• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Rate Tier 1 nations in order

Wallabies won't win if they can't play for 80mins.

To say they beat the AB's in the third Bledisloe is one thing, but you have to consider how often will NZ going to perform like that? It's not like the Wallabies out performed a quality NZ performance. And the Wallabies still couldn't beat them!

To win the WC abroad NZ has to overcome the pressure. They couldn't overcome the pressure of being the best team in the world in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007. Next year, ABs are again considered the best team. Can NZ handle the pressure? I'm not sure
 
Last edited:
To win the WC abroad NZ has to overcome the pressure. They couldn't overcome the pressure of being the best team in the world in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007. Next year, ABs are again considered the best team. Can NZ handle the pressure? I'm not sure

Not sure, will be interesting. My thought is... maybe.
 
1.NZ
20. Eng
30. SA
40. Ireland
50. Australia
60. France
70. Argentina
80. Wales
90. Scotland
100. Italy

Are you being facetious? At what point have England ever even been on par with South Africa? And Australia is still in another league compared to northern hemisphere.

1 New Zealand
2 South Africa
3 Australia
4 Argentina
5 England
6 Wales
7 Ireland
8 France
9 Samoa
10 Scotland
11 Italy
 
In 2002 and 2003 England was not only on par with South Africa they were better including All Blacks.
 
Some nice trolling from the french here...

You've beaten England twice in 11 meetings. Your record against us is appauling. England are 4 from 5 against Australia currently. The only teams england have a losing record to currently are the All blacks and SA. Argentina have beaten England 1ce in 31 attempts. Nice try guys really nice try.

Not being cocky, I don't expect to beat Samoa and Australia from an englishman's point of view. It's a given. We are far more interested in SA and NZ than we are Australia and Wales.
 
Some nice trolling from the french here...

You've beaten England twice in 11 meetings. Your record against us is appauling. England are 4 from 5 against Australia currently. The only teams england have a losing record to currently are the All blacks and SA. Argentina have beaten England 1ce in 31 attempts. Nice try guys really nice try.

Not being cocky, I don't expect to beat Samoa and Australia from an englishman's point of view. It's a given. We are far more interested in SA and NZ than we are Australia and Wales.

pretty unbelievable post right here. First of all, it's interesting you refer to "the french", like we're many, like there's a global tendency, I'm the only one on this thread. So interesting introduction to your post. Then, "Nice try guys really nice try". What scope do you see things through ? :D

Then, where do you get your stats from, deep inside your own congested butthole I'm sure: in the last 11 (why eleven specifically ?..) France beat England 5 times, including an ample win to oust the English out of the World Cup, most notably.

Then if you want to be more large about this (remember this is the Top 10 Tier 1 nations NOW, i.e. the past months only) France's record against England is far from appalling. Overall it's advantage to England 53-38 out of all meetings historically, but that includes all the wins England got at the start of the XXth century when France didn't know what Rugby was. If you start counting, at very least out of courtesy, the record from the first French win over England in 1927, the record actually goes 38-37 to France. Or, one could also start counting from our first draw in 1922 debatably, which would see England with a 42-38 advantage. So "appalling" is hardly the word, but that's just a fruit of your profound bias, in all evidence.

Then, whether England has had an advantage against France and wins games they shouldn't, that's true. It's very frustrating as a Frenchman to watch England win games they shouldn't against us, they've definitely been our bête noire in the past few decades. England definitely has had an edge over France. Although let's not forget, those roles were inverted during the 70's/80's when England couldn't buy a win against France.

Finally, I'll definitely let you know you do a great disservice to your nation with such posts (if you're being serious, which I think is the case, amazingly).

As for being interested with SA and NZ, don't worry, they're both coming in a few weeks. Rejoice. And for others, England have Dublin and Cardiff, both places England are effectively scared of, in the next 6N. England were ecstatic over beating Ireland, albeit AT HOME, in the last Six Nations.

England are 3 from 5 actually against Australia (with 3 played at Twickers), not 4 of 5, and the last win over them was nothing to shout off the roof tops to say the least.

And out of 20 matches against Argentina, England are 14-4 with 2 draws, and the latest Pumas win was 2009 and before that 2006, in Twickenham.

Finally, about the Boks and AB England are supposedly so interested in, you've asked for this:
- South Africa: out of the ELEVEN last matches since you like that number, England have beaten the Boks....zero times. "Times", or "time" with zero ? Plural or singular ?...
- All-Blacks: guess how many times out of the last ELEVEN ? yep, the one time in '12.
 
Last edited:
pretty unbelievable post right here. First of all, it's interesting you refer to "the french", like we're many, like there's a global tendency, I'm the only one on this thread. So interesting introduction to your post. Then, "Nice try guys really nice try". What scope do you see things through ? :D

Then, where do you get your stats from, deep inside your own congested butthole I'm sure: in the last 11 (why eleven specifically ?..) France beat England 5 times, including an ample win to oust the English out of the World Cup, most notably.

