IRB World Rankings - 17 October 2011

[TRF_Cymro]

[TABLE="class: table_main, width: 97"]
<tbody>[TR]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: table_main"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: l"]1(1)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

NEW ZEALAND[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]91.34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]2(2)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

AUSTRALIA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]86.49[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]3(5)

[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

FRANCE[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]84.79[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]4(3)

[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

SOUTH AFRICA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]84.34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]5(6)

[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

ENGLAND[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]81.58[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]6(4)

[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

WALES[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]81.10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]7(7)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

IRELAND[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]80.65[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]8(8)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

ARGENTINA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]80.28[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]9(9)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

TONGA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]76.63[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]10(10)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

SCOTLAND[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]76.20[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]11(11)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

SAMOA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]75.81[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]12(12)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

ITALY[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]73.99[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]13(13)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

CANADA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]72.92[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]14(14)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

GEORGIA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]71.09[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]15(15)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

JAPAN[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]70.45[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]16(16)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

FIJI[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]68.78[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]17(17)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

USA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]65.63[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]18(18)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

ROMANIA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]63.98[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]19(19)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

NAMIBIA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]61.24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]20(20)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

PORTUGAL[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]60.67[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]21(21)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

RUSSIA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]60.54[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]22(22)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

URUGUAY[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]60.00[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]23(23)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

CHL[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]59.52[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]24(24)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

SPAIN[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]59.43[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]25(25)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

BELGIUM[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]56.50[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]



http://www.irb.com/rankings/full.html


... How does that work out?

 

[SelimNiai]

<img style="-webkit-user-select: none; cursor: -webkit-zoom-in; " src="http://www.roulettebonuscode.com/images/roulette-wheel.gif" width="284" height="289">

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Haha, despite being, in theory, the best way of working out the rankings, sometimes it does throw up a few ridiculous results
How England are 5th is beyond me :lol:

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Funny to see Portugal still being ahead of Russia despite missing out on the RWC

 

[Jer1cho]

Rankings are just there as a guideline I reckon. Wales are better than France, England, and the Wallacheats in my opinion. The only one I fully agree with is New Zealand at number 1. The rest are pick and choose.

 

[elgringoborracho]

Wales will be better than all those countries when they learn to actually WIN games.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Well Wales lost, so dropped some points, England didn't play, so didn't lose any points... Remember WC points are worth double normal matches.

 

[Dizzy]

It's about consistency. And winning the pressure matches something Wales have only begun doing this World Cup. If they continue then they will rightfully be in the top 4.

 

[Seaton]

We're still in the top 10 B)

 

[scarlets-fan]

This is why we have to win on Friday. Essentially England climbed one place because they didn't get to the semi's. Hmmmmm

 

[TRF_heineken]

What bother's me, is that they never reset the bloody rankings, how fair is that to lower ranked teams trying to get a reputation, and that, better matches against better opposition??

Did Australia lose any points after their loss to New Zealand? or did Bryce Lawrence write it down as a draw so they can keep points (LOL, Now I'm eagerly waiting for the aussie fans to come and give me some flak)...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If the lower teams want a better reputation they should start winning more matches, surely?
If they reset it, they'd only eventually mover back down to the bottom....

 

[TRF_heineken]

If the lower teams want a better reputation they should start winning more matches, surely?
If they reset it, they'd only eventually mover back down to the bottom....

Yes, but at least everyone starts equal and then the rankings will be seen as a more clear indication on where the team really should be ranked...

For example, if they have it as a four year cycle, which starts immediately at the start of the World Cup, where everyone starts on an equal 0 points... as the tournament goes on the better teams will accumulate more points, therefore increasing their ranking points... after the World Cup, the number 1 ranked team will be the Trophy holder, and then the matches onwards will be used to get teams up or down the rankings until next world cup... that way the teams picked for the world cup will be evenly spread, and you might sit with the situation that all the pools are equally brutal and that one loss might end your tournament... Just a though i had for a while now...

 

[smartcooky]

What bother's me, is that they never reset the bloody rankings, how fair is that to lower ranked teams trying to get a reputation, and that, better matches against better opposition??.

Why on earth would you want to do that. Rankings are rankings; a reflection of how well a team has done in recent matches. It produces an accurate idea of teams' relative strengths, based on their results. Most importantly, the effect of previous matches diminishes and is superseded by the more recent results.

Do tennis or golf reset their world rankings? Of course not.

If you understood how the ranking system works, you would not be making this suggestion. Have a read of this...

http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html

It will take you some way towards understanding why your suggestion is completely unworkable.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Why on earth would you want to do that. Rankings are rankings; a reflection of how well a team has done in recent matches. It produces an accurate idea of teams' relative strengths, based on their results. Most importantly, the effect of previous matches diminishes and is superseded by the more recent results.

Do tennis or golf reset their world rankings? Of course not.

If you understood how the ranking system works, you would not be making this suggestion. Have a read of this...

http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html

It will take you some way towards understanding why your suggestion is completely unworkable.

Thank you Smartcooky, once again I bow to your infinite wisdom and IRB resorces knowledge along with your quick mouse-click skills...

I didn't know they start teams at a base point of 40... kinda makes it like RWC2011 (the PS3 game)... Makes more sense now...

 

[Larksea]

I think the rankings are quite accurate and maybe more of an indicator of ability than world cup results and placings. I don't think double points for WC games is a good idea though