Rugby 2012 Team Ratings?

[lance2010]

New Zealand:92
South Africa:91
Wales:88
Australia:88
France:87
Ireland:85
England:85
Argentina:84
Scotland:82
and #10 Fiji or Italy 80
Thats my top 10 NZ and Sth Africa are # 1 and 2 either order the rest are a toss up.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Mine would be:

World XV: 96
Southern Hemisphere: 95
Northern Hemisphere: 93
New Zealand: 93
South Africa: 92
British Lions: 91
Barbarians: 89
Australia: 87
France: 87
Ireland: 85
Argentina: 83
Pacific Island XV: 82
England: 82
Wales: 80
New Zealand Maori: 79
Australia A: 79
Scotland: 78
Italy: 75
Samoa: 75
Fiji: 73
Japan: 71
Canada: 69
Tonga: 68
Georgia: 68
USA: 67
Romania: 66
Russia: 65
Uruguay: 63

Gotta have those bonus sides in there!

 

[MichaelBoard]

Mine would be:

World XV: 96
Southern Hemisphere: 95
Northern Hemisphere: 93
New Zealand: 93
South Africa: 92
British Lions: 91
Barbarians: 89
Australia: 87
France: 87
Ireland: 85
Argentina: 83
Pacific Island XV: 82
England: 82
Wales: 80
New Zealand Maori: 79
Australia A: 79
Scotland: 78
Italy: 75
Samoa: 75
Fiji: 73
Japan: 71
Canada: 69
Tonga: 68
Georgia: 68
USA: 67
Romania: 66
Russia: 65
Uruguay: 63

Gotta have those bonus sides in there!

Thats pretty good, I'd agree with most of that but the only thing is how can you justify Argentina being above Wales and England for that matter. Although I know that they are above both Wales and England in the offical irb rankings they have not shown the same form that made them such a force at the world cup so based on this I don't think they should be that highly rated, though theres no doubt they are still a good team. The only other team I don't agree with is the Pacific Island team being higher than Wales and England because surely if you have rated them as 82 and they are made up of Samoa - 75, Fiji - 73 and Tonga - 68 then the British & Irish Lions made up of Ireland - 85, England - 82, Wales - 80 and Scotland - 78 then maybe the lions should be rated slightly higher as obviously it goes without saying that New Zealand/South Africa should be rated higher than Wales/England/Ireland etc but the lions is a combination of 4 nations, so if the ratings are decided based on players then the lions should be abit higher. Anyway the main point I'm trying to argue is I've got no problems with Pacific Islanders being rated as 82 because as like the lions they are a combination teams but I don't think they should be above Wales or England. Other than that I'd say its spot on

 

[lance2010]

Mine would be:

World XV: 96
Southern Hemisphere: 95
Northern Hemisphere: 93
New Zealand: 93
South Africa: 92
British Lions: 91
Barbarians: 89
Australia: 87
France: 87
Ireland: 85
Argentina: 83
Pacific Island XV: 82
England: 82
Wales: 80
New Zealand Maori: 79
Australia A: 79
Scotland: 78
Italy: 75
Samoa: 75
Fiji: 73
Japan: 71
Canada: 69
Tonga: 68
Georgia: 68
USA: 67
Romania: 66
Russia: 65
Uruguay: 63

Gotta have those bonus sides in there!

Wales only 80 lol maybe i was abit generous rating them 88 lol i like the way they play attacking rugby,but yeah your list not too bad.yeah Scotland do suck and fiji don't have any idea how to play 15 aside lol

 

[Teh Mite]

A Fifa style stars system would be better then a percentage rating, so currently the ABs, France and SA would be on 5 stars, Aus, England, Ireland & Wales on 4.5, Argentina, Scotland & Italy on 4 then so on.

