World Rankings after the RWC!!!!

Men's Rankings 

Updated: 02 November, 2019

2019
 
NOVEMBER
 
SUNDAY 3RD
 


I looked at the world Rankings, at it said SA 1 NZ 2 ENG 3RD.

I thought England would be 2nd, after they (England) Beat NZ

is THIS RIGHT OR DOES IT NEED UPDATING.?

dISCUSS.

FULL RANKINGS
























































[th]POSITION[/th][th]TEAMS[/th][th]POINTS[/th]

[size=13][b][size=10][b][size=13][b][size=10][b]1[/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size]	(2)	SOUTH AFRICA	[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10]94.19[/size][/size][/size][/size]		[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10] [/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=13][b][size=10][b][size=13][b][size=10][b]2[/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size]	(3)	NEW ZEALAND	[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10]92.11[/size][/size][/size][/size]		[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10] [/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=13][b][size=10][b][size=13][b][size=10][b]3[/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size]	(1)	ENGLAND	[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10]88.82[/size][/size][/size][/size]		[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10] [/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=13][b][size=10][b][size=13][b][size=10][b]4[/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size]	(4)	WALES	[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10]85.02[/size][/size][/size][/size]		[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10] [/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=13][b][size=10][b][size=13][b][size=10][b]5[/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size]	(5)	IRELAND	[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10]84.45[/size][/size][/size][/size]		[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10] [/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=13][b][size=10][b][size=13][b][size=10][b]6[/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size]	(6)	AUSTRALIA	[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10]81.90[/size][/size][/size][/size]		[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10] [/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=13][b][size=10][b][size=13][b][size=10][b]7[/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size]	(7)	FRANCE	[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10]80.88[/size][/size][/size][/size]		[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10] [/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=13][b][size=10][b][size=13][b][size=10][b]8[/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size]	(8)	JAPAN	[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10]79.28[/size][/size][/size][/size]		[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10] [/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=13][b][size=10][b][size=13][b][size=10][b]9[/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size]	(9)	SCOTLAND	[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10]79.23[/size][/size][/size][/size]		[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10] [/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=13][b][size=10][b][size=13][b][size=10][b]10[/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size][/b][/size]	(10)	ARGENTINA	[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10]78.31[/size][/size][/size][/size]		[size=13][size=10][size=13][size=10] [/size][/size][/size][/size]

I think during the WC, WR have been updating almost instantly...unlike usually when it's after 12 midday on Mondays.

So I'd assume if SA is Number 1 then it's an immediate and accurate update post the Final.

It's still all about points per games... ABs must have had enough cushion not to fall so far when the final result was taken into account

England lost points (double) and NZ gained points with their win over Wales

Cheers Old Man.

Somewhere Taylorman is feverishly writing about how the ABs beat the RWC 2019 Champs in the group stages and QED they should share the trophy

Pie wrote:Somewhere Taylorman is feverishly writing about how the ABs beat the RWC 2019 Champs in the group stages and QED they should share the trophy

One day I genuinely believe you'll post something of more than negative value, so keep reaching for the starts young pie, you have so much promise, I believe in you.

Old Man wrote:England lost points (double) and NZ gained points with their win over Wales

Yeah thing about the rankings is they wait for no one. For their last matches England lost, NZ won, they move on. Who cares anyway. Rankings meant nothing this tournament. Three different sides were ranked no. 1 in the last few weeks, none made the final.

Taylorman wrote:

Old Man wrote:England lost points (double) and NZ gained points with their win over Wales

Yeah thing about the rankings is they wait for no one. For their last matches England lost, NZ won, they move on. Who cares anyway. Rankings meant nothing this tournament. Three different sides were ranked no. 1 in the last few weeks, none made the final.

So, lets just say that Wales beat NZ. Would it be SA, ENG, Wales, NZ? Or would it be SA Wales, ENG, NZ?

I dunno, it is what it is. You'd need to work it out. Being the last 'winners' I'd say the latter. We were forth I think going into the play off and ended up second due to Wales and England both losing, NZ winning.

