How accurate are the world rugby rankings?

Its NZ but based on the history of S15 not the current season

They only have to beat one of them to advance. If Aus can't do that then they deserve to on the plane home.

Using the same ranking system that makes the Waratahs the top team in SR. Shows how flawed that system is. In my humble opinion I would rank the wallabies 4th. AB, then SB then Ire then Aus. England and Wales would be next. I think playing the ABs and boks regularly hurts australia as the depth gets shown up. If every second match was against Scotland. Italy or the like it would enable comfortable victories where points could be harvested.

Not a hope about the crowd I am afraid

Soccer play friendlies out of WC tournament. . There is nothing friendly about a Rugby test between the ABs and the springboks

Funny

South Africa selects one third of its team from foreign-based players. ...Jake White insisted on that after their teams were weak for 5 years before he took over a decade ago. Their strength immediately returned. Now however many disillusioned South Africans have refused to make themselves available for selection or are seeking foreign national colours Rory Kockett, Bernard Roux and Antonie Claassen for France etc etc). The process of Wallaby desertion is well underway now (Drew Mitchell, Digby Ioane, Ben Mowen, Matt Giteau etc etc) and in 5 years time it may start affecting NZ.

The loss to France in 2007 was perhaps the only time over the past 15 years that the ABs came close to not getting the "rub of the green" from ref close calls. Don't get me wrong, they are the best side and as such have even the refs in awe of their dominance.

I think a draw should attract some ranking points. 11 Welsh players might have played in the starting 15, but there were a lot of England players on the bench and in the squad. When injury replacements are included, I doubt there were many more Welsh players on the Lions tour than English. You could make the case that England have greater depth, but this is Japan we're talking about not Samoa or Fiji where you could expect a hiding if you're not up to speed. I think all, or at least the vast majority, of Welsh players were Pro 12 or playing in French/English leagues. There's no way they should have lost to Japan so I think it's justified they lost ranking points because of it.

I've no problem admitting that the ABs have been the best team in the world since probably 2004. However, the reason they lost in 2007 was only marginally 'the referee'. Barnes performance has assumed some sort of fantasy as part of a collective Kiwi psychosis brought on by the national 'trauma' of losing a competition every Kiwi had convinced themselves they only had to turn up to win. Graham Henry's unhinged later identification of dozens of penalties Barnes allegedly 'missed' (was it 30, 50, 100, 1000) poured oil on the fire. The touch judge missed a forward pass (I've seen worse in SR this year); and the French played to where Barnes was policing the offside line which at most may have been marginally more favourable to the defence than some other interpretations - but this is marginal stuff. He was consistent with both sides. The Yellow card was justified. The ABs lost because with bags of possession they couldn't break the French down and began to panic - not the hallmarks of a champion side. The key thing, though, is that if that game had been played in Wellington or Paris not during a World Cup the ABs would have won easily. The combination of pressure and the preparation and motivation of the French made a totally different game than a June series or EOYT. It's this that explains the ABs RWC record relative to their overall win/loss ratio not some bizarre 'acts of God'. In terms of comparable ref performances I don't see major differences in Joubert's performance relative to Barnes; and the ref performance that put the Boks out in the Semi was on a whole other planet. In 2003 Watson kept the Aussies in the game with some very weird scrum penalties. Everything is magnified to a weird degree with Kiwis and rugby. Illnesses two weeks before a match become 'ebola-like' viruses in which it's incredible the brave boys even make it on the pitch. A couple of ref mistakes become the worst refereeing performance in the history of the game etc etc.

What about a draw? If Scotland or Italy drew in in Eden Park no ranking points. Agree we should not have lost to Japan, but 11 Welshmen played in final Lions test, and the team in Japan had 3rd and 4th string players. Yes England toured Argentina but their player losses to Lions were much less and the Argentine team was missing a lot of its "Euro" players.