This system would also make it fairer for the clubs and provincial sides ratings, E.G The Premiership,

5 Stars:
Leicester, Northampton, Saracens

4.5 Stars:
Bath, Wasps, Gloucester

4 Stars:
Irish, Quins, Sale

3.5 stars:
Exeter, Leeds, Newcastle

3 Stars:
Bristol, Worcester

 

[ranger]

Thats pretty good, I'd agree with most of that but the only thing is how can you justify Argentina being above Wales and England for that matter. Although I know that they are above both Wales and England in the offical irb rankings they have not shown the same form that made them such a force at the world cup so based on this I don't think they should be that highly rated, though theres no doubt they are still a good team. The only other team I don't agree with is the Pacific Island team being higher than Wales and England because surely if you have rated them as 82 and they are made up of Samoa - 75, Fiji - 73 and Tonga - 68 then the British & Irish Lions made up of Ireland - 85, England - 82, Wales - 80 and Scotland - 78 then maybe the lions should be rated slightly higher as obviously it goes without saying that New Zealand/South Africa should be rated higher than Wales/England/Ireland etc but the lions is a combination of 4 nations, so if the ratings are decided based on players then the lions should be abit higher. Anyway the main point I'm trying to argue is I've got no problems with Pacific Islanders being rated as 82 because as like the lions they are a combination teams but I don't think they should be above Wales or England. Other than that I'd say its spot on

The lions are rated a single point behind SA and 2 behind NZ. That is extremely generous considering the last time the lions had a series victory over either team.

The thing that makes this quite difficult is that the ratings would be based on the top strength teams for each country. You can't really go on IRB standings therefore because the likes of Samoa, Argentina, Fiji, Tonga etc are never at full strength aside from the world cup, the team that earned their ranking is an entirely different one to the top-strength side (and this is the one that will be in the game).
Therefore i would be tempted to give the likes of Samoa the same rating as Wales or even England. Just look at their world cup performances.

 

[ranger]

A Fifa style stars system would be better then a percentage rating, so currently the ABs, France and SA would be on 5 stars, Aus, England, Ireland & Wales on 4.5, Argentina, Scotland & Italy on 4 then so on.

This system would also make it fairer for the clubs and provincial sides ratings, E.G The Premiership,

5 Stars:
Leicester, Northampton, Saracens

4.5 Stars:
Bath, Wasps, Gloucester

4 Stars:
Irish, Quins, Sale

3.5 stars:
Exeter, Leeds, Newcastle

3 Stars:
Bristol, Worcester

Would "club stars" be different to "international stars"?

 

[best_fullback]

Im not really a fan of having these arbitrary, objective ratings which should change with the squad changing.

Really think the way to go is the average of all the players ratings in some way multiplied by the chemistry of all the positional partnerships in the team.

E.g. Average ratings of all players in team x (Front row chemistry + Lock chemistry + Back row chemistry + Half back chemistry + Centre chemistry + Back 3 chemistry)

For instance if chemistry was rated out of 10 the partnership between Parra and Trinh-duc might have a rating of 9, but replace Trinh-duc with Beauxis and it might fall to 8, and likewise the difference between having Habana or Aplon in the back 3 might change the rating from 9 to 8. This would mean the multiplier, though the average rating of players in the team may be exactly the same it will be different and will reward a higher rating for a team with good chemistry and will reduce ratings when less experienced/worse players are bought in.

 

[nickdnz]

The problem with all this is, did anyone find the chemisty at all helpful in Rugby 08? Most of the partnerships seemed purely based on having simular or different skills, however well established partnerships in real life, had no chemistry.

 

[MichaelBoard]

The lions are rated a single point behind SA and 2 behind NZ. That is extremely generous considering the last time the lions had a series victory over either team.

The thing that makes this quite difficult is that the ratings would be based on the top strength teams for each country. You can't really go on IRB standings therefore because the likes of Samoa, Argentina, Fiji, Tonga etc are never at full strength aside from the world cup, the team that earned their ranking is an entirely different one to the top-strength side (and this is the one that will be in the game).
Therefore i would be tempted to give the likes of Samoa the same rating as Wales or even England. Just look at their world cup performances.

Ok, assuming this is the way that the teams are rated. Then Samoa didn't do any better than Wales at the World Cup so theres no justification in rating them higher. As much as it pains me to say it if the ratings are decided, like you said based on World Cup performances then Fiji would be above Wales. But as far as it goes with England, they would be rated extremely highly in that case as they won the world cup in 03 and reached the final in 07 so this is undoubtedly better than any of the island teams (Samoa, Tonga, Fiji). As for Wales if you are taking into account the last few World Cups then with 07 being the exception Wales have also done better than the island teams. So I think it would be silly and wrong to base a teams rating on previous World Cup performances because irrelevant whether or not the likes of Fiji,Samoa,Tonga are at full strenghth outside of the world cup its about the team at the time. for example you can't take a team like Fiji who reached the quarter finals in 07 and rate them as highly as Wales because this was a few years ago and is unrealisitic and unfair. They should instead be rated on recent performances as it is about there recent performances and form. I see no problem with previous World Cup performances being taken into account but they shouldn't be the sole factor.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Did it in haste earlier. Was dinner time. On reflection.