Depends on their respective points but would be something like that.

majesticimperialman wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Old Man wrote:England lost points (double) and NZ gained points with their win over Wales

Yeah thing about the rankings is they wait for no one. For their last matches England lost, NZ won, they move on. Who cares anyway. Rankings meant nothing this tournament. Three different sides were ranked no. 1 in the last few weeks, none made the final.

So, lets just say that Wales beat NZ. Would it be SA, ENG, Wales, NZ? Or would it be SA Wales, ENG, NZ?

I really don’t think it matters to be honest, rankings are not accurate over a longer period anyway due to teams not playing the same opponents over a certain period.

Old Man wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Old Man wrote:England lost points (double) and NZ gained points with their win over Wales

Yeah thing about the rankings is they wait for no one. For their last matches England lost, NZ won, they move on. Who cares anyway. Rankings meant nothing this tournament. Three different sides were ranked no. 1 in the last few weeks, none made the final.

So, lets just say that Wales beat NZ. Would it be SA, ENG, Wales, NZ? Or would it be SA Wales, ENG, NZ?

I really don’t think it matters to be honest, rankings are not accurate over a longer period anyway due to teams not playing the same opponents over a certain period.

Yes if anything it proves its accurate to the last match, not the second to last, if teams are that close.

Taylorman wrote:

Old Man wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Old Man wrote:England lost points (double) and NZ gained points with their win over Wales

Yeah thing about the rankings is they wait for no one. For their last matches England lost, NZ won, they move on. Who cares anyway. Rankings meant nothing this tournament. Three different sides were ranked no. 1 in the last few weeks, none made the final.

So, lets just say that Wales beat NZ. Would it be SA, ENG, Wales, NZ? Or would it be SA Wales, ENG, NZ?

I really don’t think it matters to be honest, rankings are not accurate over a longer period anyway due to teams not playing the same opponents over a certain period.

Yes if anything it proves its accurate to the last match, not the second to last, if teams are that close.

I very seldom pay attention to rankings, one match can move you from 1-4 or 4 -1 depending on circumstances, how does the result of one match mean you are now better than three teams, or worse than three teams?

I know which teams we struggle with and which we don’t, I don’t need rankings for that.

Yeah rankings system is a tough guide, its more about who loses rather than who wins. SA only lost once this year so are number one. NZ lost 2. England 3, Wales 5, and thats how they sit 1-4.

SA could have won thirty, but lose two of those, no more number one.

Taylorman wrote:Yeah rankings system is a tough guide, its more about who loses rather than who wins. SA only lost once this year so are number one. NZ lost 2. England 3, Wales 5, and thats how they sit 1-4.

SA could have won thirty, but lose two of those, no more number one.

And that is exactly why the rankings are a pissing contest for fans, they wet themselves when their team is number one ( Damn, have to change my nappy again) then boast about their team being number 1 with a margin of .076 and think they are the bees knees.

Like when we faced Wales in the semi final, I never looked at th3 rankings, nor cared what they were. I knew and still know that we struggle against the style of play Wales play.

What does the rankings tell me? That the opponent is .45 better or worse than us?

Utter nonsense, the results against them are what counts, not rankings.

Must I now feel cocky next time we play them because our ranking has now significantly climbed due to double points. Meh.

Yeah that true. 0.45 tells you nothing, more should tell you something, but it doesnt seem to. Ireland went into the tourney as number one. Theyre now 5th nearly a whole ten points behind SA.

People keep suggesting nobody should 'rank' the rankings as anything other than meaningless...and yet people seem to get so triggered by them/irritated by them/ annoyed by others who place some stock in them.

They obviously mean something if so many want others to ignore them.  For my part, all they are is an accurate (by virtue of them being free from human opinion) calibration of present success rates of International sides, based on a set number of factors that never change.

Yes, nothing guarantees a win but the game required to be played to win it.  I think the better attitude is to perhaps regard the rankings as harmless rather than meaningless.

