It is official: the IRB’s ranking system is the most flawed system in the world at the moment.
For the record this includes, in no particular order, the world’s banking system, the London Olympic ticketing allocation system, and even FIFA’s football nation ranking system.
It can be summed up in this statement on the IRB website: “Ireland, blown away 60-0 by the All Blacks, rise one (place)…”
Yes, that’s right, the Irish this week have traveled up the rankings going from eighth to seventh this week after what could only be described as one of the worst performances in living memory.
The mind boggles as to how this could be possible and how poor the rankings system must be.
What makes this all the more peculiar is that Wales, who lost another close match to the second ranked team, by one point mind you not 60, dropped two spots from fourth to sixth.
The problem is not that an effort is being made to keep the rankings up to date, each Monday midday UK time as it were, but that it is not done on an averaged-out system rather than game by game.
As it stands, points are taken off each team that plays each other. Point allocation or point loss depends on the two respective rankings, whether the game is home or away and of course the result. It also takes into consideration the points difference in the match.
You wouldn’t have thought this based on the fact that Ireland actually went up one place this week. Games at the Rugby World Cup are given double point significance, which seems the only sensible thing about the rankings system.
The problem with this is it is mathematically possible for the All Blacks to refuse to play any more matches and remain in first place possibly for the rest of humanity’s time on earth.
At this point we also need to suspiciously congratulate the very clever Scots for managing to manufacture a June itinerary specifically to rankings jump.
Full credit to them for spotting an opportunity to take some very valuable points from a vulnerable and naive Wallaby team, who were three days between a Super Rugby round and four days before another major Test match. John O’Neill fell for this one hook, line and sinker and the Scots whistled all the way to the rankings bank.
They also should be given a lot of credit for scheduling their other matches against two Pacific Island nations that were keeping them out of the top 10. By defeating both Fiji and Samoa and the big scalp of Australia all away from Scotland, they have risen from 12th to ninth simply by playing the system in their favour and coming up with the goods.
If they can maintain their form this puts them in much better standings for the RWC 2015 draw this December where rankings are key to first be included in the draw automatically, and secondly to be in a favourable pool or half of the draw.
In any case the IRB ranking system is flawed because the top three nations tend to predominately play each other so much that they only ever give and take points from each other and so never really drop down the rankings.
If Argentina can get into fourth place it will surely become a case of the top four nations simply perpetuating each other to stay the top four, leaving the European nations and the odd Pacific Island nation to vie for the fifth to 10th positions for the rest of eternity.
At the moment, the top 10 looks like this:
1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. England
5. France
6. Wales
7. Ireland
8. Argentina
9. Scotland
10. Samoa
I know my top 10 would have a much different order. What would yours be?
In the meantime, let’s pray that the Wallabies lose by 60 points to New Zealand in August and jump straight to the top of the ranking.
Jerry
Guest
So who is ranked 5?
Matthew Skellett
Guest
This is the thing about the rankings system -the gerry-mander is that if the "1st Tier "countries only play each other then their relative "ranking" will remain unchanged into perpetuity -you had a situation (before this year) where no matter how many games Scotland lost , no matter how badly they played , they NEVER sank to worse then # 10 in the rankings -Well thank goodness for the Olympics -because the scene is now going to change exponentially and about time too. Money , Population and Rescourses now are the major factors -slowly but surely Russia, China , Brazil , Canada and the USA will use their relatively stronger elements to affect the change that needs to happen anyway-more open and mor competitive tournament structures and better outcomes for the many rather than the few and this means in effect that in the next 2-3 years you'll see the AB's get a couple of red cards as well as their fair share of yellow ones and so it should be :-)
Top 3 as it stands. I would have Wales at 4, England 5, France 6, Argentina 7, Scotland 8, Ireland at 9, Samoa 10.
