. We can then divide the teams into different tiers depending on the differences in the points.
So without further ado!

1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Argentina
5. Wales
6. Ireland
7. England
8. France
9. Scotland
10. Japan
11. Fiji
12. Italy
13. Georgia
14. Samoa
15. Tonga
16. Romania
17. USA
18. Canada
19. Namibia
20. Uruguay

 

[PacDuran]

Hi guys! Been reading this forum since the start of the RWC, really interesting discussions and such so decided to join! Congrats to NZ for winning the final.

One thing I've seen so much of this world cup is talk about the different 'tiers' in rugby. Obviously, they're just a guideline, but the line between the tiers is becoming increasingly blurred. I was curious as to how you guys rank the different teams. Obviously there is the world rankings, and these are generally accurate, but I thought this might be fun. Basically, you job is to rank all the teams at the RWC from 1 to 20. After a lot of people have ranked, I'll rank the teams by giving 20 pts to the no.1 pick, 19 to no.2 etc down to no.20. We can then divide the teams into different tiers depending on the differences in the points.
So without further ado!

1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Argentina
5. Wales
6. Ireland
7. England
8. France
9. Scotland
10. Japan
11. Fiji
12. Italy
13. Georgia
14. Samoa
15. Tonga
16. Romania
17. USA
18. Canada
19. Namibia
20. Uruguay

Looks about right. Ireland have the potential to be higher but we are chokers. On top of that we have average skills and no depth so we get blown away when we get a few injuries to key players.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

For me based on the RWC:

1) New Zealand
2) Aus
3) SA
4) Arg
5) Ireland
6) Wales
7) Scotland
8) England
9) France
10) Japan
11) Fiji
12) Georgia
13) Samoa
14) Italy
15) Tonga
16) Canada
17) Romania
18) USA
19) Nambia
20) Uruguay

Eng, France and Japan could all be rotated.

 

[Josht36]

For me based on the RWC:

1) New Zealand
2) Aus
3) SA
4) Arg
5) Ireland
6) Wales
7) Scotland
8) England
9) France
10) Japan
11) Fiji
12) Georgia
13) Samoa
14) Italy
15) Tonga
16) Canada
17) Romania
18) USA
19) Nambia
20) Uruguay

Eng, France and Japan could all be rotated.

I always think it is crazy how much public perception changes on the back of one or two close results.
England were only a score or so from winning the six nations. They were the better team against Wales for a significant period but then threw it away on the back of a couple of poor decisions.
Scotland got the wooden spoon in the six nations. They crept through a relatively easy group by just beating Samoa and then should have beaten Australia on the back of two intercept tries. They have always been capable of a good one off result and definitely have the squad to improve over the next few years. However the swing in optimism for these two countries has been vast between six nations and now.
Similarly, Ireland had an awful start against Argentina without possibly their 3 best players. They pulled it back to stage where I thought they might well win the game but then didn't quite have the composure and let it slip at the end. Suddenly Argentina are on another level to all the six nations teams.
I find it a little amusing just how much we all jump on the bandwagon. In reality I think Wales, England, Ireland, Argentina are very close and can all beat each other on their day. Scotland have the squad to be in that group but need to show a bit more consistency over the next few six nations/years. I would go:

1) New Zealand
2) Aus
3) SA
4) =Arg, Ireland, Wales, England
8) France
9) Scotland
10) Fiji
11) Japan
12) Georgia
13) Samoa
14) Italy
15) Tonga
16) Romania
17) Canada
18) Namibia
19) USA
20) Uruguay

 

[FNS]

Agree Arg is not a level up but at the same levels of WA,ENG,IRE.

 

[chippieolamus]

I always think it is crazy how much public perception changes on the back of one or two close results.
England were only a score or so from winning the six nations. They were the better team against Wales for a significant period but then threw it away on the back of a couple of poor decisions.
Scotland got the wooden spoon in the six nations. They crept through a relatively easy group by just beating Samoa and then should have beaten Australia on the back of two intercept tries. They have always been capable of a good one off result and definitely have the squad to improve over the next few years. However the swing in optimism for these two countries has been vast between six nations and now.
Similarly, Ireland had an awful start against Argentina without possibly their 3 best players. They pulled it back to stage where I thought they might well win the game but then didn't quite have the composure and let it slip at the end. Suddenly Argentina are on another level to all the six nations teams.
I find it a little amusing just how much we all jump on the bandwagon. In reality I think Wales, England, Ireland, Argentina are very close and can all beat each other on their day. Scotland have the squad to be in that group but need to show a bit more consistency over the next few six nations/years. I would go:

1) New Zealand
2) Aus
3) SA
4) =Arg, Ireland, Wales, England
8) France
9) Scotland
10) Fiji
11) Japan
12) Georgia
13) Samoa
14) Italy
15) Tonga
16) Romania
17) Canada
18) Namibia
19) USA
20) Uruguay

Spot on, although I'd probably say England and Wales are slightly below Ireland and Argentina.

