Rugby 2012 Team Ratings?

[_George]

You call what the All Whites did Success?

bro where are you from ?

 

[_George]

Ay?
That'd be Great Britain... They're no.1 in the world leadings, with more than twice as many points as second place, with NZ at joint 9th

typing error .

 

[lman]

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.

In private schools in Brisbane and Sydney rugby is the no1 priority. Almost every Wallaby went to one. Thats why we have almost no depth.... because there is only about 20 schools in the country that are capable of producing good rugby players. My school has almost always had an old boy in the wallaby lineup, at the moment there are two from my school (Quade Cooper and David Pocock). I goes to show that there is no depth in Australia. Unlike in New Zealand where almost everyone plays rugby. I suppose in NZ they also don't have 4 sporting codes like in AUS.

 

[eastside]

why don't it be like nba 04 , whenever you put in better players the better the ratings are simple , thats much easier

have edit players , too change positions ,ratings and looks

 

[Dexter Tauvao]

Nah, I'm a canuck.

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

Not after 2009 mate

RSA 95
NZ 92
AUS 90
ARG 91
FRA 89
IRE 85
ENG 86
WAL 82
ITA 80
SAM 81
FIJ 81
TNG 79
JPN 77
RMN 70
URU 72
POR 73

-I dont think team ratings should affect how well a team can retain the ball at ruck time.
With minnow teams you can EXPECT to hold the ball for 3 phases before losing it, and then not seeing again for another 10 phases.

Can we balance this out a bit more? I'm sure Portugal can work up 7 phases against Australia or Argentina?

 

[Dexter Tauvao]

Super 14

Bulls 87
Stormers 85
Crusaders 84
Waratahs 82
Cheetahs 80
Sharks 81
Blues 80
Reds 83
Highlanders 74
Chiefs 77
Hurricanes 78
Brumbies 80
Force 75
Lions 71

 

[Teh Mite]

Not after 2009 mate

RSA 95
NZ 92
AUS 90
ARG 91
FRA 89
IRE 85
ENG 86
WAL 82
ITA 80
SAM 81
FIJ 81
TNG 79
JPN 77
RMN 70
URU 72
POR 73

-I dont think team ratings should affect how well a team can retain the ball at ruck time.
With minnow teams you can EXPECT to hold the ball for 3 phases before losing it, and then not seeing again for another 10 phases.

Can we balance this out a bit more? I'm sure Portugal can work up 7 phases against Australia or Argentina?

You'd rate Argentina and Australia ahead of the entire six nations?

Oh dear God... I pray that HB ignore this thread completely...

 

[SelimNiai]

You'd rate Argentina and Australia ahead of the entire six nations?

Oh dear God... I pray that HB ignore this thread completely...

Note Scotland don't even get a look in.


Man, Les is gonna be ******

 

[wizzdom]

lets just hope france dont injure every player they tackle.

 

[verigoat]

Not after 2009 mate

RSA 95
NZ 92
AUS 90
ARG 91
FRA 89
IRE 85
ENG 86
WAL 82
ITA 80
SAM 81
FIJ 81
TNG 79
JPN 77
RMN 70
URU 72
POR 73

-I dont think team ratings should affect how well a team can retain the ball at ruck time.
With minnow teams you can EXPECT to hold the ball for 3 phases before losing it, and then not seeing again for another 10 phases.

Can we balance this out a bit more? I'm sure Portugal can work up 7 phases against Australia or Argentina?

lol South Africa top

 

[lucky number 7]

Not after 2009 mate

RSA 95
NZ 92
AUS 90
ARG 91
FRA 89
IRE 85
ENG 86
WAL 82
ITA 80
SAM 81
FIJ 81
TNG 79
JPN 77
RMN 70
URU 72
POR 73

-I dont think team ratings should affect how well a team can retain the ball at ruck time.
With minnow teams you can EXPECT to hold the ball for 3 phases before losing it, and then not seeing again for another 10 phases.

Can we balance this out a bit more? I'm sure Portugal can work up 7 phases against Australia or Argentina?

ireland 10 points less than SA even though ireland have won the last 3 times the teams have met?

portugal 9 points less than wales?? thats ******* ridiculous walses would put 100 pts + up on them

 

[Teh Mite]

Makes you wonder when you remember Romania are the best non-Six Nations side in Europe.

 

[Iron Mike]

Nzl 99
FR 98






rsa 12

 

[Sixesandsevens]

I dont really see the point of the team ratings, would be better to just have stars for the number of world cups won, and then any team rating is just all the players in the starting 15 added up made a percentage.

 

[Draggs]

Isn't Wales rated 9th in the world? A recent fall?

Not sure why, considering we have beaten Argentina and Scotland every time we have met in the past few seasons.
There is hardly any point difference between 10-4 place on the rankings.

Perhaps a variable team rating would be better, which takes into account individual player ratings and also team chemistry.
This would take team chemistry more important than in Rugby 08 and make it worth considering when picking a team, instead of simply picking the highest rated players.

 

[Iron Mike]

Watch all the South African fans now change their minds saying it should be a star system.

 

[Dizzy]

the irb world rankings point system is quite accurate...and I completely agree with them as they stand

Position (last week) Member Union Rating Point
1(1) NEW ZEALAND 92.40
2(2) SOUTH AFRICA 88.74
3(3) AUSTRALIA 84.41
4(4) FRANCE 82.75
5(5) IRELAND 82.03
6(6) ENGLAND 81.82
7(7) SCOTLAND 79.81
8(8) ARGENTINA 79.70
9(9) WALES 78.58
10(10) FIJI 74.39

 

[NEEPS]

I agree with the ratings depending on the team so we could see weaker teams improve and stronger teams get worse if they do a fifa style career with young players coming through and older players retiering with the chance for players to improve so u could start off with a team like scotland and some players might improve depending on their form and someothers might get worse and this could either improve the team rating or make it worse depending on the players u select and what form they are in

 

[SavageLez]

the irb world rankings point system is quite accurate...and I completely agree with them as they stand

Position (last week) Member Union Rating Point
1(1) NEW ZEALAND 92.40
2(2) SOUTH AFRICA 88.74
3(3) AUSTRALIA 84.41
4(4) FRANCE 82.75
5(5) IRELAND 82.03
6(6) ENGLAND 81.82
7(7) SCOTLAND 79.81
8(8) ARGENTINA 79.70
9(9) WALES 78.58
10(10) FIJI 74.39

NZ deserve to be on top and these stats are most accurate on current form! After many discussions however it was decided that the ratings should be done after next years (2011) Super 14 and Tri Nations so that the latest rankings are applicable to the game. I think South African fans should hope current rankings are used coz SA might find themselves ranked 4 or 5 by then. If PdV (Snor) continues with his crap player and out of position selections.

 

[gmoe]

I dont really see the point of the team ratings, would be better to just have stars for the number of world cups won, and then any team rating is just all the players in the starting 15 added up made a percentage.

Don't like the WC star idea, but the individual ratings and then an average team reading would be good.

I just hope the new rules will be in the game.