dropkick wrote:The average ranking of the big NH 5 (Ireland, England, France, Scotland, Wales) is now ahead of the average ranking of the SH big 4(NZ, Aus, SA, Arg). 10 years ago they were averaging about 10 ranking points ahead.
This is a point that was not lost on me also, although I had not looked at the averages. There were however no NH sides in the last four at the last RWC. Have they (we) improved that much since? Or are the SH sides building towards the next RWC without much regard for their rankings between tournaments?
Whilst the Bledisloe Cup is pretty important to Australia and NZ, I don't see the same intensity in the games between NZ and RSA that there used to be. Whereas the Six Nations is still massively important to the NH sides.
Transformation has been a big road bump for SA [which they are over now]. Remember that we absolutely humiliated them 38-3 in November? I couldn't see anything like that happening again on the back of their performances against England under Erasmus.
Argentina are typically poor between RWCs and very competitive when the heat comes on in the world cup. Cheika was saying before our tour that Australia had done their rebuilding work in the immediate aftermath of RWC15 and lost a bit of ground then, but that the vast majority of their work is done and they are now focusing on the performances and results, rather than on experimenting with selection and tactics. Interestingly I think the Kiwis are still putting some blocks in place - they're still obviously a superb outfit, but I think they have a few more moving pieces than they had in the build-up to either of the last RWCs.
Scotland and Wales away in 6N will offer us the biggest chances to earn points provided they stay roughly the same (or better) and we don't lose any games before them (which would probably cause us to lose too many points to challenge NZ). Ideally we beat both of them by >15 points to maximise ranking point earnings.
As it stands Italy away and France at home offer us no ranking points to win and England at home is minimal. A loss to any would see us lose ~2 pts.
Oldschool wrote:So at what stage in the 6Ns can we overtake NZ and grab the No. 1 spot.
Unless of course Italy do something ridiculous against NZ 2nds next weekend.
We need, at a bare minimum, to beat the USA on Saturday and then win the Grand Slam in order to overtake BNZ.
Other results this weekend could have a big impact on what we need so firstly we need to beat USA and we need England Scotland and Wales to all win too. With all four teams winning this weekend then we'd 'only' have to win the 5 games to take the #1 ranking.
If any of England, Scotland or Wales lose then we need to beat Wales by more than 15 points in the final game (beating England or Scotland by more than 15 wouldn't be enough)
If any two of England, Scotland or Wales lose then we will have to beat Wales AND either England or Scotland by more than 15
#LiveLifeLoveLeinster
#BeSeenBeHeardBeBlueBELIEVE
I'm a Book Mark and damn proud of it. Storm 1:08 forever
Oldschool wrote:So at what stage in the 6Ns can we overtake NZ and grab the No. 1 spot.
Unless of course Italy do something ridiculous against NZ 2nds next weekend.
We need, at a bare minimum, to beat the USA on Saturday and then win the Grand Slam in order to overtake BNZ.
Other results this weekend could have a big impact on what we need so firstly we need to beat USA and we need England Scotland and Wales to all win too. With all four teams winning this weekend then we'd 'only' have to win the 5 games to take the #1 ranking.
If any of England, Scotland or Wales lose then we need to beat Wales by more than 15 points in the final game (beating England or Scotland by more than 15 wouldn't be enough)
If any two of England, Scotland or Wales lose then we will have to beat Wales AND either England or Scotland by more than 15
How do you do this!!!
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role.
I've got nothing against your right leg.
The trouble is ... neither have you
Oldschool wrote:So at what stage in the 6Ns can we overtake NZ and grab the No. 1 spot.
Unless of course Italy do something ridiculous against NZ 2nds next weekend.
We need, at a bare minimum, to beat the USA on Saturday and then win the Grand Slam in order to overtake BNZ.
Other results this weekend could have a big impact on what we need so firstly we need to beat USA and we need England Scotland and Wales to all win too. With all four teams winning this weekend then we'd 'only' have to win the 5 games to take the #1 ranking.
If any of England, Scotland or Wales lose then we need to beat Wales by more than 15 points in the final game (beating England or Scotland by more than 15 wouldn't be enough)
If any two of England, Scotland or Wales lose then we will have to beat Wales AND either England or Scotland by more than 15
How do you do this!!!
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Ah it’s easy cause it’s just numbers - there’s no emotion, no opinions it’s pure logic.
#LiveLifeLoveLeinster
#BeSeenBeHeardBeBlueBELIEVE
I'm a Book Mark and damn proud of it. Storm 1:08 forever
No doubt somebody (possibly @Xanthippe) will know the answers to these queries:
1. Are rugby competition results e.g. The Rugby Championship, more valuable than RWC warm-up friendlies e.g. Ireland v Italy last Saturday?
