Team Rankings - Full list & Overall ratings

[flanku]

Originally posted by Springbok@Mar 4 2005, 06:29 PM
Look...SH rugby is great...NH rugby is great...I can't see what the fuss is about!

Sheeeeesh people! This is a rugby 2005 forum...lets try and stick to it okay?

My dear Bok, I think you nailed it. Made me remember and go look up a recent quote of Eddie Jones (who as well all know is the current coach of AUS)...

"There are definately areas where Super 12 is better than the English Primiership but there are definately areas where the Premiership is better than Super 12," says Jones.

Rugby World (Export Issue), March 2005. p. 122

Now back to R2005...

 

[flanku]

Originally posted by captainamerica+Mar 5 2005, 08:50 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (captainamerica @ Mar 5 2005, 08:50 AM)</div>

Originally posted by Handsomebob@Mar 5 2005, 07:38 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-captainamerica

@Mar 5 2005, 06:11 AM


So let's get back to the topic at hand: 
Why are the USA ranked way below Canada by 13%?  

Correct me if i'm wrong but this game is developped in CANADA........

that may be an element of answer to you're questions.

Handsomebob -- you've cracked it.

You Canadians are all gonna die!*







* = eventually, cause that's the way it is in this life. You live. Then you die. And I hope you all lead happy, long and full lives to much satisfaction. Assholes.

[/b]

Blasted Canucks!!!! Captain, let´s start our own North v South post war with those tree-huggers from north of the boarder. I´ll start....

Our Super League is better than theirs!!!!! Toronto isn´t fit to shine the boots of OMBAC!!!! yeah, I said it. Who wants some?!?!?!

 

[captainamerica]

Yyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

LET'S HAVE IT!



It would be nice though if their club champs and ours dueled it out each year. And why don't we have a regular 3 test series or something with them -- It's not like either of our international schedules are full. So depressing.

We both almost had Argentina's goat in like '95 or '96. And then, boom, Los Pumas began to rocket up like sick beauties at a rave.

So, what I'm really saying (watch how I work this back to topic) is that it'd be nice if we could have the Canadian and US Super Leagues in Rugby 2006. At least that, or a customized team/league to create our own.

In other news, whenever I travel to England we fly over parts of Canada. During that portion of the journey, I make sure I'm in the toilet flushing continuously.

 

[flanku]

Originally posted by captainamerica@Mar 5 2005, 11:52 AM
Yyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

LET'S HAVE IT!



It would be nice though if their club champs and ours dueled it out each year. And why don't we have a regular 3 test series or something with them -- It's not like either of our international schedules are full. So depressing.

We both almost had Argentina's goat in like '95 or '96. And then, boom, Los Pumas began to rocket up like sick beauties at a rave.

So, what I'm really saying (watch how I work this back to topic) is that it'd be nice if we could have the Canadian and US Super Leagues in Rugby 2006. At least that, or a customized team/league to create our own.

In other news, whenever I travel to England we fly over parts of Canada. During that portion of the journey, I make sure I'm in the toilet flushing continuously.

Captain, you are sublime in your prophecies...

I would go so far to say that we should have a unified super league, with extended geographic divisions to make it possible, (e.g., Vancover v Aspen, Chicago v Toronto, NY Old Blue v Montreal)....hell it works for hockey!!!

The national sides would be that much better for it, and we'd be giving Los Pumitas a run for the queisadillas in no time.

But wait, where are the Canucks!!!!!! Come on you hockey-playin' fake french speakin tossers....

 

[Geoff]

First off: I would definitely say that we are better than you Americans, but not by that much. I have to agree with CaptainAmerica, 7-8 points would be much more realistic.

We don't like to talk about the French too much, at least out here in Vancouver. As for the NHL, a pair of American lawyers have stopped that . . . . I'm not bitter, why do you ask?

A North American club competition would be sweet.

 

[flanku]

Originally posted by Geoff@Mar 5 2005, 02:11 PM
First off: I would definitely say that we are better than you Americans, but not by that much. I have to agree with CaptainAmerica, 7-8 points would be much more realistic.

alright, no arguments from me. But just remember if you guys get too good up there we'll just have to annex the whole of Canada (like we've been secretely planning since the '50s anyway). On second thought, not the whole of Canada, we couldn't support the have-not Quebecois and their incesant whining, would have to send some Bush storm troopers to shut 'em up good.

