- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
It is a glimmer of a memory now, but it was only a couple of matches ago that Ireland was running on hot emerald flames, and was the second best team in the world. Now the Wallabies have taken over, accompanied with a swagger unique to Aussies.
This confidence will do a world of good for the Wallabies, especially after putting away ‘the most powerful nation on earth’. But let us not get carried away.
What are the rankings really used for anyway? Fresh from World 15 selections, the men from The Hangout share their thoughts.
RobC says: The world ranking is not about how good your team is. Its main purpose is to organise national teams for the Rugby World Cup.
While All Blacks fans might point to their massive ranking points margin as an indicator of their leadership, I would suggest they point instead to their trophy cupboard. In there has nestled the Bledisloe Cup since 2003, the Freedom Cup since 2010 and the Webb Ellis since 2011.
The image below illustrates the importance of ranking in the World Cup. It does not matter who is number one or two. Based on the current regime, the goal is to be ranked in the top four at the time when the draw is held.
Not only is The Hangout dissatisfied with the how the World Cup pools are organised, there is also consternation about the rankings itself. Does it make sense? But first we look at how it currently works.
Three principles of rank calculations
Firstly, it is all about rank points, which you will exchange with your opponents after every game. If you win the game you take away those rank points from the loser. Conversely, if you lose, you lose those rank points to the winner. The calculation is shown in the chart below.
Secondly, if you are on top, you have to work twice as hard on your consistency to stay there. The most you will gain is one rank point for a win, unless it is a big win. Whereas if you are lower rank, you may gain up to two rank points for a win.
Final consideration is the context of the win. If you win big you get more points. Similarly you do not want to lose big. If you win away, you take even more points.
Biltongbek says: In my view teams should benefit from seedings, in other words if you look at the manner in which knockout tournaments such as tennis do their seedings the best players benefit from only meeting each other at the appropriate knockout phases.
There are reasons why tennis has seedings, because organisers want the best players to meet in the final. It brings more hype, revenue and crowds.
Below is how this Rugby World Cup should have looked. The anomaly with taking rankings at a specific period is just a window in time, not a true reflection of where teams were throughout a sustained period. If you used average ranking from January 2012 to December 2014 there is no way the rankings would have looked like that.
Ben Gibbon says: So this might be in contrast to others but I personally am not dissatisfied with the current system. The best system is one that rewards teams outside of the top 12 to qualify for the tournament.
Realistically, the top 14 teams will have been competing for the top 10 spots for the last few decades and will continue to in the future. So my focus is more on creating a platform that allows other countries to break through into that cohort.
I also don’t mind the relative ranking order as it means that one team (in this instance the All Blacks) can’t progress too far ahead of the field as to make it uncompetitive.
I do not agree, however, with step two and the random draw of ‘pots into pools’. I feel that World Rugby (IRB) is missing a trick that other sports have been exploiting for years.
As Biltong raised, tennis has used seeding to ensure that the highest ranked players – the players that draw the most attention – meet in the final stages. I think that World Rugby is missing out on significant revenue by not undertaking likewise.
If I were given the reigns and asked to improve the ranking system I would introduce a system that encourages point scoring – add a 25-point victory incentive on top of the 15-point bonus.
Diggercane says: For me, the system doesn’t suitably reward consistency of performance nor does it take into account likely variables.
There is no consistent home-and-away template in the international game so the rankings need to reflect that. I feel a simplified numbers system can be devised.
For discussion sake:
– Winning home team gains two points, loses three for a loss
– Winning away team gains three points, loses two for loss
– Draws – one point for home team, two for away.
It’s not perfect but it’s more pertinent to home advantage, a strong influence in the Test game when you consider the crowds but also travel.
I would personally do away with the variable of margin. There are numerous reasons – injury, end-of-season tours, referee decisions – which can have an influence on a match and 15 points is not that big a gap. If deemed necessary to have, I would look at 30-plus.
Harry Jones says: Rugby teams who sporadically play each other, especially if unevenly home-and-away or at different ends of a session, aren’t easily compared or ranked.
Also, unlike a goal margin in soccer, rugby scores can (in a particular Test) flatter or deceive. A late intercept try against the run of play with a final forward off-load that fools a TMO can turn a one-point loss into a six-point win. Or a 10-minute triple-try blitz can turn a tight tussle into a blowout.
I’d have an algorithm, but set up a wise star chamber of rugby jurists (I’d be perfect) to factor in matters that don’t appear on the scoreboard. It’s the only way to inject common sense into rankings.
RobC’s final word: The good thing about the ranking and the draw, is its similarity with the FIFA World Cup. As Ben alluded, it generally works and all key stakeholders buy into it.
But there are issues.
Biltongbek busted the first problem. The schedule of games should follow their seed, like tennis. This will incentivise nations to get better to improve their chance to win the Web Ellis. It is little wonder why home nations continue to flounder below the southern hemisphere. They can just sit there and still get a decent shot to win the cup.
Ben believes the draw should increase opportunities for other countries, instead of rolling out the same tired names. In cricket, Sri Lanka got a fair crack in 1996. As a result, they defied convention and perception and won the World Cup. Why can’t rugby have a similar thing, by allowing for an ‘in-form wildcard’ to have a favourable draw?
The point swap formula after a match result seems to make sense. But, as Diggercane and Harry described, 15 points seems too low to be considered for a big win bonus. The other issue is the uneven number of home and away games between hemispheres.
A big one highlighted by Harry is about schedule. It currently favours point swapping within respective hemispheres. It is similar to having two conference system like the Americans but pretending to be one. It makes as much sense as the Super Rugby 2016.
Until these are corrected, our respective nations will just have to win the Web Ellis by being the better team on the day, every day – no matter who they face. I guess it is similar for every other trophy.
So Roarers, have the rankings fooled you? Is there a better way?
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.