Fly, the rankings will only have value for me if there is a global competition where everyone plays everyone.

Otherwise the rankings are false.

They're not 'false'. Clearly. Just limited. There's a difference. They accurately reflect results within the metric they operate. Considering NZ lost to SA, Ireland, Oz, drew with SA, and then lost to England in the last 18 months, they've lost their position in the rankings. So be it. Seems fair tbh, although the double points of the losses always punish the loser of the bronze play off, as I think Wales are closer to England than the points suggest.

False, limited, all the same thing, the rankings are not accurate.

It is fine if people want to hold onto them, I don’t.

I don’t give to smidgeons about them, when we face an opponent the only thing that matters are head to head results.

In what sense aren't they accurate though?

We all know the 'real' rankings in terms of quality and prowess and skill and everything else goes:

1. NZ
2. SA
3. England
4. Australia
5. France...!?
6. Wales/Ireland

and then the rest.

But that's pointless because that's not how rugby works. Otherwise let's not play pool games and award the RWC to NZ every time...wait...

The rankings reflect results within the metric they've chosen. They're imperfect but I think there's a big difference between that and calling them 'false'.

Of course they're false. SA are number one and we beat them, so there!

Just when ireland were really number one in 2018 when Ireland beat NZ remember...

False as.....

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:Somewhere Taylorman is feverishly writing about how the ABs beat the RWC 2019 Champs in the group stages and QED they should share the trophy

One day I genuinely believe you'll post something of more than negative value, so keep reaching for the starts young pie, you have so much promise, I believe in you.

Somewhere Taylorman is feverishly writing about how the ABs beat the RWC 2019 Champs in the group stages and QED they should share the trophy

Whatever T man says the Boks just hammered the side that hammered the ABs. SA are best side in the world.

Pie wrote:Whatever T man says the Boks just hammered the side that hammered the ABs. SA are best side in the world.

Yeah well, it’s a very first. Never has a winner lost in the tournament, until now. At least history doesn’t always repeat, though much of it has this round.

The idea you can use 'history' of the RWC as a solid indicator is ridiculous. The first 3 tournaments were basically amateur or literally amateur so you can scrap those. The next 3 were completely different styles of rugby compared to what is played today, basically a different sport, even if 2007 did introduce how kicking would be used for the near future.

It was probably a better bet to bet on the winner losing a game this time around than it would have been remaining undefeated. The 2 favourites pre tournament played each other in the groups, for starters. The next favourite had 2 back to back tricky group games and, if the game had gone ahead, were likely to heavily rest and rotate their team, heightening the chance they'd lose a group game. You then include the next in line - the dark horses, Wales - and with their nemesis Australia, it wasn't out of the question, nor was Australia themselves becoming the dark horses having beaten NZ pre tournament.

Literally stupid to use history where they have been 5 professional tournaments before this one. 'It hasn't happened before so it's unlikely to happen again'. Right. Clever. Good use of statistics and context...

miaow wrote:The idea you can use 'history' of the RWC as a solid indicator is ridiculous. The first 3 tournaments were basically amateur or literally amateur so you can scrap those. The next 3 were completely different styles of rugby compared to what is played today, basically a different sport, even if 2007 did introduce how kicking would be used for the near future.

It was probably a better bet to bet on the winner losing a game this time around than it would have been remaining undefeated. The 2 favourites pre tournament played each other in the groups, for starters. The next favourite had 2 back to back tricky group games and, if the game had gone ahead, were likely to heavily rest and rotate their team, heightening the chance they'd lose a group game. You then include the next in line - the dark horses, Wales - and with their nemesis Australia, it wasn't out of the question, nor was Australia themselves becoming the dark horses having beaten NZ pre tournament.

Literally stupid to use history where they have been 5 professional tournaments before this one. 'It hasn't happened before so it's unlikely to happen again'. Right. Clever. Good use of statistics and context...

Like I said, history has repeated on many facets.