 

[Kiwi_]

Scotland and France are above England.

 

[ncurd]

Fair enough we've not played Argentina in 2 years but considering the last time they beat us was 6 years ago during a lions tour and at home 2006 against a weakened side. It's going to take a lot more than a decent world cup run where they beat a severely depleted Ireland side (who almost clawed their way back in after a dismal 20 mins) and lost against all three SH sides to tell me they definitely in a better place than England.

Think Josht36 has got it right at the top end but maybe mid-table wrong a little harsh on Italy who didn't come bottom in the 6 nations and only proved they were worse than France/Ireland but better than Romainia/Canada. Fiji also extraordinarily high considering they never really challenged any of the top teams in their group.

- - - Updated - - -

Scotland and France are above England.

Based on what? Beat both teams this year comfortably Scotland ran Aus closer but had nothing to lose and Aus already had three tough games.

 

[chippieolamus]

Scotland and France are above England.

Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Six_Nations_Championship#Table

 

[smartcooky]

In reality I think Wales, England, Ireland, Argentina are very close and can all beat each other on their day.

And the world ranking POINTS certainly reflect that...

[TABLE="class: fullRankings"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]4[/TD]
[TD]

• (5)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Wales

[/TD]
[TD]83.49[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]5[/TD]
[TD]

• (4)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Argentina

[/TD]
[TD]82.59[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]6[/TD]
[TD]

• (6)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Ireland

[/TD]
[TD]81.17[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]7[/TD]
[TD]

• (7)

[/TD]
[TD]

• France

[/TD]
[TD]79.77[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]8[/TD]
[TD]

• (8)

[/TD]
[TD]

• England

[/TD]
[TD]79.77[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

... less than four ranking points across all five teams.

Its not the ranking position that indicates the prospective result of a match between two teams, it the ranking points difference. The bigger the difference, the more likely the higher ranked team will win. If you look at the top 12 ranked teams...

[TABLE="class: fullRankings"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]1[/TD]
[TD]

• (1)

[/TD]
[TD]

• New Zealand

[/TD]
[TD]96.10[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]2[/TD]
[TD]

• (2)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Australia

[/TD]
[TD]89.33[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]3[/TD]
[TD]

• (3)

[/TD]
[TD]

• South Africa

[/TD]
[TD]87.66[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]4[/TD]
[TD]

• (5)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Wales

[/TD]
[TD]83.49[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]5[/TD]
[TD]

• (4)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Argentina

[/TD]
[TD]82.59[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]6[/TD]
[TD]

• (6)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Ireland

[/TD]
[TD]81.17[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]7[/TD]
[TD]

• (7)

[/TD]
[TD]

• France

[/TD]
[TD]79.77[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]8[/TD]
[TD]

• (8)

[/TD]
[TD]

• England

[/TD]
[TD]79.77[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]9[/TD]
[TD]

• (9)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Scotland

[/TD]
[TD]77.94[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]10[/TD]
[TD]

• (10)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Japan

[/TD]
[TD]77.05[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]11[/TD]
[TD]

• (11)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Fiji

[/TD]
[TD]76.96[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]12[/TD]
[TD]

• (12)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Italy

[/TD]
[TD]72.74[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

...of all the matches between the teams in this list (I'm guessing about 15 - 20), only one match I can think of bucked the trend of higher ranked teams beating lower ranked teams - Japan's win over South Africa.

 

[valley commando]

Hi guys! Been reading this forum since the start of the RWC, really interesting discussions and such so decided to join! Congrats to NZ for winning the final.