One of the great mysteries to me is Wales recent record against Australia. I'm an England fan so when looking at Wales-Australia my main reaction is it's a pity both can't lose, so in this debate I can claim to be genuinely neutral. The only explanation I can come up with for the ridiculous 13-1 deficit (even though many of those games were by a couple of points or so) is that there must be some sort of mental block with the Welsh against the Aussies. In terms of playing styles I would have thought the Aussie weaknesses (pack; physicality; set-piece etc) are perfect for Wales strengths. If I look at both teams I don't think I'd take one Aussie forward above their Welsh counterpart. The two in the running would be Moore and Hooper/Pocock. While I think Hooper/Pocock would get into the England team, I'd take Warburton above either (at least the post-injury Pocock). Moore is on a par with the Welsh hooker(s) so don't think he would add much. In the backs I'd take Kuridrani; and one of Folau and Speight (you'd have to keep Halfpenny for his kicking and North). The halfbacks are a toss-up and I'd have Roberts above any Aussie 12. That makes the number of Aussies in a joint Welsh-Aussie team between 2-4 at the most. I'm not having ago at the Wallabies, I find it a genuine mystery; I suppose it's the ultimate 'sum being more than the parts'.

That's because you've never known another side where 13 of the 15 starters came down with food poisoning. Neither have I. That doesn't change the fact that they suffered from food poisoning. If you think the performance of the referee in 2011 is on par with 2007, you simply don't understand the laws of the game. Which makes sense given your ramblings. A RWC doesn't showcase teams at their peak. No comp does. there are too many mitigating factors (although if W Cups are a judge there are only 3 sides capable of beating say the All Blacks and the only one in the NH wears blue).What leagues do, like a series of games, is give a better indicator of true strength, as opposed to knockout tournaments where a lesser team can have a good day/ a better team a bad one and a single poor reffing display can affect the outcome of a single match. This is common knowledge as well as commons sense. That's the whole reason teams have series and we have leagues. World Cups are a celebration of the game, but they're not the best indicator of the best team. The idea that England would have topped the Tri-Nations or the Rugby Championship 3 times or more over that period is plain ludicrous. They beat NZ once during that entire period in NZ by 2 points, in a game where the AB no. 8 dropped the ball cold before the line for a match winning try and the Fly Half for the ABs had his worst kicking performance of his entire AB career. The NH sides have been ranked lower because they have been lesser. They're playing collectively almost as well as ever and improving their rankings because of it. If it was more advantageous to play high ranked sides to raise your ranking and the NH sides have been as good as the Wallabies and when the rankings first came into existence England were number 1, why haven't the NH sides stayed at the top with all those games they got to play against the number 1 side at the time? Perhaps it's because what matters most is winning games, consistently, no matter the situation, time or place. Something NH sides aren't particularly good at.

Chris, I think of your 3 'faults' I'd only agree with number 1. If England were behind Wales in the rankings before the RWC, they should have been immediately afterwards as well. With number 2; all the individual British Lions teams tour while the Lions series is on. England toured Argentina. No Wales 2nd/3rd XV should lose to Japan. With number 3; I think a loss is a loss. I don't think you should get points for being 'gallant' losers.

Yes; you're right; that makes sense.

Just to back this point up - in that period we're examining England's points rose by around 7 points while NZ's rose by 2. Since the start of 2011 (during which time they've gone 48-4-2) NZ's points have only risen by half a point while SA has improved by just under 3 points. NZ actually had a bigger lead over 2nd (which was Australia) back then.

"I’ve never known a side have so much ‘illness’ when they lose" Two whole times. Both of which were matters of record before the game.

I thought I'd answered your points, Taylorman, and we simply disagreed. Just on a couple of your last questions/comments. I said 'experimental' because that is what the 1987 WC was. It wasn't just England who weren't particularly sure how to approach it. There are many old players 'memoirs' talking about getting off the plane drunk and pretty much staying that way, and they're not all English. NZ won by beating Italy, Fiji, Argentina, Scotland, Wales and France. Now you can only beat what's in front of you, but of all WC winners that seems to me the most straightforward schedule to overcome at home with no SA participation and in a new competition. Not sure what the '3 out of the 7 unusual occurrences' were for the ABs. I presume you're counting the fact that you didn't like the referees performance in 2007 (though I suspect you did like Joubert's in 2011). England didn't like the referees performance in the 2003 final either so not sure why it was uniquely 'unusual'. I suppose the other one is that you allegedly had 'food poisoning' in 1995 (I've never known a side have so much 'illness' when they lose). Don't know what the other one is.

Oh and the point about the 'superior' was in terms of ranking/points only, not a value judgement. Yes, England had a magnificent record against TN opposition, but NZ simply played SA & Aus (who were ranked in the top 3 for most of this period) more (18 times), and crucially played them away more which minimised the effects of losses and maximised the effects of wins.

Hubris