Then if you want to be more large about this (remember this is the Top 10 Tier 1 nations NOW, i.e. the past months only) France's record against England is far from appalling. Overall it's advantage to England 53-38 out of all meetings historically, but that includes all the wins England got at the start of the XXth century when France didn't know what Rugby was. If you start counting, at very least out of courtesy, the record from the first French win over England in 1927, the record actually goes 38-37 to France. Or, one could also start counting from our first draw in 1922 debatably, which would see England with a 42-38 advantage. So "appalling" is hardly the word, but that's just a fruit of your profound bias, in all evidence.

Then, whether England has had an advantage against France and wins games they shouldn't, that's true. It's very frustrating as a Frenchman to watch England win games they shouldn't against us, they've definitely been our bête noire in the past few decades. England definitely has had an edge over France. Although let's not forget, those roles were inverted during the 70's/80's when England couldn't buy a win against France.

Finally, I'll definitely let you know you do a great disservice to your nation with such posts (if you're being serious, which I think is the case, amazingly).

As for being interested with SA and NZ, don't worry, they're both coming in a few weeks. Rejoice. And for others, England have Dublin and Cardiff, both places England are effectively scared of, in the next 6N. England were ecstatic over beating Ireland, albeit AT HOME, in the last Six Nations.

England are 3 from 5 actually against Australia (with 3 played at Twickers), not 4 of 5, and the last win over them was nothing to shout off the roof tops to say the least.

And out of 20 matches against Argentina, England are 14-4 with 2 draws, and the latest Pumas win was 2009 and before that 2006, in Twickenham.

Finally, about the Boks and AB England are supposedly so interested in, you've asked for this:
- South Africa: out of the ELEVEN last matches since you like that number, England have beaten the Boks....zero times. "Times", or "time" with zero ? Plural or singular ?...
- All-Blacks: guess how many times out of the last ELEVEN ? yep, the one time in '12.

There is nothing I can do but stand and applaud that fine effort! That was outstanding work Ewis!

1. NZ
2. SA
3. AUS
4. ENG
5. IRE
6. WAL
7. FRA
8. ARG
9. SCO
10. ITA
 
thx but it's nothing impressive. It's just facts and I meant to remind some of other lesser known facts, beyond just replying to the trolling. Yes England are better historically than us, I do no contesting of that. But it's been a much fairer battle than the common collective imagination concedes. And atm, England are good, very good sometimes, but there is more evidence out there they are below Australia than above. This can all change very quickly and this coming EOYT will be very telling, but I base my present posts on what we've seen so far, I'm no seer.
 
[TABLE="class: table_main"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: l"]1(1)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]
NZL.png
NEW ZEALAND[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]93.15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]2(2)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]
RSA.png
SOUTH AFRICA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]90.41[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]3(3)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]
ENG.png
ENGLAND[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]85.68[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]4(4)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]
AUS.png
AUSTRALIA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]84.53[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]5(5)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]
IRE.png
IRELAND[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]83.44[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]6(6)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]
WAL.png
WALES[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]80.70[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]7(7)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]
FRA.png
FRANCE[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]80.01[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]8(8)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]
SCO.png
SCOTLAND[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]77.75[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]9(9)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]
SAM.png
SAMOA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]76.35[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]10(10)[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]
ARG.png
ARGENTINA[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]75.97[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]




:D
 
thx but it's nothing impressive. It's just facts and I meant to remind some of other lesser known facts, beyond just replying to the trolling. Yes England are better historically than us, I do no contesting of that. But it's been a much fairer battle than the common collective imagination concedes. And atm, England are good, very good sometimes, but there is more evidence out there they are below Australia than above. This can all change very quickly and this coming EOYT will be very telling, but I base my present posts on what we've seen so far, I'm no seer.

To be fair, I don't think a one-off test between England and Australia will be such a telling factor this EOYT. Especially after all that has happened this past year.

England has been progressing under Lancaster. There is no doubt about that, and they will be looking to get a win, against at least one of the big 3 of the SANZAR teams. No matter who it is.

As for Australia, they have a new coach, and has 3-game losing streak at the moment. There are a lot of what-if's to be counted, and a EOYT is hardly a measurement to go by. If Australia lose to England, then there'll be a bunch of excuses, some warranted, and some not. If Australia win, then there'll be a bunch of excuses too, from the other camp also some warranted and some not.

Everyone ranking the teams here has a biased opinion, so it's not a very significant way of showing the true measurements of the teams. For instance, I would rank Wales above England and France. Purely because I measure the opposition and their performance against the Springboks. And because we played them most recently of the 3 teams, and them nearly beating us, makes my subjectivity even more biased.