One thing I've seen so much of this world cup is talk about the different 'tiers' in rugby. Obviously, they're just a guideline, but the line between the tiers is becoming increasingly blurred. I was curious as to how you guys rank the different teams. Obviously there is the world rankings, and these are generally accurate, but I thought this might be fun. Basically, you job is to rank all the teams at the RWC from 1 to 20. After a lot of people have ranked, I'll rank the teams by giving 20 pts to the no.1 pick, 19 to no.2 etc down to no.20. We can then divide the teams into different tiers depending on the differences in the points.
So without further ado!

1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Argentina
5. Wales
6. Ireland
7. England
8. France
9. Scotland
10. Japan
11. Fiji
12. Italy
13. Georgia
14. Samoa
15. Tonga
16. Romania
17. USA
18. Canada
19. Namibia
20. Uruguay

1. New Zealand
2. Wales
3. Australia
4. South Africa
5 Argentina
6 Japan
7 Ireland
8 France
9 England.
10 Fiji
11 Georgia
12 Samoa
13 Scotland
14 Italy
15 Romania
16 Tonga
17 Canada
18 USA
19 Namibia
20 Uraguay

Wales are 2nd not because I'm Welsh but with a full compliment of fit players I honestly think only the All Blacks are better. Japan are the unluckiest team at the WC, winning 3 games and not qualifying, it was a travesty that they had only 4 days between their Bok victory and Scotland, I reckon given a couple of 3 days extra they could have turned Scotland over as well.
Scotland are at 13 for a few reasons, if there was relegation in the 6 Nations they'd have been replaced by Georgia is one reason another is Hogg I can't forget his cheating against the Boks and don't think any team should ever be penalised for late tackling him, in fact as I have said before teams that don't repeatedly late tackle him should receive a points deduction.

 

[McTallshort]

1. New Zealand
2. Wales
3. Australia
4. South Africa
5 Argentina
6 Japan
7 Ireland
8 France
9 England.
10 Fiji
11 Georgia
12 Samoa
13 Scotland
14 Italy
15 Romania
16 Tonga
17 Canada
18 USA
19 Namibia
20 Uraguay

Wales are 2nd not because I'm Welsh but with a full compliment of fit players I honestly think only the All Blacks are better. Japan are the unluckiest team at the WC, winning 3 games and not qualifying, it was a travesty that they had only 4 days between their Bok victory and Scotland, I reckon given a couple of 3 days extra they could have turned Scotland over as well.
Scotland are at 13 for a few reasons, if there was relegation in the 6 Nations they'd have been replaced by Georgia is one reason another is Hogg I can't forget his cheating against the Boks and don't think any team should ever be penalised for late tackling him, in fact as I have said before teams that don't repeatedly late tackle him should receive a points deduction.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Josht36]

1. New Zealand
2. Wales
3. Australia
4. South Africa
5 Argentina
6 Japan
7 Ireland
8 France
9 England.
10 Fiji
11 Georgia
12 Samoa
13 Scotland
14 Italy
15 Romania
16 Tonga
17 Canada
18 USA
19 Namibia
20 Uraguay

Wales are 2nd not because I'm Welsh but with a full compliment of fit players I honestly think only the All Blacks are better. Japan are the unluckiest team at the WC, winning 3 games and not qualifying, it was a travesty that they had only 4 days between their Bok victory and Scotland, I reckon given a couple of 3 days extra they could have turned Scotland over as well.
Scotland are at 13 for a few reasons, if there was relegation in the 6 Nations they'd have been replaced by Georgia is one reason another is Hogg I can't forget his cheating against the Boks and don't think any team should ever be penalised for late tackling him, in fact as I have said before teams that don't repeatedly late tackle him should receive a points deduction.

You seem quite bias. Wales were full strength in the six nations and a depleted England turned them over quite easily. Wales haven't beaten Australia in years and years and have only managed one home win against south Africa in n recent memory. How you can put them second with a straight face is beyond me.

 

[chippieolamus]

Oh vc, you never fail to give me a laugh. As if Wales are worse than NZ!

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

If you delve deeper there are even more reasons to laugh!!!!!

1. Japan are better than Ireland because they could have beat Scotland with three more days rest.
2. While there's not a hint of bias involving Wales' rank, obviously, Scotland are below both Japan and Samoa who they beat because the poster has taken a disliking towards Stuart Hogg.

Apart from these three errors of judgement, I think it's a perfectly reasonable and objective post!!!

 

[valley commando]

You seem quite bias. Wales were full strength in the six nations and a depleted England turned them over quite easily. Wales haven't beaten Australia in years and years and have only managed one home win against south Africa in n recent memory. How you can put them second with a straight face is beyond me.