World XV: 96
Southern Hemisphere: 95
Northern Hemisphere: 93
New Zealand: 93
South Africa: 92
British Lions: 91
Barbarians: 89
Australia: 87
France: 87
Ireland: 85
Wales: 83
England: 82
Pacific Island XV: 81
Argentina: 80
New Zealand Maori: 79
Australia A: 79
Scotland: 78
Samoa: 77
Italy: 75
Fiji: 73
Japan: 71
Canada: 69
Tonga: 68
Georgia: 68
USA: 67
Romania: 66
Russia: 65
Uruguay: 63


The reasons Samoa aren't up there with Wales Argentina, is that they are not proven to consistently be of that standard. World Cup time they are closer, so yeah I adjusted them to 77 (up two). I fixed my hasty Argentina, England, Wales thing, as I had allowed the IRB rankings of the current moment to influence the overall opinion too much. In general England has historically more ability than Argy, as has Wales (more marginally of the last 20 years).

 

[King_D'Arcy]

That's almost spot on to me. The only thing I would argue with is you can't give the baabaas a set rating really. It should depend on the team picked. Also the pacific islands team shouldn't be rated nearly that high. Whenever ive seen em play they didn't gel at all and got destroyed.

 

[ranger]

Ok, assuming this is the way that the teams are rated. Then Samoa didn't do any better than Wales at the World Cup so theres no justification in rating them higher. As much as it pains me to say it if the ratings are decided, like you said based on World Cup performances then Fiji would be above Wales. But as far as it goes with England, they would be rated extremely highly in that case as they won the world cup in 03 and reached the final in 07 so this is undoubtedly better than any of the island teams (Samoa, Tonga, Fiji). As for Wales if you are taking into account the last few World Cups then with 07 being the exception Wales have also done better than the island teams. So I think it would be silly and wrong to base a teams rating on previous World Cup performances because irrelevant whether or not the likes of Fiji,Samoa,Tonga are at full strenghth outside of the world cup its about the team at the time. for example you can't take a team like Fiji who reached the quarter finals in 07 and rate them as highly as Wales because this was a few years ago and is unrealisitic and unfair. They should instead be rated on recent performances as it is about there recent performances and form. I see no problem with previous World Cup performances being taken into account but they shouldn't be the sole factor.

Well Samoa has played Wales twice at the world cup, and won twice.
Also as for Wales doing better at the world cup than the island teams, Wales came third in 1987, and have also had 2 quarter final appearances. Samoa were controversially not invited to the 1987 world cup, but have still managed 2 quarterfinal appearances and a quarterfinal playoff spot. Fiji also have two quarter final appearances and a quarterfinal playoff. Wales' record isn't actually that much better.

You say it is "silly" and "wrong" to base their ratings on world cup performances and that it is irrelevant weather the island teams are at full strength outside of the world cup?
I think it is silly and wrong to do the opposite. Let me spell it out.

For the islanders, the team that plays outside of the world cup, and the team that plays in the world cup are completely different the only similarity is that their jerseys are the same colour. You say that it should be based on recent performances, but those recent performances are effectively by a completely different team to the one who will feature in the game. This is an important point.

If the team that will be in the game was the "non world cup" side, made up of guys that are straight out of the villages of manu samoa, then it would be fine to give them their IRB rating. BUT, the team that will be in the game will be the world cup squad, the top professional players that the NH clubs refuse to release for international friendlies. This team is a hell of a lot better than the other outfit (capable of beating Wales twice in two attempts), and i feel that their rating should reflect this change of team. You say it is about "the team at the time" well the team at the time as far as the game goes is the world cup squad. not the B team they play in the off years.

 

[Haysie]

I would love a full Summer tour mode in 2012 whereby it could incorporate "The Final Challenge" versus the Baa Baas...