Ben S
Roar Guru
Change the record... or the name, 'Jarmen'... (yawn) (i) It's more sensible to draw conclusions from a greater pool of results; (ii) The SH sides rarely, if ever, send 'experimental squads North; (iii) I never referred to any specific side having injuries, it was a broad comment... Thanks now.
Rob9
Guest
Correct, they're 6th according to the only rankings that count. I believe they are the 3rd best team in the world right now and my guess is that over the next year in the lead up to the lions they'll cement that position in world rugby.
Sircoolalot
Guest
Wales are not 3rd full stop no matter how you try and justify it.
Rob9
Guest
As I said, tough call to make. Probably the tightest one in the top 10 but there’s a few reasons. First and foremost, a 6 Nations Grand Slam is quite an achievement (roughly one occurs every 3 years) and should be viewed as such. Regardless of how close some of the games were, they won 5 from 5 against tier one countries and that represents a domination of the northern hemisphere’s premier competition. If you want to talk about individual games and how close they were, I know there are a few Welsh people who felt completely robbed the last time the two teams in question met. The one point ball game on neutral soil last year with that controversial Hook penalty ring a bell? Regarding your points to do with the world cup, you can’t take away from the fact that Wales went further than SA at the tournament. Staying alive longer to me is a reflection of a team’s success. Again, if you want to talk about individual games, SA were close in their game against us (Australia) but it isn’t beyond belief that had a few calls gone the way of the dragons against the French, they very well could have made their first WC final appearance in Auckland. And we know what happened in that game (the final). Your stat about the games the two countries have played since the beginning of the WC last year is quite misleading. SA have played 8 games for a 6 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss record. Wales have played 15 games for a 9 wins and 6 loss record. Furthermore, of those 15 games, 12 have been against tier ones while of SA’s 8, 5 have been against tier 1 opposition. I’ll concede that the June test series hasn’t done a lot for the Welsh claim to cement a spot in the top 3. But from watching all games, the Boks weren’t convincing by winning 2.5 games at home against the 6 Nations runners up while the Welsh seriously rocked the Wallaby (second in the world) boat twice on our own shore. All still very close but the clincher for me is the fact that if a game were held between Wales and SA tomorrow I’d back the Welsh in. Although there’s still a pile of talent getting around in the Republic, I think it will take a little while for the boks to find their feet with the heart of their pack ripped out after NZ. Wales on the other hand a much more settled team.
Bazza
Guest
Whenever SA put out their top XV against Oz, the Boks win. Simple.
Carl Unger
Roar Pro
At least 10-20 is looking realistic
Swapacrate
Guest
It seems to me Wales are getting ranked highly by beating Ireland - WCup. No disrespect to Ireland but hardly earth shattering. And winning two very close games in 6 nations. The Bokkas are getting pushed down the rankings by some peoples calculations, doesnt make sense.
Swapacrate
Guest
How does Wales get so high above SA and if you use June Tests and RWC & 6 nations WCup - Wales lost 3 times once to SA WCup - Australia - Lost 2 times once to Ireland and NZ WCup - SA - Lost once and were mighty unlucky if you ask me.they completely dominated, glad they lost frankly be scary game for AB's WCup - France were 2nd, but lost to Tonga and NZ twice. WCup - Ireland lost once WCup - England lost once WCup - NZ didnt lose one - close game though 6 Nations - Wales won all, 2 very close games, so did not dominate Halfpenny penalty puts Wales 23-21 ahead in last minute against Ireland England scores in last minute and no try. England lost once, but this game could have been anyones, if the TMO saw something different, and England would have the SLAM, and by this ranking then 3rd, after losing 2 games to the boks. Wales not convincing enough to rocket to 3rd ahead of boks on 6 nations evidence IMHO Finally Tour Wales 3-0 loss Ireland 3-0 loss England 2-0.5 SA 2.5-0.5 loss/draw Oz 3 - 0 NZ 3 -0 So how does Wales go ahead of SA on 3 losses and a very close 6 nations, considering Wales has not beaten boks for ages, and the boks have only lost one game and drawn one. In that time wales have lost 6 times, and one of them was to the boks. I think the bokkas are getting slightly ripped off.