Gats was only playing with England in the 6 Nations, he did state that he wasn't bothered about the 6 Nations it was just a stepping stone to the WC, however we got dealt the worst possible hand injury wise.
Nobody can say for sure but the odds are that without our injury list starting pre WC with JD we would have done a more convincing job on England, fair chance we'd have beaten Oz and the Boks games we lost with small margins and with 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice players in some positions. You may call it bias but if you bother to annalise we wouldn't have been far away

- - - Updated - - -

If you delve deeper there are even more reasons to laugh!!!!!

1. Japan are better than Ireland because they could have beat Scotland with three more days rest.
2. While there's not a hint of bias involving Wales' rank, obviously, Scotland are below both Japan and Samoa who they beat because the poster has taken a disliking towards Stuart Hogg.

Apart from these three errors of judgement, I think it's a perfectly reasonable and objective post!!!

Anybody not taking a dislike to Hogg needs a head test.

 

[McTallshort]

Gats was only playing with England in the 6 Nations, he did state that he wasn't bothered about the 6 Nations it was just a stepping stone to the WC, however we got dealt the worst possible hand injury wise.
Nobody can say for sure but the odds are that without our injury list starting pre WC with JD we would have done a more convincing job on England, fair chance we'd have beaten Oz and the Boks games we lost with small margins and with 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice players in some positions. You may call it bias but if you bother to annalise we wouldn't have been far away

- - - Updated - - -



Anybody not taking a dislike to Hogg needs a head test.

Thats true, horrible little man

 

[Josht36]

Gats was only playing with England in the 6 Nations, he did state that he wasn't bothered about the 6 Nations it was just a stepping stone to the WC, however we got dealt the worst possible hand injury wise.
Nobody can say for sure but the odds are that without our injury list starting pre WC with JD we would have done a more convincing job on England, fair chance we'd have beaten Oz and the Boks games we lost with small margins and with 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice players in some positions. You may call it bias but if you bother to annalise we wouldn't have been far away

- - - Updated - - -



Anybody not taking a dislike to Hogg needs a head test.

So was he only playing with Australia and South Africa the last 10 or so times as well?

I agree you had a few injuries. However so did England in the six nations. Injuries are part of international rugby these days and more often than not its the ability of your wider squads that wins you tournaments. Australia still managed to beat Wales without pocock. Similarly I don't think 3 or 4 of south Africa's first team being out would have changed many of their results with Wales the last 10 years.

 

[valley commando]

So was he only playing with Australia and South Africa the last 10 or so times as well?

I agree you had a few injuries. However so did England in the six nations. Injuries are part of international rugby these days and more often than not its the ability of your wider squads that wins you tournaments. Australia still managed to beat Wales without pocock. Similarly I don't think 3 or 4 of south Africa's first team being out would have changed many of their results with Wales the last 10 years.

We feel injuries a lot more than England, Oz or the Boks as we have only a fraction of the players to choose than those 3 Nations.

 

[ENZED-88]

I always think it is crazy how much public perception changes on the back of one or two close results.
England were only a score or so from winning the six nations. They were the better team against Wales for a significant period but then threw it away on the back of a couple of poor decisions.
Scotland got the wooden spoon in the six nations. They crept through a relatively easy group by just beating Samoa and then should have beaten Australia on the back of two intercept tries. They have always been capable of a good one off result and definitely have the squad to improve over the next few years. However the swing in optimism for these two countries has been vast between six nations and now.
Similarly, Ireland had an awful start against Argentina without possibly their 3 best players. They pulled it back to stage where I thought they might well win the game but then didn't quite have the composure and let it slip at the end. Suddenly Argentina are on another level to all the six nations teams.
I find it a little amusing just how much we all jump on the bandwagon. In reality I think Wales, England, Ireland, Argentina are very close and can all beat each other on their day. Scotland have the squad to be in that group but need to show a bit more consistency over the next few six nations/years. I would go:

1) New Zealand
2) Aus
3) SA
4) =Arg, Ireland, Wales, England
8) France
9) Scotland
10) Fiji
11) Japan
12) Georgia
13) Samoa
14) Italy
15) Tonga
16) Romania
17) Canada
18) Namibia
19) USA
20) Uruguay

I like this team except I would put Aus and SA as equal third. With daylight 2nd, and Wales would drop down a few spots on this list, their backline is terrible!!