IRB climbers and fallers

[Shaggy]

1,"ANDORRA"
2,"ARGENTINA"
3,"AUSTRALIA"
4,"AUSTRIA"
5,"BAHAMAS"
6,"BARBADOS"
7,"BELGIUM"
8,"BERMUDA"
9,"BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA"
10,"BOTSWANA"
11,"BRAZIL"
12,"BULGARIA"
13,"CAMEROON"
14,"CANADA"
15,"CAYMAN"
16,"CHILE"
17,"CHINA"
18,"CHINESE TAIPEI"
19,"COLOMBIA"
20,"COOK ISLANDS"
21,"CROATIA"
22,"CZECH REPUBLIC"
23,"DENMARK"
24,"ENGLAND"
25,"FIJI"
26,"FINLAND"
27,"FRANCE"
28,"GEORGIA"
29,"GERMANY"
30,"GUAM"
31,"GUYANA"
32,"HONG KONG"
33,"HUNGARY"
34,"INDIA"
35,"IRELAND"
36,"ISRAEL"
37,"ITALY"
38,"IVORY COAST"
39,"JAMAICA"
40,"JAPAN"
41,"KAZAKHSTAN"
42,"KENYA"
43,"KOREA"
44,"LATVIA"
45,"LITHUANIA"
46,"LUXEMBOURG"
47,"MADAGASCAR"
48,"MALAYSIA"
49,"MALTA"
50,"MOLDOVA"
51,"MONACO"
52,"MOROCCO"
53,"NAMIBIA"
54,"NETHERLANDS"
55,"NEW ZEALAND"
56,"NIGERIA"
57,"NIUE ISLANDS"
58,"NORWAY"
59,"PAPUA NEW GUINEA"
60,"PARAGUAY"
61,"PERU"
62,"POLAND"
63,"PORTUGAL"
64,"ROMANIA"
65,"RUSSIA"
66,"SAMOA"
67,"SCOTLAND"
68,"SENEGAL"
69,"SERBIA"
70,"SINGAPORE"
71,"SLOVENIA"
72,"SOLOMON ISLANDS"
73,"SOUTH AFRICA"
74,"SPAIN"
75,"SRI LANKA"
76,"ST. VINCENT & THE GRENADINES"
77,"SWAZILAND"
78,"SWEDEN"
79,"SWITZERLAND"
80,"TAHITI"
81,"THAILAND"
82,"TONGA"
83,"TRINIDAD & TOBAGO"
84,"TUNISIA"
85,"UGANDA"
86,"UKRAINE"
87,"URUGUAY"
88,"USA"
89,"VANUATU"
90,"VENEZUELA"
91,"WALES"
92,"ZAMBIA"
93,"ZIMBABWE"

Ranking by alphabetical order is fair isn't it ... hmmmn, maybe by dewey decimal, or atomic weight would be better

 

[JW.]

Im liking the Netherlands higher than NewZeeland .

 

[Shaggy]

Im liking the Netherlands higher than NewZeeland .

:lol: ... Yeah, just watch it though, or i'll make them "The Netherlands" ... then watch your ranking plummet!

 

[JW.]

Haha, still higher than Wales, Tonga, USA and Uruguay . Altough Holland drew 24-24 with wales at a sevens thingy so they must be better anyway .

 

[Seaton]

At one stage I thought I had all the rankings system worked out.

And then we just beat Italy, and we moved up, like 0.26 points.

Thats nothing, you'd need to beat them like 6-9 times to move up a position

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

In contrast, NZ can be on top of the rankings, win every almost every match they play, then lose to SA once and drop down out of first somehow...

That happened a couple of years ago...

 

[calculon]

The ranking system is designed so that wins against weaker opposition don't give you much points - especially if you beat them at home. If Scotland beat the All Blacks by more than 15 points away from home, you would skyrocket up the list, and the AB's would bomb right down - possibly to third, no idea. It's a good system.
It's all there at www.irb.com

 

[Seaton]

I know there is a method to the madness, and agree that it is a rather good one at that.

Its just, as I said, Scotland could play a team of reasonably the same quality, such as Italy, and beat them 6 times a year, home and away, and that would (assuming you change the rankings after each game) account for like 2-3 points change.

Meh, just clutching at straws here, suppose it would be a good thing if the points didn't change much, as the games would be reasonably close.

Fair play to the IRB, getting their rankings right, unlike some other sporting organisations *cough* FIFA *cough* England Top 10 *cough*

 

[The big Kangaroo]

if the wallabies win we would hit number 1 for the first time...right

 

[Jer1cho]

if the wallabies win we would hit number 1 for the first time...right

Yes. If Australia or South Africa manage a win, they will be the top ranked side.

 

[calculon]

I know there is a method to the madness, and agree that it is a rather good one at that.

Its just, as I said, Scotland could play a team of reasonably the same quality, such as Italy, and beat them 6 times a year, home and away, and that would (assuming you change the rankings after each game) account for like 2-3 points change.

Meh, just clutching at straws here, suppose it would be a good thing if the points didn't change much, as the games would be reasonably close.

Fair play to the IRB, getting their rankings right, unlike some other sporting organisations *cough* FIFA *cough* England Top 10 *cough*

I'm not sure friendlies should be counted but how and ever, they are. The good thing about the ranking system is that a team cannot hoard competitive tests to make them look better than they are. If a team was to try and play more test games every year to get extra points, it wouldn't really work. It also gives teams impetus to play tougher opposition, and challenge themselves.

 

[ranger]

I'm not sure friendlies should be counted but how and ever, they are. The good thing about the ranking system is that a team cannot hoard competitive tests to make them look better than they are. If a team was to try and play more test games every year to get extra points, it wouldn't really work. It also gives teams impetus to play tougher opposition, and challenge themselves.

No such thing as a "Friendly" in rugby mate, thats a football term. International test matches have traditionally been the pinnacle of rugby and thats the way it should be. The world cup and trinations etc are great and all, but i would hate to see test series' cheapened any more.

 

[calculon]

No such thing as a "Friendly" in rugby mate, thats a football term. International test matches have traditionally been the pinnacle of rugby and thats the way it should be. The world cup and trinations etc are great and all, but i would hate to see test series' cheapened any more.

I don't mean regular test matches. I only mean the RWC warm up matches every 4 years - a small % of all test matches. I want to make that clear. Most test matches are and should be full on tests. Does IRB agree with me? They're calling these RWC warm-ups or 'IF's - International Friendlies. Is that just some new name or have they always been called that by the IRB?