By mudskipper
August 28th 2008 @ 12:06am
Loading ...Wallabies playing for a favourable RWC draw
The Johannesburg Test could be the most important match for the Wallabies before the next RWC. While the Durban win was a landmark achievement for Robbie Deans, it also elevated Australia to second position in the IRB World Ranking, bumping out South Africa.
So what’s so important about the IRB world rankings in 2008?
Wel, the IRB rankings at the end of this year’s international season will be used to determine the 2011 Rugby World Cup seedings.
Furthermore, the draw for the next rugby World Cup will be made in London on December 1.
For the first time, the International Rugby Board (IRB) rankings will be used to split the leading teams between pools, with the top twelve as of midnight November 30 automatically qualifying.
If the Wallabies remain second in the IRB rankings, they are likely to acquire a more favourable draw for the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. Additionally, they are not likely to play the first ranked team - currently held by the All Blacks - until the final.
So, unexpectedly, the Johannesburg Test has more meaning than it was first realised and becomes an exceedingly important contest. A win could present the Wallabies with a favourable path possibly though to the final and a gifted opportunity to win a third World Cup championship.
The IRB World Rankings are calculated using a ‘Points Exchange’ system in which sides take points off each other based on the match result.
Whatever one side gains, the other loses.
So if the Wallabies win, they take points away from the Springboks, helping them secure the second place ranking before December.
The exchanges are based on the match result, the relative strength of each team, and the margin of victory. And there is also an allowance for home advantage.
For the Wallabies, the Johannesburg Test is one worth winning. And by the greatest possible margin.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(32)
ohtani's jacket said | August 28th 2008 @ 12:36am | Report comment
Aren’t you getting a bit ahead of yourself?
Favourable draws? World Cup Finals?
Jerry said | August 28th 2008 @ 6:46am | Report comment
A lot can change in a couple of years and rankings as in 08 don’t really mean much when looking forward to 2011. Right now, both Wales and Argentina are ranked above France but I’d doubt many teams would rather have France in their pool than either of those two. Targetting seeding/ranking more than 2 years out from the tournament is a bit pointless really.
Also, Aus would avoid the #1 ranked NZ team even if they were seeded 3rd.
Mart said | August 28th 2008 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Jerry agree - you only need to look at the Poms who have reached / limped to the final in the last 2 RWCs despite having not the most favoiurable draws….
Jerry said | August 28th 2008 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Which is even more illustrative as England were in fact the number 1 seeded team in the tournament - that easier run SA got to the final was supposed to be for England.
True Tah said | August 28th 2008 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Mudskipper,
the title of this thread is misleading.
The wallabies are playing to win, we should forget about the bloody world cup for now.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 28th 2008 @ 9:52am | Report comment
We have learnt from this year’s 3N that test rugby teams can only play two high intensity games in two weeks, particularly when they play such a physical brand of rugby as we have seen in the 3N this year. Then they fall over in the third game.
Qtr final, semi final give way to the third game being the final and exhaustion. The 3N, it has been an issue for one team. In the RWC, it will be for both teams. No surprises then that seedings and draws are so important and that the final is historically such a dud game.
Here is a thought, have a similar arrangement to the 7’s tournament with a plate trophy final with the traditional rivalries(USA V Japan; Scotland V Samoa; Fiji V Wales) and 3 V 4 on the weekend after the semi. The final is then on the following week, allowing the finalists two weeks to recover and recharge batteries for the final.
Sadly, NZRU might be financially broke from the RWC by then and then broken hearted when the Dingo coached Wallabies lift the cup for the third time!!!!
Jerry said | August 28th 2008 @ 10:14am | Report comment
“We have learnt from this year’s 3N that test rugby teams can only play two high intensity games in two weeks, particularly when they play such a physical brand of rugby as we have seen in the 3N this year. Then they fall over in the third game.”
This has been a bit overstated, IMO. There’s been 3 blocks of 3 tests in a row so far and while teams haven’t played well in the 3rd tests, there’s been a lot of other factors in play (such as injury to key players and where the matches were played).
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
ohtani’s jacket…perhaps I’m a little ahead events…but nonetheless the next RWC draw is happening on December 1, 2008… I was really surprised to read that the RWC draw being carried out so far in advance of 2011 and started to think about the implications. The Springbok, while always a strong contender, had a very favourable RWC draw in France last year and won.
It always gets down to the top 6 teams at the world cup and is it a huge advantage to avoid playing to many the dominate teams later in the tournament and keep your squad fresh and with minimal injuries… At the next RWC the All Blacks will most likely be the highest ranked team and with have the home advantage. I don’t think any real contender will what to play the ABs before the final. However once in the final anything can happen.
