Rugby 2012 Team Ratings?

[CDN_Rugby]

Any speculation into what national teams will be included in Rugby 2012? Or for that matter, what will the team ratings will be? Just for kicks, here are the national teams I expect to be in the game and how I expect them to be rated.

1) New Zealand- 95
2) South Africa- 94
3) Australia- 93
4) France- 91
5) Argentina- 91
6) Ireland- 88
7) England- 87
8) Wales- 86
9) Scotland- 83
10) Italy- 77
11) Fiji- 74
12) Samoa- 73
13) Canada- 71
14) Japan- 70
15) Tonga- 70
16) Romania- 67
17) USA- 65
18) Georgia- 65
19) Portugal- 64
20) Uruguay- 62
21) Russia- 61
22) Namibia- 60
23) Zimbabwe- 59
24) Spain- 58
25) Tunisia- 54

Atleast thats how I see it anyway. The more national teams that are included in the game, the better (hopefully all are licenced).

Thoughts?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Are you from New Zealand by any chance?

 

[CDN_Rugby]

Nah, I'm a canuck.

You wouldn't rate the Kiwi's #1?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

No idea,
I think for the team ratings they should just take an average of all the starting XV or something

 

[CDN_Rugby]

That would be preferable, but all the past games set the team rating in stone, so I just assumed this time it would be the same.

 

[verigoat]

Have you took that order straight from the IRB rankings

Personal opinion I think USA are probably better than Canada, deffinantly better than Japan

Should be done off players if possible

 

[DuncTheDoodle]

A team is more than the sum of it's parts. Because otherwise Wales would have 100 if they dropped Huw Bennett.

 

[iWin]

For team ratings, it would probably be simplest just to take IRB ratings from a couple of months before release. The ratings don't mean much and it's as good a standard as any.

 

[CDN_Rugby]

USA better than Canada and Japan? I think you would be hard pressed to find proof to back that up. Canada and Japan actually play Autumn tests.

Even just looking at Canada's recent fixtures against the USA...

August 12th 2006, vs USA (RWCQ), at St. John's, 56-7 (Canada win)
June 2nd 2007, vs USA, (Churchill Cup), at Twickenham, 52-10 (Canada win)
June 21st 2008, vs USA, (Churchill Cup), at Chicago, 26-10 (Canada win)
July 4th 2009 , vs USA (RWCQ), at Charleston, 12-6 (USA win)
July 11th 2009, vs USA (RWCQ), at Edmonton, 41-18 (Canada win)

Tack on an alltime record of 32-12-1, and I would say that Canada has pretty much had its way with the U.S. in rugby since day one.

The U.S. is a few steps behind Japan and Canada, but they certainly have potential.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Were they to use the official IRB it would look something like this:

New Zealand 92
South Africa 87
Australia 86
France 85
Ireland 83
Argentina 81
England 80
Wales 79
Scotland 77
Fiji 76
Italy 73
Samoa 72
Japan 71
Canada 69
Tonga 68
Georgia 68
Romania 67
USA 67
Russia 65
Uruguay 63


Seems about fair to me. Maybe Walesshould be higher than England but apart from that...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

England above Argentina (and Wales, feic, you cheeky blighter)

 

[Feicarsinn]

Heh...blighter. Quality.

 

[Ducky97]

RSA have to be on top. I wouldnt rate Australia too highly

 

[nickdnz]

RSA have to be on top. I wouldnt rate Australia too highly

Any justification for that? NZ is top of IRB rankings and Auzzy looks to have their best team in a while.

 

[MunsterMan]

Were they to use the official IRB it would look something like this:

New Zealand 92
South Africa 89
Australia 86
France 85
Ireland 83
Argentina 81
England 80
Wales 79
Scotland 77
Fiji 76
Italy 73
Samoa 72
Japan 71
Canada 69
Tonga 68
Georgia 68
Romania 67
USA 67
Russia 65
Uruguay 63


Seems about fair to me. Maybe Walesshould be higher than England but apart from that...

After one day SA are up to 89, trouble with these rankings is they have license to fluctuate a plenty before the game is released. Combination of the stats and chemistry (if it is retained) of your team should make up the rankings.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Any justification for that? NZ is top of IRB rankings and Auzzy looks to have their best team in a while.

Well, in their most recent games South Africa have lost to France, Ireland, Leicester and Saracens and scraped past Wales. If that doesn't spell number one I don't know what does.

 

[King_D'Arcy]

Ireland should totally be number 1. They're by far the best team in the world.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I personally think that the ratings should not be fully editable or adjustable, but I would like it that if you'd beaten every competition in the game on medium or elite that you could shift the rating up or down by up to 5pts (only for off-line). That'd be something very cool to play on for and would help reflect the true rankings of the teams if things changed over the next year or two. Fully customisable would be silly, because then people would just screw with real world rankings by far too much.

For off-line multi-player, it'd also mean that I wouldn't always have to take Fiji or the like when I play my friends as New Zealand etc.

 

[rugbywriter]

But the rankings on the games is in terms of players. If this is the case, S.A surely has to be number 1. The only reason we aren't completely unstoppable is because of our useless coaching team and political situation. If New Zealand, France or Australia had our coaching team they would battle to win anything. Give the Springboks Marc Lievermont and you've got the most unstoppable rugby team of all time. Rugby is also taken much more seriously at school level here in SA then it is anywhere else in the world. That's why we have so much depth and so much individual talent.

 

[Feicarsinn]

But the rankings on the games is in terms of players. If this is the case, S.A surely has to be number 1. The only reason we aren't completely unstoppable is because of our useless coaching team and political situation. If New Zealand, France or Australia had our coaching team they would battle to win anything. Give the Springboks Marc Lievermont and you've got the most unstoppable rugby team of all time. Rugby is also taken much more seriously at school level here in SA then it is anywhere else in the world. That's why we have so much depth and so much individual talent.

Surely the weakness of the coach should be taken into account when doing up the ratings? They're nearly as important a part of the team as the players ( the fact your arguement is based on). If they have an influence on a team's performance, they should be factored into the overall rating.