Rugby 2012 Team Ratings?

[waldrosamu]

I'd put in a vote for aggregate ratings based on the actual starting XV (plus possibly some +/- for chemistry and quality of reserves).

If the ratings are going to be fixed (and somewhat arbitrary), then stars sound better than a score out of 100. Because what you really want to know is whether, when you and a mate pick up the controllers, you've got a reasonably even contest on your hands.

Also, I would have to agree with calls that this be based on World Cup strength, rather than performance in other seasons: (a) the game will presumably give national sides their strongest possible teams, and (b) the game looks like it it going to be linked closely with the World Cup. But hopefully stars would mean less bickering about the exact order of teams (personally, even as a NZer, I would rate South Africa highest at the moment -- but who knows exactly what the situation will look like 3, 6, or 12 months from now?)

 

[Teh Mite]

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.

I was using an example, so hush up you!

Plus I still believe that the better club sides would easily beat most test sides (i,e. any which aren't tier 1)

Anyway, who would give Ospreys 4/5???

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I was using an example, so hush up you!

Plus I still believe that the better club sides would easily beat most test sides (i,e. any which aren't tier 1)

Anyway, who would give Ospreys 4/5???

How could I not take the opportunity to seize upon your legendary love of all thing Northampton? Ospreys would plainly either be in the 3 star or 3.5 star categories.

Yes, some clubs would be rated up there with the international teams 6th place or lower (roughly).

 

[Duckdee]

Dagnabbit, this thread's got me all excited again.

 

[Cannavaro]

i think italy should have about 79-80

New Zealand 95
South Africa 92
Australia 88
France 90
England 86

 

[Conal]

italy are no wear near 80
they dont regularly win 6 nations games they cant be classed 80

 

[Hamez]

italy are no wear near 80
they dont regularly win 6 nations games they cant be classed 80

Northern Hemisphere teams don't regualarly beat southern hemisphere teams either yet they have high ratings?

I think the team ratings should be based on the averages of the 22 man squad, not just starting 15. have ratings for attack, defence, scrummagging etc etc

 

[Conal]

we may not beat you lot often but it we do it more often than italy
scotland beat the wallabies ireland drew with them and then beat the boks wales could well of beaten the boks the other day
italy on the other hand have never really looke like taking down any tri nation team
also imaginea scoreline between full springbok team in form against a in form italy at the moment it would truly be boys against near enough gods in comparision

 

[rygbi]

I think team ratings should not be set in stone because team ratings are due to change over the year. When I think of how good a team is in real life, I think of how good it's players are and their form. If a team has won 10 matches in a row then I rate them highly and it doesn't matter how good the individual players on the team are. Team chemistry is important but I have no idea how you put this into the game. I would settle for an average of the players ratings. If player's stats can be edited then it would mean that team ratings can be edited.

I think it could be good to also include the team win-lose record to show form and the strength of their bench. Possibly higlight any injuries or an unsual/ new player selection compared to the usual first fifteen.

 

[Hurricane Nate]

I think the ratings should reflect the IRB rankings.

Currently the Top ten International teams are:

NZ- 91
South Africa- 88
Australia- 85
France- 85
Ireland- 82
Argentina- 80
England- 80
Wales- 78
Scotland- 76
Fiji- 75

Seems like the fairest option to me anyway. Could use the ratings for the northern hemisphere teams at the end of there international season this year and the southern at the end of this year when their seasons up so if Wales ends up with 80 points they should be given 80 in the game. If NZ finish with 90 then they get rated 90. No-one could argue that their teams being under or overrated.

 

[lance2010]

Northern Hemisphere teams don't regualarly beat southern hemisphere teams either yet they have high ratings?

I think the team ratings should be based on the averages of the 22 man squad, not just starting 15. have ratings for attack, defence, scrummagging etc etc

That wouldn't work cause the N-H players are all over rated compared to S-H players

 

[Sixesandsevens]

Right Lance whatever you arrogant jimmy hunt. Australias pack got completely mangled today by a front row containing Tim Payne.....