 

[marb10]

Club Ratings

The average of all the first XV players should make a base rating for the team, then the team's chemistry could add/take away 7-10 points.

Team chemistry can be improved throughout the season...
- If a team has an over-powering scrum and line-out then the chemistry of the front row, lock pairing and back row will improve accordingly.
- The same goes with the half-back pairing, centres and back 3

 

[Duckdee]

The problem with all this is, did anyone find the chemisty at all helpful in Rugby 08? Most of the partnerships seemed purely based on having simular or different skills, however well established partnerships in real life, had no chemistry.

Chemistry, to me, seems more of a managerial game feature. When playing online, it would in effect be like the team is playing together for the first time everytime, and I don't think it'd be fair to penalise a player who starts with a different 9-10 combo than the default.

 

[MoggsyBoy81]

Suprised people are rating Aregntina so high. They haven't done much over the last year, they're not as good as England or Wales thats for sure and South Africa should be scored better than NZ. I'd like to see the team score somehow made up from the scores of the players and this would change with different team selections. Here's my list anyway;

1) New Zealand- 94
2) South Africa- 94
3) Australia- 93
4) France- 92
5) Ireland- 90
6) England- 89
7) Wales- 89
8) Argentina - 87
9) Italy - 85
10) Scotland - 85
11) Samoa - 82
12) Fiji - 80
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

 

[MunsterMan]

Agree with Mite's star ratings, to be honest when it comes to menus/display and manager mode/create a tournament I hope Rugby 2012 heavily "borrows" from Fifa.

My star ratings would be:

5 Stars: New Zealand, South Africa, France, British & Irish Lions, Australia

4.5 Stars: Ireland, England, Wales, Barbarians, Argentina,

4 Stars: Scotland, Italy, Fiji, Toulouse, Bulls, Stormers, Clermont, Crusaders, Waratahs, Munster, Leinster, Leicester, Ospreys, Pacific Islands

3.5 Stars: Tonga, Samoa, Reds, Perpignan, Brumbies, Saracens, Cardiff, Blues, Northampton, Hurricanes, Toulon, Sharks, Biaritz,

3 Stars: Ulser, Chiefs, Edinburgh, Cheetahs, Glasgow, Gloucester, Highlanders, Harlequins, Scarlets, Western Force, Bath, Castres, London Wasps, Racing Metro, London Irish, Stade Francais,

2.5 Stars: Golden Lions, Dragons, Connacht, Newcastle, Leeds, Exeter, Sale, Brive, Montpellier, Bourgoin, Montauban

2 Stars: Anyone else

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Agree with Mite's star ratings, to be honest when it comes to menus/display and manager mode/create a tournament I hope Rugby 2012 heavily "borrows" from Fifa.

My star ratings would be:

5 Stars: New Zealand, South Africa, France, British & Irish Lions, Australia

4.5 Stars: Ireland, England, Wales, Barbarians, Argentina,

4 Stars: Scotland, Italy, Fiji, Toulouse, Bulls, Stormers, Clermont, Crusaders, Waratahs, Munster, Leinster, Leicester, Ospreys, Pacific Islands

3.5 Stars: Tonga, Samoa, Reds, Perpignan, Brumbies, Saracens, Cardiff, Blues, Northampton, Hurricanes, Toulon, Sharks, Biaritz,

3 Stars: Ulser, Chiefs, Edinburgh, Cheetahs, Glasgow, Gloucester, Highlanders, Harlequins, Scarlets, Western Force, Bath, Castres, London Wasps, Racing Metro, London Irish, Stade Francais,

2.5 Stars: Golden Lions, Dragons, Connacht, Newcastle, Leeds, Exeter, Sale, Brive, Montpellier, Bourgoin, Montauban

2 Stars: Anyone else

I'm slightly more in favour of that system too, but your ratings do seem significantly better. Was no surprise to see him put NZ, South Africa and Northampton all on 5 stars, lol. No club should be a full 5 stars in Rugby.

 

[MunsterMan]

I have 64 teams there, with only 12 French and 13 International, so we would need 9 more teams if we are to have RWC, S15, GP, ML, T14 and HEC along with 4N and 6N. Hopefully we will get some Manager Mode too. 73 teams is a lot :O