Spring Tour: New Zealand vs Ireland - 3rd Test. (23/6/2012, 07:35 GMT)

[ret]

Yeah, and be beaten by a team below them. The point being?

The point is, that regardless of your views on the IRB rankings, it's screamingly f***ing obvious that Australia are a lot better than 7th.

 

[nickdnz]

The point is, that regardless of your views on the IRB rankings, it's screamingly f***ing obvious that Australia are a lot better than 7th.

Haha, very fair call. Yep, Australia are either 2nd or 3rd best in the world right now in my opinion. They have a winning record against every NH team in the world barring the B&I Lions, and taking into acount they've only been as competitive as they have since the early 90's, that very impressive. They do have a tendency to go missing without key players, and I think their depth is open for criticism, but it's very hard to argue France, England, Wales or Ireland are better, especially after they finished 3rd in the World Cup after losing to the team that came first.

I'd also rate Argentina considerably better than Scotland, but meh.

Regarding BOD's end of test match interview, what was his comment about won't be playing in 12 more years about? It went right over my head.

 

[dullonien]

Haha, very fair call. Yep, Australia are either 2nd or 3rd best in the world right now in my opinion. They have a winning record against every NH team in the world barring the B&I Lions, and taking into acount they've only been as competitive as they have since the early 90's, that very impressive. They do have a tendency to go missing without key players, and I think their depth is open for criticism, but it's very hard to argue France, England, Wales or Ireland are better, especially after they finished 3rd in the World Cup after losing to the team that came first.

I'd also rate Argentina considerably better than Scotland, but meh.

Regarding BOD's end of test match interview, what was his comment about won't be playing in 12 more years about? It went right over my head.

The interviewer asked if he'd be back, and as Ireland aren't returning to NZ for 12 years.....

Aus are certainly better than 7th. I'd say the current standings are:

01 New Zealand
02 South Africa/Austrailia
03 Austrailia/South Africa
04 Wales
05 England
06 Ireland
07 France
08 Argentina
09 Scotland
...........................

Although France can easily jump from 10th to 2nd in the world depending on the day, and Argentina could be a bit higher.

The actual rankings aren't far off. England will climb back to 4th due to their away draw, but that could all change in November.

 

[welshglory]

no, what we have in real terms (not the ******** IRB rankings system which is as equally flawed as the politics of the sport itself) is:


1. NZ
2. Everyone else (pick your own order of SA, Eng, Ire, Wal & Fra)
7. Oz (narrow home wins over a gutless Welsh side, not a patch on their 6N form, is nothing to be excited about)
8. Sco
9. Arg
10. Ita

That's very nice of you to put Wales so high but we've just been beaten by Australia 5 times in a row, so i can't really see why you would rank us above them... Or England or France or definitely Ireland

 

[psychic duck]

The interviewer asked if he'd be back, and as Ireland aren't returning to NZ for 12 years.....

Aus are certainly better than 7th. I'd say the current standings are:

01 New Zealand
02 South Africa/Austrailia
03 Austrailia/South Africa
04 Wales
05 England
06 Ireland
07 France
08 Argentina
09 Scotland
...........................

Although France can easily jump from 10th to 2nd in the world depending on the day, and Argentina could be a bit higher.

The actual rankings aren't far off. England will climb back to 4th due to their away draw, but that could all change in November.

agree with the placing their Dullonien, Argentina could be higher as you say and should definitely be above Scotland, but it is hard to judge them right now as they have played June with their reserves

France though have been well below par in 2012, and last week although they had four or five players rested, still on paper they should have easily beat an Argentina side with 24 players rested but they gave the Pumas a chance and threw the match away

Samoa are stronger than Italy as well and should be 10th

 

[Feicarsinn]

The interviewer asked if he'd be back, and as Ireland aren't returning to NZ for 12 years.....

Aus are certainly better than 7th. I'd say the current standings are:

01 New Zealand
02 South Africa/Austrailia
03 Austrailia/South Africa
04 Wales
05 England
06 Ireland
07 France
08 Argentina
09 Scotland
...........................

Although France can easily jump from 10th to 2nd in the world depending on the day, and Argentina could be a bit higher.

The actual rankings aren't far off. England will climb back to 4th due to their away draw, but that could all change in November.