My Ratings would be:

1. NZ
2. South Africa
3. Australia
4. Wales
5. France
6. England
7. Argentina
8. Ireland
9. Italy
10. Scotland
11. Samoa
 
Interesting facts.

Heineken is correct. We will have our own perceptions of how good a certain team is based on the performance of our national team against them.
wales and Scotland played south Africa. and i would rate Scotland a bit higher up then most of the previous lists.
1.NZ
2.SA
3.Australia
4. England (there is a big buZZ around the England team at the moment)
5.wales
6. Argentina
7.Ireland
8. France
9. Scotland (they are strong against south Africa for some reason, they have a young squad with potential.)
10. Japan
11.Italy
 
To be fair, I don't think a one-off test between England and Australia will be such a telling factor this EOYT. Especially after all that has happened this past year.

England has been progressing under Lancaster. There is no doubt about that, and they will be looking to get a win, against at least one of the big 3 of the SANZAR teams. No matter who it is.

As for Australia, they have a new coach, and has 3-game losing streak at the moment. There are a lot of what-if's to be counted, and a EOYT is hardly a measurement to go by. If Australia lose to England, then there'll be a bunch of excuses, some warranted, and some not. If Australia win, then there'll be a bunch of excuses too, from the other camp also some warranted and some not.

Everyone ranking the teams here has a biased opinion, so it's not a very significant way of showing the true measurements of the teams. For instance, I would rank Wales above England and France. Purely because I measure the opposition and their performance against the Springboks. And because we played them most recently of the 3 teams, and them nearly beating us, makes my subjectivity even more biased.

My Ratings would be:

1. NZ
2. South Africa
3. Australia
4. Wales
5. France
6. England
7. Argentina
8. Ireland
9. Italy
10. Scotland
11. Samoa

Wasn't it a two point game the last time Ireland and SA played each other and didn't they beat SA in 2009?
 
To be fair, I don't think a one-off test between England and Australia will be such a telling factor this EOYT. Especially after all that has happened this past year.

England has been progressing under Lancaster. There is no doubt about that, and they will be looking to get a win, against at least one of the big 3 of the SANZAR teams. No matter who it is.

As for Australia, they have a new coach, and has 3-game losing streak at the moment. There are a lot of what-if's to be counted, and a EOYT is hardly a measurement to go by. If Australia lose to England, then there'll be a bunch of excuses, some warranted, and some not. If Australia win, then there'll be a bunch of excuses too, from the other camp also some warranted and some not.

Everyone ranking the teams here has a biased opinion, so it's not a very significant way of showing the true measurements of the teams. For instance, I would rank Wales above England and France. Purely because I measure the opposition and their performance against the Springboks. And because we played them most recently of the 3 teams, and them nearly beating us, makes my subjectivity even more biased.

My Ratings would be:

1. NZ
2. South Africa
3. Australia
4. Wales
5. France
6. England
7. Argentina
8. Ireland
9. Italy
10. Scotland
11. Samoa
Are you serious ? Scotland after Italy are you drinking too much Heineken again ? and also Samoa only 11 ? dude you might need to re-look at that
 
I'd say the current IRB rankings are pretty accurate representation, I'd just put England down 2 notches at the moment on account of still not having a settled final team.

1. New Zealand
2. South Africa
3. Australia
4. Ireland
5. England
6. Wales
7. France
8. Scotland
9. Samoa
10. Argentina
 
Wasn't it a two point game the last time Ireland and SA played each other and didn't they beat SA in 2009?

I really can't see how a game of 5 years ago have any bearing on the current rankings for this thread.

Are you serious ? Scotland after Italy are you drinking too much Heineken again ? and also Samoa only 11 ? dude you might need to re-look at that

Like the beginning of my post states, it's my opinion on how I see the teams being ranked and that it is biased and subjective. Of course people from nations who I undervalue will feel aggrieved.

My low ranking for Scotland has something to do with the demolition SA dished out earlier this year...
 
Italy got smashed by both Fiji and Samoa in the summer. That's more telling than Scotland loosing to the Boks.
 
I really can't see how a game of 5 years ago have any bearing on the current rankings for this thread.



Like the beginning of my post states, it's my opinion on how I see the teams being ranked and that it is biased and subjective. Of course people from nations who I undervalue will feel aggrieved.

My low ranking for Scotland has something to do with the demolition SA dished out earlier this year...
aye i can understand that but have you seen Italy's performances ? they got destroyed by England this year on home soil and got destroyed by Ireland. They also lost all three of they're test matches when really they should have won 2 out off 3 while.

EDIT: also note we had to play a very strong springbok team with scotland having to select from players only 2 teams.
 
Top