 

[Geoff]

Originally posted by flanku@Mar 4 2005, 07:36 PM
we'll just have to annex the whole of Canada (like we've been secretely planning since the '50s anyway). On second thought, not the whole of Canada, we couldn't support the have-not Quebecois and their incesant whining, would have to send some Bush storm troopers to shut 'em up good.

You know what, just take Quebec. We'll keep the Trans-Canada highway for a land route to the Maritimes, but you can have the Quebecois.

 

[Mr DesRE]

there is no way the ospreys should be ranked so lowly at all!!!

 

[contepomi]

Where are Leinster and how good are they??

 

[captainamerica]

Leinster were missing from the original post, but they are in the game and they are a 70 rating.

Originally posted by Geoff
You know what, just take Quebec.

But seriously, I'll take them with pleasure. The amount of porn coming out of Montreal is wonderful.

 

[Symclaw]

Originally posted by Mr DesRE@Mar 6 2005, 02:21 PM
there is no way the ospreys should be ranked so lowly at all!!!

you took the words right out of my mouth. I'm a scarlets fan all the way, but the Ospreys are takin the **** at the moment. Anyway i don't think the ea staticians(?) are up to date with the rankings.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by captainamerica+Mar 8 2005, 08:41 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (captainamerica @ Mar 8 2005, 08:41 AM)</div>

Leinster were missing from the original post, but they are in the game and they are a 70 rating.

<!--QuoteBegin-Geoff

You know what, just take Quebec.

But seriously, I'll take them with pleasure. The amount of porn coming out of Montreal is wonderful. [/b]

What was it the great Bill Hicks said about porn?

 

[SmokeyMonkey]

Bath 71
Biarritz 77
Bourgoin 74-->55 what a load of ****! 74? My arse!
Brescia 51
Cardiff 54
Castres 60
Edinburgh 67-->bout 54 (we beat em twice this season!)
Glasgow 52
Gloucester 77
Richmond 63
Leicester 81
Llanelli 71
London Wasps 80
Munster 78
Neath-Swansea 51-->71-75 (Ok bad heineken cup but amazin league!)
Newcastle 66
Newport 58-->65 at least (Hey we beat Neath Swansea)
Northampton 65
Perpignan 72-->67 They're good but not that good
Paris 73
Toulouse 80-->85 They're a top class team!
Treviso 48
Ulster 57

This is really messed up! Above are what some of them should be.

Edinburgh at 67! what a load of ****!
Brescia are not in the heineken cup!
Neath Swansea should be about 20 points higher, ok they did **** in the cup but they had the celtic league pretty much won by christmas! Which should make them at least equal to Munster!

 

[rugbynewbie]

never would have guessed us Americans are that terrible at rugby

 

[cavan]

Leinster are 71, not on that list. Should be higher..

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Originally posted by SmokeyMonkey@Mar 9 2005, 10:29 PM
Newport 58-->65 at least (Hey we beat Neath Swansea)

Perpignan 72-->67 They're good but not that good

Toulouse 80-->85 They're a top class team!



This is really messed up! Above are what some of them should be.

Edinburgh at 67! what a load of ****!
Brescia are not in the heineken cup!
Neath Swansea should be about 20 points higher, ok they did **** in the cup but they had the celtic league pretty much won by christmas! Which should make them at least equal to Munster!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Newport 58-->65 at least (Hey we beat Neath Swansea)[/b]

Got killed by Saints in pre-season, who are only 65. May not have been full strength but neither were we.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Perpignan 72-->67 They're good but not that good[/b]

Very true.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Toulouse 80-->85 They're a top class team![/b]

Again, full-strength Toulouse were beaten by Saints in Heineken, and we only get 65. They're not all that amazing.

And Brsecia are there becuase EA don't have the licensing to call Calvisano correcty.

 

[SmokeyMonkey]

Yeah I think Saints should be higher, Munster a bit lower and Leicester lower a bit too.
But as you said we weren't at full strength when you beat us. And it was pre-season. AND we were away to you (I think).

And is the Celtic league in this game anyone?

 

[cavan]

CL is not in. If EA had of put Connacht and Borders in, it would have been possible.

 

[SmokeyMonkey]

So lemme get this straight the Zurich preiership is in it, a league where half the teams are not in the heineken cup, and they are clubs anyway.
And the Celtic league isnt in it and most of the teams are provinces and almost all of them are in the Heineken cup.

 

[cavan]

ZP is not in, nor is CL.