So the 2008 IRB rankings will be the only ones that count for the 2011 RWC seedings and the fact that IRB rankings will change over the next couple of years wont change the draw…
The most favourable draw always goes 1 and 2 seedings…I guess like tennis…who wants to play Federer or Nadal before you have too…
As I understand the NZRU RWC committee have requested an early draw to work out suitable stadiums for matches, as some countries will likely have larger crowds that will require more facilities. This will also assist the committee to allocate games around smaller regional cities in New Zealand. Cities have been invited to put forward a submission if their City would like to host a RWC event. Limited assets partnered with the desire to maximise the 2001 RWC profit have lead to this usual circumstance for an early draw.
Best to be a master of your own destiny I think…than let fate play its cruel hand…This draw only effects the top 12 teams other nations still are required to compete for inclusion.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Jerry, go on and tell me the Boks will win this weekend. They have everything against them, making the actual reason for a loss hard to distill. And sport, being as it is, loves throwing us upsets. Despite all of this, if both teams turnup, and I’m not fully convinced about the Wallabies, yet, the Boks will run out of steam in the third quarter and the Wallabies will win going away!!
TT, while I hate all the RWC explanation, justification and focus so far out (remember the farce of 2007), for us spectators, it is worthy of a discussion as long as it doesn’t cloud the coaches view.
I don’t know of any Roarer that can influence the international coaches, despite all the bravado and opinion that flows so freely here!!!!
Jerry said | August 28th 2008 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
They may not, but even if they do lose on Saturday it won’t be solely down to the fact that it’s their third TN test in succession. In case you haven’t noticed they lost the first two also.
Aus didn’t lose in Auckland cause they ran out of steam in the second half, they got smoked from start to finish, and while the AB’s did noticably tire in Sydney, I think a large part of that was the NZ gameplan (rather than fatigue from prior matches) tiring them out.
I’m not saying playing 3 tests in succession isn’t gonna be a factor, but I think the significance of it has been a bit overstated is all.
ohtani's jacket said | August 28th 2008 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Mudskipper,
At the end of the day the WC is about winning seven Tests in a row regardless of who you’re drawn with. If you start thinking too much about the draw, you start looking past the quarters like Mr.Henry did.
From a New Zealand standpoint, we’d much rather be in a pool with Australia, but that will never happen.
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
True Tah…Yes the Wallabies want to win…However this article is about the outcome and how it can affect the Wallabies RWC 2011 draw…when the RWC comes around second seeding would be excellent.
By no means are I pronouncing that the Wallabies will win the Webb Ellis trophy…
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
ohtani’s jacket…I don’t think Deans will make Henry’s mistake…I would also think Deans will be very happy with the second seeding…Wallabies should have a good strong squad by 2011…
Jerry said | August 28th 2008 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Mudskip - on current rankings (assuming in the pool stages 1st is paired with 8th, 2nd with 7th etc) 2nd seeding would see Australia have a pool with France (ranked 7) rather than Wales (ranked 6). Is that really preferable? Maybe, based on the previous 6N form, but it’s not really possible to pinpoint which teams will be strong in 2011. I don’t think it’s really possible to say that being seeded 2nd as opposed to 3rd will be of any advantage at all come 2011.
True Tah said | August 28th 2008 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Jerry,
would rather have the Welsh in our pool, our chances of losing to them are miniscule, they crumble the moment they cross the Severn River.
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Jerry…The seedings will change by the end of November and the Wallabies will need to win games in the Northern Hemisphere this summer. The Wallabies play: Italy, England, France and Wales for important IRB ranking points. However winning points form the Springboks will help the Wallabies hold second ranking.
The Northern Hemisphere tests will be tough against genuine national A teams… I understand many of you think this is just academic… its just an interesting observation…which could affect the Wallabies RWC outcome…
As for the Springboks if they don’t improve and their rankings continue to slip, it will become exceedingly difficult for the Boks to defend their championship title…
I would anticipate France to be 3-5 in rankings by December…I’m not sure about England or Wales…Ireland could be in trouble…Argentina will be 6-7…
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
At the next RWC in the Southern hemisphere I would back the Wallabies against any nation but the All Blacks at home…
It’s nearly a home tournament for the Wallabies…
Jerry said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
My point isn’t that it’s academic, my point is that so much can change in 2 years there’s no way of predicting whether being seeded 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc will be any advantage at all. Wales might drop down to 7 or the Wallabies might drop down to 3 and you won’t really know what significance that has till 2011.
You mentioned SA may drop in the rankings and end up with an unfavourable draw - well, in theory they had one at the 07 World Cup - they were paired up with the number 1 seeded World Champs in their pool. In practice they had the easiest route to the Webb Ellis trophy of any World Champ so far. England’s reward for being seeded 1st in 03 was to get what turned out to be the 2nd ranked team in the world in 07.