One, Ireland have never got beyond the quarters. Repeat.
Two, Wales have never got past semis, repeat
Three, a SH side has again won the tournament, repeat, as it has 8 from 9 occasions.
Four, side that beats NZ generally loses their next match...repeat, as it has every time bar 91.
Five, we had a NH vs SH final, as has happened in all bar two of the 9.
Others...only time these two finalists met, same team won.

As I said, many key things have repeated this time around as things that always, or almost always, happen.

Don’t know what garbage you’re on about. Youve gone off on a tangent that has nothing to do with why I mentioned aspects of this tournament are repeats from previously..simple.

As the great Forrest Gump said, Stupid is as Stupid does.

lol, dunning kruger

Current trophy holders in tier one that I know of...:

Boks: WCup, Rugby Championship
Wales: 6N, Triple Crown
NZ: Bledsiloe cup (v Oz), Dave Gallaher cup (v France), Hillary Shield (v England), Freedom cup (v SA)
Scotland: Calcutta cup (v England), 5 nations (forever holders since 1999), Hopetoun cup (v Oz)
England: Cooke cup (v Oz)

Ireland/ France/ Argie/ Oz/ Italy...

Taylorman wrote:Current trophy holders in tier one that I know of...:

Boks: WCup, Rugby Championship
Wales: 6N, Triple Crown
NZ: Bledsiloe cup (v Oz), Dave Gallaher cup (v France), Hillary Shield (v England), Freedom cup (v SA)
Scotland: Calcutta cup (v England), 5 nations (forever holders since 1999), Hopetoun cup (v Oz)
England: Cooke cup (v Oz)

Ireland/ France/ Argie/ Oz/ Italy...

And your point is?

Constellation Cup....

majesticimperialman wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Current trophy holders in tier one that I know of...:

Boks: WCup, Rugby Championship
Wales: 6N, Triple Crown
NZ: Bledsiloe cup (v Oz), Dave Gallaher cup (v France), Hillary Shield (v England), Freedom cup (v SA)
Scotland: Calcutta cup (v England), 5 nations (forever holders since 1999), Hopetoun cup (v Oz)
England: Cooke cup (v Oz)

Ireland/ France/ Argie/ Oz/ Italy...

And your point is?

No point Maj, just updating who's got what after this tournament, take it how you want it. Mind you, should add the Womens and Sevens ones, the site didnt have those...

Pal Joey wrote:Constellation Cup....

Ha ha, and the rest!

.we let that one slip as well, it wasnt a good weekend as we lost the League to Oz as well, but enjoyed watching NZ/ Oz (aka Tonga) beat the Kanga's

So did I! I thought that match had great intensity... almost like a State of Origin. Our blokes needed a good slap to bring them back down to earth.

I'm just glad that our winning both the RWC and CWC record in 1999 is still intact. Had a horrible sinking feeling we might have seen it equalled last weekend - albeit with an asterisk for the cricket.  (Thanks Biltong)

Hey, don’t forget that England is the only nation to hoist aloft the rugby, cricket and football world cups

Cyril wrote:Hey, don’t forget that England is the only nation to hoist aloft the rugby, cricket and football world cups

????



So when they win the football World Cup?

"NZ: Bledsiloe cup (v Oz), Dave Gallaher cup (v France), Hillary Shield (v England), Freedom cup (v SA)"

So basically only the Bledisloe, as the others aren't recognised as anything meaningful in any sort of way.

Also, how do they have a Shield for beating England when they lost to them?

Also, why tf is this relevant?

Cyril wrote:Hey, don’t forget that England is the only nation to hoist aloft the rugby, cricket and football world cups

They're about the only country that plays all 3, that's why.

Don’t worry Miaow, I’m including Wales in the England (and Wales) Cricket Board. Hope you didn’t give away your medal.

Not sure Glamorgan counts as a country tbh Cyril.

You do know that England Cricket also includes Wales, yes?

Of the top 6 sides in the world rugby rankings, five play rugby and cricket to a top level. Wales, NZ and Aus also are pretty good at football, if not top-Tier.