 

[Conal]

lol sixandsevens mkaes a good point
it may be a rookie front row out but tim payne!! how did he get the upper hand on someone the whole game
a nh teams do havegood players re you saying paul o'connel wilkonson chabal harnordquy shane williams bod heaslip jamie roberts jauzion wouldnt be internationals in the tri nations?
the northern teams are good but not the best the sh is three teams which hold one two and three on the rankings so of course the teams under them dont beat them as often dosnt mean they arnt good
i hate it when sh supporters just dismiss the nh as if we are just rookies in there game
we are decent sides just not consistintley the best

 

[SelimNiai]

Right Lance whatever you arrogant jimmy hunt. Australias pack got completely mangled today by a front row containing Tim Payne.....

Now that is embarrasing.

 

[Ben Richard Tyson]

Gotta say, you're all being a touch harsh on Scotland on here. They've just beaten the Argentines, beat the Irish a few months ago and bagged one against Australia last november! I know the Aussies were a bit of fluke but we were close against the Welsh, Italians and English during the 6N. We're getting better all the time under Robinson, and playing an exciting brand of rugby. I certainly think there's quite a gap between the Scots and the likes of the Italians (despite recent results!) and the Samoans, Tongans and Fijians. And going back to the earlier suggestion of only going on WC results then Scotland would be one of the highest rated teams! We've never failed to get to the QFs (something that only a handful of teams have managed) and have been to the SF, which is something the Irish have failed to do! And having the Scots rated higher than those two would be just stupid.

I personally would pick the dynamic rating based on players, chemistry and form, it's the only way to keep it relatively up to date in my opinion.

 

[ranger]

Right Lance whatever you arrogant jimmy hunt. Australias pack got completely mangled today by a front row containing Tim Payne.....

You have to admit that their is a huge bais towards the NH players in the previous games. I think its just down to more exposure for those players.
Guys like Cory Jane and Nick Evans had shocking ratings in the last game, while guys like Goode were made out to be superstars.

It was really frustrating when you are playing with the NZ teams with players that you know are international standard and they are rated behind pretty average NH players. It really shows through when you see SH players in the NH sides who have amazing ratings, when as a SH fan i know that they aren't that good. Like Xavier Rush and Joe Maddock for instance, their ratings were pathetic when they were playing in NZ. I wonder how they would be rated now they are up north

 

[MunsterMan]

From memory, Xavier Rush had quite a respectable rating around the 80 mark in Rugby06, signed him in World League many a time.

 

[alex]

Gotta say, you're all being a touch harsh on Scotland on here. They've just beaten the Argentines, beat the Irish a few months ago and bagged one against Australia last november! I know the Aussies were a bit of fluke but we were close against the Welsh, Italians and English during the 6N. We're getting better all the time under Robinson, and playing an exciting brand of rugby. I certainly think there's quite a gap between the Scots and the likes of the Italians (despite recent results!) and the Samoans, Tongans and Fijians. And going back to the earlier suggestion of only going on WC results then Scotland would be one of the highest rated teams! We've never failed to get to the QFs (something that only a handful of teams have managed) and have been to the SF, which is something the Irish have failed to do! And having the Scots rated higher than those two would be just stupid.

I personally would pick the dynamic rating based on players, chemistry and form, it's the only way to keep it relatively up to date in my opinion.

Scotland didnt score a try against the argentines... how exciting.

 

[Ben Richard Tyson]

Perhaps not. But, the intent was there. We just need a decent pair of centres and we'll get men over that white line. Besides, the Argentineans are pretty well known for their defensive wall. so not to score a try isn't that surprising. Did you watch the match? The way Scotland at least tried to run the ball from deep and shift it out wide was far better than anything I've seen from the likes of England for a long time! It must also be remembered that without Argentina killing the ball in the ruck and coming in from the side constantly, we probably would have scored a try or two. As it was, we simply didn't have to.

 

[williamt85]

in my opinion:

South Africa 92
New Zealand 91
France 90
Australia 89
Ireland 87
England 87
Wales 84
New Zealand Maori 83
Argentina 81
Scotland 79
England Saxons 78
Italy 77
Fiji 73
Samoa 71
Tonga 70
Japan 68
Canada 68
USA 67
Georgia 66
Romania 64
Russia 64
Portugal 60
Spain 58
Germany 52