It’s like relying on the long range weather forecast - you simply can’t plan too far ahead with any useful degree of certainty.
ohtani's jacket said | August 28th 2008 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
I understand what you’re saying Mudskipper, but I think there are more immediate goals in mind than the World Cup.
You could say they’re playing for history (45 years since the last victory at Coca Cola Park), you could even say they’re playing for a series victory in South Africa, but mostly, as Giteau has stated, they’re playing from a team point of view. The number two ranking would be nice, a favourable WC draw would be nice, a victory with a bonus point would be very nice, but the solidarity as a team is the key point.
That didn’t really address your article. BEWARE the English draw.
Jerry said | August 28th 2008 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
“Coca Cola Park”
Yuk, that just sounds WRONG.
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
It’s not about certainty…its about probability
It’s a mathematical question and is academic. So below are 3 mathematical theories, which cover our assumptions…
Probability theory: is used extensively in areas such as statistics, mathematics, science and philosophy to draw conclusions about the likelihood of potential events and the underlying mechanics of complex systems.
Decision theory: in mathematics and statistics is concerned with identifying the values, uncertainties and other issues relevant in a given decision and the resulting optimal decision.
Game theory: is a branch of applied mathematics which attempts to mathematically capture behaviour in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others. While initially developed to analyse competitions in which one individual does better at another’s expense (zero sum games).
I’ll apply Probability theory… I’m sure Professor Robbie Deans will…
ohtani's jacket said | August 28th 2008 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
I’m keenly antipating whether the Boks will be as intimidating at Coca Cola Park as they were at Ellis Park. What’s in a name? Same altitude, same history, same overbearing crowd. I freely offer this to Pieter de Villiers as an excuse. The name Coca Cola Park doesn’t inspire his men to die in war. Strange how de VIlliers dropped that analogy. Lost the war, but can still win the battle — at Coca Cola Park.
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
ohtani’s jacket…yep years of hard work before the RWC… and a possible Wallabies win at Ellis Park after 45 years is an significant objective…
However this article is just a this is just helicopter view of wants happening with the IRB rankings in December 2008.
Peter K said | August 28th 2008 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
Muskipper - Who evers says the IRD does anything fairly or logically.
The rankings are virtually meaningless except if you are 4 or 5 or 8 or 9.
You are put into bands and then allocated to pools randomly. So seed 1 could have seed 5 and 9 in its pools, and seed 4 could have seed 8 and 12 it it. Another joke.
Read below
======================
The draw itself will see the 20 team places allocated into four pools of five teams. In an exciting move, and as announced earlier this year, the IRB World Rankings - as they stand on December 1 this year - will be used for the first time to band the 12 automatically qualified teams for the draw.
“The top four teams in the rankings will be allocated to band one - or the top line in each pool - and drawn randomly into the pools. The next four teams will be allocated into band two with the remaining four teams allocated into band three.
“The eight remaining qualifying places will be allocated into bands four and five according to playing strength and also drawn randomly,” Lapasset added.
===============================
If you were doing it by seeds then in the QF you want 1-8,2-7,3-6,4-5
so the pool should have 1&7, 2&8, 3&5, 4&6
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
I agree but you really don’t what to play the first seed before the final…
H-RAINE said | August 28th 2008 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
i think the pools should be :poola nz pomies welsh samoa georga poob pumas french figi canada usa poolc aussies scots tongans romania portugal poolc sa irish italy japan zimbabwe ? what do you think
Peter K said | August 28th 2008 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
muskipper the top 4 seeds are allocated to pools randomly. That to me inplies that the 1 and 2 seeds could play in the semi and the 3 and 4 in the other semi. Otherwise its not random.
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
H-RAINE…your on the right track…that’s an excellent example of applied probability theory…who would most likely make the final from your pools?
Probability Theory: is used extensively in areas such as statistics, mathematics, science and philosophy to draw conclusions about the likelihood of potential events and the underlying mechanics of complex systems.
Chris Ash, syd Aust said | August 28th 2008 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
good article skipper - i enjoyed the read no matter what others say - always good to future plan so to speak, esp when things are looking brighter for our boys.
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 6:42pm | Report comment
Peter K…I thought 1& 2 were split…It’s not 100% clear at any web site or article I found…it makes more sense if they are split… I understand the rest is random…
Sandy B said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
What’s the problem with playing the kiwis in the SF anyway - we have a pretty good success rate - “4 more years”!
H-RAINE said | August 29th 2008 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
i think the 8 qualifying teams will be australia nz sa argen poms french scots irish they qf should be nz french argentines poms aussies irish sa scots id probably go semies nz vs sa aussies verse arg/poms 3vs4 sa pom/argentina final nz aus eden park final stirlos last game