Yes, well aware. But it's really not a sport that's played in Wales. Just the poshest, closest to the border part, really. The irony is, ofc, that it literally doesn't even have its own standalone team. That's how much of an irrelevance it is. That's how the politics of those playing the game differ vastly from, say, rugby and, in particular, football in Wales. Cricket really isn't a sport that's played in Wales. It would be some way down the list, whereas in England, the top 3 sports are literally rugby, football, and cricket in the cultural and, I'd also assume, participation stakes.

It's basically only 3 countries who play all 3 - Oz, NZ, and England. 2 of those are useless at football and, in the global game, are afterthoughts who rarely make the WC, and that's always been the case.

So my point still stands. England are basically the only country that competes in all 3 because it's the only country that takes all 3 seriously. But go for it, enjoy it if you want!



Now THIS is off topic...

miaow wrote:"NZ: Bledsiloe cup (v Oz), Dave Gallaher cup (v France), Hillary Shield (v England), Freedom cup (v SA)"

So basically only the Bledisloe, as the others aren't recognised as anything meaningful in any sort of way.

Also, how do they have a Shield for beating England when they lost to them?

Also, why tf is this relevant?

You're actually asking for 'relevancy' on this forum?
The OP is about the latest rankings. i have posted the latest trophy holders, as they too have changed.

I'd say if you used that little part of your brain, if you can find it, that's does a thing called 'thinking', you just might find a semblance of 'relevance'.

But let me know if you cant find it...that part that is. And if you are going to respond 'why tf' to anyone, don't cry later on that you're being picked on as you have, capische?

Still it goes on?

Why the heck aren’t Taylorman and Miaow banned yet for ruining this forum?

How many warnings do they need?

Cyril, my post was about Rugby. It was relevant to the OP and I don't appreciate being sworn at. If I have to explain myself in the simplest possible terms then I will. My post was not directed at Miaow. It was simply a comment about the state of things trophies.

He is finding the time to question everyones right and ability to post and thinks he can decide what people can and can'y say. Not just mine. I am not the only one rebuffing his 'petty attacks' yet you are ignoring that fact.

He is having awkward, childish conversations with multiple posters, not just me,where I am not. Im thinking hes actually Gwlad, who used to post very similarly earlier. Not that that matters, as it was he that was trying to second guess who everyone was- Old man- Biltong for example.

All my fault. I take full responsibility for going off topic, miaow. Sorry.  

Cyril wrote:Hey, don’t forget that England is the only nation to hoist aloft the rugby, cricket and football world cups

Not in the same year though - which is something quite unique. This could have been your year though.

Well they invented all three so you’d think they’d be good at them. None of the rugby world countries take all three as seriously as England do anyway. South Africa and Oz do with two and are average at football, the rest either don’t play cricket or Footballet enough to be contenders.

You're so toxic Cyril it's unreal. It's almost like you forgot your posting habits circa 2009-2017.

Yes, T, I'm asking why just listing meaningless cups is in any way useful to the thread. Not leat as it seems incorrect. Wales should have some non-entity cup for beating Australia in both 2018 and 2019. NZ probably shouldn't still have whatever who-cares-made-up-"trophy" for losing to England the other week.

The only cup that matters if SA are World Champions.

To a lesser extent, that Wales hold the 3C and the 6Ns matters and that SA the RC likewise.

The rest are irrelevant and not competitions, they're nominal trophies - most of them modern excuses to pretend that friendlies have something riding on them.

It feels like a needless cope from you to try and distract from the fact NZ failed to win both the Lions Tour and now the RWC. Do you want a participation medal from 606 to add to the list?



There you go.

Taylorman wrote:Well they invented all three so you’d think they’d be good at them. None of the rugby world countries take all three as seriously as England do anyway.  South Africa and Oz do with two and are average at football, the rest either don’t play cricket or Footballet enough to be contenders.

thanks for needlessly repeating this ...

Meanwhile poor old Scotland dont even have a wooden spoon to wave