I think the problem here comes when you have to think about the last five. Also in the top 5 there's something: Australia is better than England. No chance here for the english. Of course they are able to defeat the AB's once in a couple of years -out of our league of course-, but is way too different a level of competition if you think about the trouble in the context of a year, not just the ranking based on their actual ranking of IRB.
To begin with, Waratahs won Super Rugby, the most exigent rugby competition in this corner of the universe. England didn't won with Saracens; of course you could say Toulon is like Real Madrid of rugby, and it doesn't represent France's level at this moment, so the plucky brits prove to be the greatest of european talents at this moment. That's actually quite convincing, but I don't see it: Saracens, in a smaller scale have also foreing players, and even so, they are a professional rugby club with a big structure and take players from other english clubs (smaller, by the way). They are not underdogs. Waratahs are a team with australian players, australian coach, who played against the teams who produce the superstars who head to France when the moment of making big money comes, and they defeated them with extraordinary hability.
And the kind of game they deploy is another aspect. Compliments to english supporters, your boys are so extraordinary disciplined -on the field, by the way, we learned in 2011 they're not so polite off- and genuinely plucky, so teacious: they are ordered, commit few penalties, do everything just like the books tell to. But is not very thrilling. Wait: I know that is not an argument, but is just that. The point is that it's based on things that are not talent, but something anybody could achieve. That is very democratic I know, but not something you can search for glory on sport I think, you need a bit more. Let me explain myself again: of course they have talent, they're england's rugby team for God's sake, but they are not Australia. Aussies are a storm, an earthquake that simply doesn't have anything to compare with at any other nation of the tier-1; we're talking about a team who losed two genius like Genia and Cooper, loosed their first match against us in decades and still, with all the problems and mismanagment it had over the years, have the responsabilty to win every single time and, if not, you degade them immediatily. Jesus, every single autumn international I have to hear english complaining about the off-side the All Blacks allways get away with, that penalty in the third minute that OBVIOUSLY conditioned the entire match... what would be if they losed a couple of players like Genia and Cooper... and Beale?
Oh, wait, they actually don't have any player of that level. As much as I like -and I really do- Twelvtrees.
So I think ranking England over Australia, because of their level, their talent, their game, is quite absurd.
And the thing of the lower ranking -fifth to tenth- is simply about being a winner or a looser. It's miserable to put it like that, but it's how it is. Mental strenght, psicologhical preparation, mentality over all... Argentina is a looser, we just don't know how to kill a match. Maybe that'll change now. Wales doesn't have the ambition to reign over Europe, and they could. Italy needs to find a new way to estimulate rugby other than naturalize argentinians and australians, Scotland... I don't really know anything about them, sorry. I think, with the years, there has been a momentum that simply expands over the time, and that stream is etremely hard to resist and to change, it takes really brilliant managment and lead to do so, if it doesn't happen, teams get stacked in the same position like France, like Canada or Japan. I basically think all the numbers from 5 to 10 are more or less exchangable.
Sorry if somebody felt insulted by this post.