Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nickdnz" data-source="post: 710191" data-attributes="member: 38640">You are right that regardless whether a team wins all their 6 Nations matches, they won&#039;t progress to #1 - simply because they points they gained were not against high enough opposition in the ranks in push past New Zealand. However you are wrong that high ranking points provide a cushion. As an example, had New Zealand lost one more match this year on the EOYT, and South Africa had won their match against Ireland, South Africa would have been the #1 team. The rankings are actually very dynamic, there has been only one occasion since NZ team became the #1 ranked team in 2009 that they lost two matches in a row, both were away games in the 2011 Tri Nations. Had Australia not lost to New Zealand in their first leg, they would have been the #1 ranked team. The reason that there isn&#039;t a lot of movement in the #1 rankings isn&#039;t because New Zealand have built a cushion, it&#039;s because they have consistently won series and not lost back to back matches (which would make the rankings fluctuate more even if it resulting in the same number of wins over a series.To show how dynamic the rankings are, one simply has to look at the rankings of Australia and Ireland. It would only take a few key losses and a few wins for the second ranked team, for NZ to slip to second.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nickdnz, post: 710191, member: 38640"] You are right that regardless whether a team wins all their 6 Nations matches, they won't progress to #1 - simply because they points they gained were not against high enough opposition in the ranks in push past New Zealand. However you are wrong that high ranking points provide a cushion. As an example, had New Zealand lost one more match this year on the EOYT, and South Africa had won their match against Ireland, South Africa would have been the #1 team. The rankings are actually very dynamic, there has been only one occasion since NZ team became the #1 ranked team in 2009 that they lost two matches in a row, both were away games in the 2011 Tri Nations. Had Australia not lost to New Zealand in their first leg, they would have been the #1 ranked team. The reason that there isn't a lot of movement in the #1 rankings isn't because New Zealand have built a cushion, it's because they have consistently won series and not lost back to back matches (which would make the rankings fluctuate more even if it resulting in the same number of wins over a series. To show how dynamic the rankings are, one simply has to look at the rankings of Australia and Ireland. It would only take a few key losses and a few wins for the second ranked team, for NZ to slip to second. [/QUOTE]

Verification