2. Based on the possibility that Wales might have graduated to No 1 in the World Rankings had they beaten England in Twickenham over the weekend, what impact had our result against Italy on Sat?
3. Given our remaining fixtures against England and Wales pre-World Cup and the one remaining fixture NZ have before RWC19, is there any sequence of results that will have us as No 1 before our first RWC game against Scotland on Sept 22nd?
I know that as the home team we started with a differential of 16 + 3 = 19 ahead of Italy, but I have no idea of our "core" factor in calculating the impact of different results.
1. No. All test matches are the same value. Bar double points for RWC games.
2. Wales were no 1 for 24 hours. England knocked them back down. If the last English try had stood then it would be
NZ
England
Wales
Ireland
Because you get extra for beating someone by more than 15 points.
Italy are more than 10 points below us meaning they could lose 250 nil and still not lose points nor us gain any. Had we lost to them though we would have dropped like a stone. Esp at home
Yes we could end up number 1 by winning all our games not sure how many more nz would have to lose. Perhaps none or one. Ill have a look tomorrow if xantippe doesn't cure her insomnia with calculations later.
johng wrote:
2. Wales were no 1 for 24 hours. England knocked them back down. If the last English try had stood then it would be
NZ
England
Wales
Ireland
Because you get extra for beating someone by more than 15 points.
Sorry John but no result for England yesterday could have put them ahead of us as long as we won our game. If England's last try had stood we would have been second, Wales third and England fourth in the rankings that come out today
If the game had been played in Wales a 19-33 scoreline would have had the same result as above however a 19-40 score would have given your result of England second and us third
Last edited by Xanthippe on August 12th, 2019, 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#LiveLifeLoveLeinster
#BeSeenBeHeardBeBlueBELIEVE
I'm a Book Mark and damn proud of it. Storm 1:08 forever
Even with a huge win NZ are unlikely to stay top for the WC. There would have to be a fairly serious set of results to stop at least one of the three (Ire Eng Wal) passing them
The anomalies of this ranking system are clearly demonstrated when England bypass South Africa into 4th place by virtue of a home win in a friendly against Wales whilst S Africa won away in a Championship competitive fixture against Argentina.
Nothing rests on their relative ranking but it does irk me that an irrelevant "warm-up" game is deemed as significant as a competitive fixture.
Ruckedtobits wrote:The anomalies of this ranking system are clearly demonstrated when England bypass South Africa into 4th place by virtue of a home win in a friendly against Wales whilst S Africa won away in a Championship competitive fixture against Argentina.
Nothing rests on their relative ranking but it does irk me that an irrelevant "warm-up" game is deemed as significant as a competitive fixture.
It always seems odd that the warm ups are allowed to have test status.
Ruckedtobits wrote:The anomalies of this ranking system are clearly demonstrated when England bypass South Africa into 4th place by virtue of a home win in a friendly against Wales whilst S Africa won away in a Championship competitive fixture against Argentina.
Nothing rests on their relative ranking but it does irk me that an irrelevant "warm-up" game is deemed as significant as a competitive fixture.
That's the thing - if RWC games can all be double points then is would be so simple to make all 'friendlies' half points
#LiveLifeLoveLeinster
#BeSeenBeHeardBeBlueBELIEVE
I'm a Book Mark and damn proud of it. Storm 1:08 forever
Ruckedtobits wrote:The anomalies of this ranking system are clearly demonstrated when England bypass South Africa into 4th place by virtue of a home win in a friendly against Wales whilst S Africa won away in a Championship competitive fixture against Argentina.
Nothing rests on their relative ranking but it does irk me that an irrelevant "warm-up" game is deemed as significant as a competitive fixture.
That's the thing - if RWC games can all be double points then is would be so simple to make all 'friendlies' half points
Then they'd have to define what constitutes a friendly as opposed to a test match.
Ruckedtobits wrote:The anomalies of this ranking system are clearly demonstrated when England bypass South Africa into 4th place by virtue of a home win in a friendly against Wales whilst S Africa won away in a Championship competitive fixture against Argentina.
Nothing rests on their relative ranking but it does irk me that an irrelevant "warm-up" game is deemed as significant as a competitive fixture.
That's the thing - if RWC games can all be double points then is would be so simple to make all 'friendlies' half points
Then they'd have to define what constitutes a friendly as opposed to a test match.
Every game played where three or more teams compete for a title or trophy used to be the old IRB Definition of a competition. Any competitive fixture under this definition could be included. Double points for RWC fixtures (because every Nation is eligible) and half points for one-off fixtures.
Seems fairly straight forward and would add to credibility of World Rankings
