Rugby 2012 Team Ratings?

[Sm00thice]

john smit needs to go as it is! But it is a valid point

 

[raidske]

yea i doubt that i recon newzealand would be a higher rating seeing as they beat the world champions this year with out a loss and england is a much beter side then argentina and france in my opinion

 

[Brian44]

This forum not being very accessible to French (non-English-speaking ********), I would like to contribute in the name of my fellas...

First thing, apart from the basic rating, I think there should be some consideration given to the capacity to win a game on major competitions.
As proposed by some others on the topic, Flair should have way more importance. Take the example of the French National Team: they are far less consistent and certainly also less physical and technical than the All Blacks or RSA, but they are able to win a major game with guts and a touch of talent and flair. I'd say the same of Wales, who on the paper does not have the best team ever, but they are specialists of winning a game by scoring to tries after the 75th minute.

Some kind of capacity for some teams to react under pressure would balance the whole rating. Because once again, if you look at the current results, the South Hemisphere teams are better prepared, and look to us frenchies like killing machines, but there is not a single world cup when we didn't show up with some surprising results, while we are regularly ass-kicked during the test-matches...

So the point is that if you make RSA, AB and Australia's ratings look realistic and that it is the only thing taken into account in the game, Northern Hemisphere teams will not even compete (apart from England, who has a cold and methodical style) while, Iam sure than once again, in the REAL 2011 RWC, France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and some others will not be ridiculous.

 

[brusselsbarbarian]

How about not giving teams ratings at all?
all it does is create arguments about why one team isnt rated higher than the others....

 

[lynam1104]

How about not giving teams ratings at all?
all it does is create arguments about why one team isnt rated higher than the others....

Because that would be pretty stupid TBH.

 

[Hurricane Nate]

Ratings should just be their IRB ranking points at the end of this season. How can anyone in their right mind argue with that?.

 

[Dizzy]

Cohesiveness?

You've got a very ugly looking rep there

I think he meant Chemistry

New Zealand are by far the best team for now, but once Peter De Villiers opens his eyes and realize the potential we have, we would beat them by far..
With the right selection, there is no team that can beat the Springboks.
2012 is still a far way to go..

Not even a rightly selected All Blacks side?..
You're on drugs....

 

[Hurricane Nate]

New Zealand are by far the best team for now, but once Peter De Villiers opens his eyes and realize the potential we have, we would beat them by far..
With the right selection, there is no team that can beat the Springboks.
2012 is still a far way to go..

Speculate much

 

[TVH11]

Very short "add-age" to this subject but is this topic only meant to be for internationals? Anyone care to add some club/Regional teams?? (This will create REAL debate )

 

[Dizzy]

Very short "add-age" to this subject but is this topic only meant to be for internationals? Anyone care to add some club/Regional teams?? (This will create REAL debate )

true... Hurricanes 999 hahaha

 

[Dizzy]

Why can't they implement a system which summarises all the stats of the players involved in one team and come out with a rating based on all the players....
I'm sure I've seen it in sporting games before... not too certain but I'm sure I have.

 

[TrueSlawter]

New zeland should be mid 90's, SA high 80's low 90's,France around the same as SA, Ireland then with same as SA and France, then Aus, then England with mid-high 80s, Wales with mid-high 80s, argentina same as england and wales, Scotland slightly lower etc.

 

[Dizzy]

I'd say, take the IRB ratings at the end of the year and use those... they will be the most accurate we're ever going to get.

 

[Hurricane Nate]

I'd say, take the IRB ratings at the end of the year and use those... they will be the most accurate we're ever going to get.

Yea I agree and have mentioned that a couple times. Just had a look at them though and they don't make pretty reading for anyone anti ABs.

1. NZ 94
2. Aus 85
3. SA 85
4. France 82
5. Ireland 82
6. England 81
7. Scotland 79
8. Argentina 79
9. Wales 78
10. Fiji 74
11. Italy 72
12. Samoa 72
13. Japan 72
14. Canada 69
15. USA 67
16. Tonga 67
17. Georgia 66
18. Russia 65
19. Romania 65
20. Nambia 62

And in all honesty ABs ranking will most likely get better after the end of year tour can't remember exactly when they droppped one of those games but it was against england 7 odd years ago. The ABs at the moment deserve to be absolute head and shoulders above everyone else in Rugby 2012. They are another level compared to the rest and it shows in the IRB ranking big time. NH teams rankings will improve too though they're at the start of their season whilst our season is nearly up.

 

[TrueSlawter]

with the IRB raitings i dont really see how Scotland and Argentina are above wales, Wales beat both last time they've played iirc. the scotland game was close however.. and came within 1 game of winning the 6 nations so being below scotland who were placed lower and even further behind england and france who they drew with in the leaderboards makes little sense imo.

 

[Teh Mite]

I predict the future:

"Hi, I'm A Kiwi. I think The All Blacks should be at least a bazillion percent better then everyone else".
*six months later*
"**** you HB, the game is too easy..."

 

[dan the man]

Ha, fair comment.

I do think that the All Blacks would be the top rated team currently, but definitely not as far ahead as the IRB rankings state... i'd think that NZ, AUS and SA would all be very close

 

[Teh Mite]

If Aus and the Boks are up there, then you have to include France, England, Wales, Argentina, Scotland and Ireland in that assessment, with Italy not much further either.


Then after that you can start thinking about the tier 2 nations falling further behind.

 

[dan the man]

Yeah, i definitely agree... those rankings don't seem very close to what i'd pick, i think i'd swap Wales and Scotland around. But i do still think that the ratings shouldn't be set in concrete... They should fluctuate depending in who is picked in the Match day 22, and players higher ratings would boost the overall team ratings. eg. if you were playing in the RWC and you came up against a relative minnow in your pool matches you might decide to rest your top players, this would lower your teams overall rank

 

[Hurricane Nate]

I predict the future:

"Hi, I'm A Kiwi. I think The All Blacks should be at least a bazillion percent better then everyone else".
*six months later*
"**** you HB, the game is too easy..."

Yea realistic as... just as in real life huh. Like I said the NH teams will make ground up as our season is coming to an end. By the end of the NH international season the IRB rankings would be the most fair way to do it. No speculation, no making **** up, no personal feelings just cold, hard proper rankings from actual rugby that has actually been played in the real world. We all want this game to be realistic don't we.

Either that or average out teams IRB ranking points over the last four years.