But the Lions will be back in 2017. Drico will almost certainly be there.

 

[Zapphod]

Except that 12 doesn't really defend against the opposing 12.


Anyway... IMO, its time for the SBW naysayers to just shut up now.

Not sure why, I pointed out in an earlier post that SBW would be fine against second tier teams and last night the Irish chose to play like a second tier team his abilities or lack there of will be exposed against South Africa and Australia.

Did any of the All Blacks look bad last night?

As for world rankings I would suggest:
1. All Blacks
2. Australia (by virtue of beating the best NH team)
3. South Africa (by virtue of a draw with not the best NH team)
4. Wales
beyond that half a dozen other teams who aren't in the top 3 but may push the fourth spot.

 

[irelandfan123]

**** me sounds just like o'sullivan
http://www.thejournal.ie/declan-kidney-future-497538-Jun2012/

 

[psychic duck]

**** me sounds just like o'sullivan
http://www.thejournal.ie/declan-kidney-future-497538-Jun2012/

Let's not give them 20 points in the first 20 minutes.

sage advice there Mr Kidney, couldn't have thought have that idea in a million years

 

[irelandfan123]

http://www.thescore.ie/opinion-time-kidney-go-497271-Jun2012/
media is turning on kidney???

 

[Sam Owen]

Not sure why, I pointed out in an earlier post that SBW would be fine against second tier teams

Might be because you're a hater Zapphy. Ma'a will get his shot, just be patient and enjoy you're teams victories, they played really well.

Bring on the tri-nations, or is it quad-nations??...

Good game All Blacks!

 

[Larksea]

I dont think you can seriously say that Aussie are a better side than the boks right now. not really on topic though, we should be talking about how awesome the All Blacks are lol

 

[Zapphod]

I dont think you can seriously say that Aussie are a better side than the boks right now. not really on topic though, we should be talking about how awesome the All Blacks are lol

I never said they were not close and South Africa may well be better than Aussie but until they play each other we wont know, however by virtue of the fact that Wales are the 6 Nations champs and Australia beat them you would have to assume they are 2nd or 3rd but since South Africa drew with England a team that Wales beat surely that would make Australia 2nd on paper at least.

Might be because you're a hater Zapphy. Ma'a will get his shot, just be patient and enjoy you're teams victories, they played really well.

Bring on the tri-nations, or is it quad-nations??...

Good game All Blacks!

But I am not sure I want Ma'a to get a shot either, in my opinion Ma'a has done the job well but it is time for him to retire (he is not going to be there for the next world cup as he is too old) but I am far from convinced Williams is a suitable replacement he does some things really well but then most first class 12s do.

So the question is does he have anything that will set a game alight and sadly I do not believe he does as yet maybe a couple of years down the track that will change but given that no one believes he will be around in a couple of years aren't we better off blooding players that will be?

Before people start going on about how we do not know whether any players will be around in a couple of years I will agree that is true but most players do not have the track record that Williams has for buggering off at the drop of a hat.

 

[William18]

no, what we have in real terms (not the ******** IRB rankings system which is as equally flawed as the politics of the sport itself) is:1. NZ2. Everyone else (pick your own order of SA, Eng, Ire, Wal & Fra)7. Oz (narrow home wins over a gutless Welsh side, not a patch on their 6N form, is nothing to be excited about)8. Sco9. Arg10. Ita

There never has, nor will there ever be, a 100% accurate world ranking system. You get these debates in all sports. Always you get fans who think the formulas used to calculate the rankings do not match up to their perception. And they don't because they can't. The fact is that any ranking system is going to bring up anamolies.

 

[Darwin]

I dont think you can seriously say that Aussie are a better side than the boks right now. not really on topic though, we should be talking about how awesome the All Blacks are lol

Why not? Australia are the current Tri-nations champions, and are ranked number 2 in the world, with the Boks number 3. Australia have beaten South Africa the last 4 times they have played (2 of those matches were in South Africa!), and have won 6 of the last 7 matches between the two sides. It is obvious that Australia lack depth, but just because their 'B' team lost to Scotland (in horrendous conditions) it does not mean they don't deserve the number 2 ranking in world rugby!