I don't think the AB's will stop playing rugby any time soon so we may have avoided a crisis. I was of course using a license to exaggerate to possibly gain a chuckle. Good to know you guys are on your toes!
I agree with you. that way the year after the world cup can be used to start building a new side if need be for the next world cup instead of having to pick tried and tested to stay high in the rankings for another 12 months. When you consider we have the lions next year that doesn't leave a lot of time to bring young players through... at leats until after the lions test series methinks.
kovana
Guest
Also to Werewolf, the author, What Would be YOUR current top 10?
kovana
Guest
ALSO. If the ABs stopped playing for a few years... Their rating may be deemed to be 'dormant', in which case they will be removed from current ranking lists.
kovana
Guest
Far too much hyperbole and exaggeration in this article 1. The ABs were playing the 8th ranked team, and there was a HUGE gulf in ranking points. So no loss in ranking points to Ire.. They were expected not to win. 2. Wales and Aus were ranked very close, which is why Wales was expected to win at least one match... they didnt, and thats why points were exchanged. 3. Argentina lost to France.. AT home... by more than 15.. Simples. The take home points are these.. 1. Try and win every match. 2. Dont expect points to be exchanged between teams where there is a huge gulf in ranking points. 3. Dont LOSE AT HOME!
Dasher
Roar Guru
"The problem with this is it is mathematically possible for the All Blacks to refuse to play any more matches and remain in first place possibly for the rest of humanity’s time on earth." This is not exactly true. If: 1. NZ hang up the boots. 2. Australia maintain a ridiculous unbeaten streak against SA, bearing in mind that after a while only Australian wins on South African soil will count,. 3. And SA never lose to anybody else to maintain a healthy IRB rating. (If it drops too low, it will cease to push up Australia's.) ... tttthhheeennn Australia can reclaim the number one spot! (I suppose the same applies for SA, but let's not entertain that thought.)
formeropenside
Guest
The ranking system is stupid. I would just use the seeding from the last RWC for 1-8, with regional tournaments for the balance 12 spots.
Swapacrate
Guest
I think ranking points suck for the world cup, I remember the Boks were top, for a little while after world cup, not dissing the world cup win. But the world cup has created an unhealthy attitude towards consistency, and double points just doesn't make sense, for some flukey wins or flukey draws. The world cup ruined last years tri nations the Boks and NZ had a different game plan to OZ, it could of backfired, but it didnt for NZ. Where they rested a lot of players in some of the games, which lost them some cohesiveness in some games. Anyway I digress In my opinion Australia can be awesome or they can have mairs hence my rankings, which are based on my version of the truth, and not who beats who in one off games. Its all about my version of consistency. 1. NZ 2. Meat eaters 3. Austalia - (Samoa & Scotland & Ireland) . . . 4. France (France are hopeless at the moment, but when the get a good coach this could change) . 5.England (Isee England on the up and are dark horses) 6.7. Wales and Ireland . (Ireland beat Australia, Wales beat Ireland, Australia beat Wales 5 times & 3 times with a depleted squad, I think Ireland would have given this depleted Aus team a run as well) Australia has a talented 15, when they are all fit, but for this series they were not fit. Wales won 6 nation, but I think any of those teams could have won it, as in this Welsh series it was the bounce of the ball, on a couple of occasions. 8.9.10. Argentina, Scotland Samoa. If Samoa has its best team it could even jump up to 6&7.
Jarmen
Guest
Yes but it was a three game series B-Rock the ABS wiped the floor with the Irish in two other tests surely this has to count for something? The Irish go up a spot and the ABs points barely changes what a joke the Irish didn't win a single match. They at their best got close to the ABs at near their worst yet still LOST