 

[smartcooky]

There never has, nor will there ever be, a 100% accurate world ranking system. You get these debates in all sports. Always you get fans who think the formulas used to calculate the rankings do not match up to their perception. And they don't because they can't. The fact is that any ranking system is going to bring up anamolies.

The IRB ranking system accurately predicts the winners in 94% of matches between the top 10 sides in the world.

As you say, its not perfect, but it the best we have. No other system tried is anywhere near as accurate.

 

[Larksea]

Why not? Australia are the current Tri-nations champions, and are ranked number 2 in the world, with the Boks number 3. Australia have beaten South Africa the last 4 times they have played (3 of those matches were in South Africa!), and have won 6 of the last 7 matches between the two sides. It is obvious that Australia lack depth, but just because their 'B' team lost to Scotland (in horrendous conditions) it does not mean they don't deserve the number 2 ranking in world rugby!

Australia did lose to scotland... A team that I think went through the 6 nation without a single win... 2011 tri nations doesn't really mean much both NZ and SA fielded 2nd string teams and lost those games.

I'm really looking at the way they are playing, I think England are playing better than the welsh in some areas and to me the boks look better than Aussie

to me the boks look like NZ main threat for the Rugby Championship.

all moot though, need to get the super15 out of the way lol

 

[Darwin]

Australia did lose to scotland... A team that I think went through the 6 nation without a single win... 2011 tri nations doesn't really mean much both NZ and SA fielded 2nd string teams and lost those games.

I'm really looking at the way they are playing, I think England are playing better than the welsh in some areas and to me the boks look better than Aussie

to me the boks look like NZ main threat for the Rugby Championship.

all moot though, need to get the super15 out of the way lol

As I mentioned in the next sentence, an Australia 'B' team lost to Scotland in horrendous conditions - I don't know why people continue to put this forward as an indication that Australia aren't a very good team

South Africa fielded a weakened team against Australia in one of the last 4 matches they played....how do you explain the other 3? I'm not at all suggesting that Australia are clearly a better team than South Africa, but based on recent history Australia have had the better of South Africa. Australia haven't been that convincing against Wales, but last time I looked they won the series 3-0, while South Africa won the series against England (a lower ranked opponent) 2-0. England may be better than Wales 'in some areas', but there is a reason why Wales are the 6 Nations champions - they are a very good side!

We will certainly find out a lot more during the Rugby Championship, but anyone who thinks Australia will not be a big threat in the tournament 'because they lost to Scotland' is in for a big surprise!

 

[racingmetrofan]

As I mentioned in the next sentence, an Australia 'B' team lost to Scotland in horrendous conditions - I don't know why people continue to put this forward as an indication that Australia aren't a very good team

South Africa fielded a weakened team against Australia in one of the last 4 matches they played....how do you explain the other 3? I'm not at all suggesting that Australia are clearly a better team than South Africa, but based on recent history Australia have had the better of South Africa. Australia haven't been that convincing against Wales, but last time I looked they won the series 3-0, while South Africa won the series against England (a lower ranked opponent) 2-0. England may be better than Wales 'in some areas', but there is a reason why Wales are the 6 Nations champions - they are a very good side!

We will certainly find out a lot more during the Rugby Championship, but anyone who thinks Australia will not be a big threat in the tournament 'because they lost to Scotland' is in for a big surprise!

A 'B' team by definition is the second team. I don't think a team with these players: 'Anthony Fainga'a, Mike Harris, Digby Ioane; Berrick Barnes, Will Genia; Scott Higginbotham, David Pocock (capt), Stephen Moore' can really be described as a B team.

 

[Darwin]

A 'B' team by definition is the second team. I don't think a team with these players: 'Anthony Fainga'a, Mike Harris, Digby Ioane; Berrick Barnes, Will Genia; Scott Higginbotham, David Pocock (capt), Stephen Moore' can really be described as a B team.

Semantics. The point is that the team that played Scotland was far from their 1st choice team - it had a few 1st choice players (Ioane, Genia, Pocock, Higginbotham, Sharpe), but the majority where 2nd choice players (a number who had just played 2-3 days ago!). Whatever you choose to call the team that played Scotland, it is blatantly obvious that their performance is not a fair indication of the quality of Australia's 1st choice team.....