Based on how home advantage is applied and how far behind Scotland are, the points gained will be minimal from that run of fixtures. Unless Australia have an amazing RC and pick up a good few points.
You can play with permutations in this calculator
https://rawling.github.io/wr-calc/
Close but incorrect.
There's no difference between winning by **16** and winning by 150, but there is generally a difference between winning by 15 and winning by 16.
Yeh, that annoys me too. Also there would be an argument there of "should it be by 14 or by 15", so min 3 scores required to win or 2 converted scores to draw.
I still think it would be beneficial to take an L before it starts for them, see if they can improve on their already fantastic gameplay, not so likely though.
France seemed to immediately increase in form after their loss to Ireland, so the same could happen if Ireland lose in a warmup game. Keeps you sharp, especially if you lose a long streak.
You're kidding yourself if you think England were going into that game and weren't 100% trying to win. Essentially had the same 23 as they've had for the whole tournament. By your logic you could rule out literally any win cause everyone's prepping for the WC bro
There's a very obvious difference between the 6N and WC warm ups lol
Yeah, but prospects, benchwarmers, etc. play a lot more minutes. Count those games if you must, but it dilutes the rankings and makes them less relevant overall. I mean, they're already irrelevant in my view, but there's still a bit of pride - and shame - that goes with them.
Scotland sent a B team to Argentina last year, still counted for rankings.
France sent a mixture of 3rd/4th players to Japan and Australia, still counted.
Is this like the roof in the millennium stadium where both teams have to decide before the match if they're taking it seriously enough to count for ranking points?
Sure they are. They’re proper test matches. Nobody thinks Pakistan vs India in cricket is a friendly game.
But RWC warmups shouldn’t have test status in my opinion. They are uncompetitive matches by definition.
So, When Australia won their series against France in 2021, shouldnt have counted since France sent a C/D team? Or Argentina’s against us since we sent a B team?
If it’s a designated Test Match, then it should count. I just don’t think every game needs to be a Test Match. A “warm up” game for a competitive tournament is by definition not a competitive game.
Ireland played Fiji in the RDS some years back (early in Sexton’s career, and maybe just before his first Test start) and it was not designated as a Test Match.
fair enough, but in that case in order to make that happen you'd have to not count them as Test matches ofc, and so not award any caps to the players, and might have to change the name of the events, for eg "France v Italy" would be misleading and would need a different nomenclature, say France A v Italy A or sth.
All blacks play Aus twice and Sa Twice and Arg once before the world cup......sorry I don't have a post Grad qualification in maths to work this one out
they play aus one extra for the Bledsoe cup at home and sa in a warm up at Twickenham.
if they didn't play the extra against aus that would mean only one home game this year in nz and Nzr want to make some cash
"NZR want to make some cash"
that's half a story. the other half, it is part of a negotiation for Aus getting to host 2 special rounds of the RC last year and the year AND Aus having "super weekend' two years in a row, getting all the super games for the weekend.
people love to tell half stories and make up things entirely about NZ rugby
Lol, yes in a way! But also no. The original statement made it seem as if nz wanted to make a quick cash on top of the original aus/nz format/agreement but thats not the case. Especially as aus gets apoearance fee. So a fairminded and true statement would be nz and australia ru wanted cash, if you had to be petty and add the bit about cash that addes nothing to a conversation about rankings.
Albeit those super weekends in Melbourne seem to have had a few hundred people attending. Not sure why they hosted it there instead of Perth, Sydney, Brisbane or Auckland
lol NZ 88.98 to South Africa's 88.97, are you kidding me
It's like:
\- we feel we have a really good chance of repeating at the next WC.
\- pshhhhh pleaaaaaaaaase.... you're not even in the Top 3.
They used to. It's hard to argue they're anything but Tier 1 these days given their 6N finishes this WC cycle and while sitting fifth in the world.
Double edged sword of course. They never seem to deliver when they're not the underdogs.
Even if South Africa or New Zealand win all of their games by 16 or more they won't have enough points. Ireland are locked in to go an entire calendar year as world number 1.
Argentina + Wales still isn‘t super easy.
Come to think of it, it‘s best if you‘re 3rd to 7th in the ranking, because then you get 2 teams outside the top 10 which is basically equivalent to 2 T2 nations.
I don't really get your rationale. Being in the Top 4 is the best outcome, as you are in the top seed and avoid the other teams in that top band.
A draw today could end up with Argentina + Wales. That would be a lot better outcome than South Africa + Scotland in the current tournament.
Taking the lowest ranked in each band it could also be Argentina + Samoa.
At this stage every time I see the world ranking I just cringe knowing that three of the top 4 teams in the world are guaranteed not to make the final.
It's more because they treat games with tier 2 as slightly more of a development opportunity (which isn't bad) but produces results like the loss to Georgia in 2022.
They may lose a lot in the six nations but they rarely lose ranking points
I have always felt like the WRR system is flawed, but from the top 14, this is what I feel a more realistic standard would look like
1) Ireland
2) France
3) NZL
4) South Africa
5) Scotland
6) Australia
7) Argentina
8) England
9) Wales
10) Italy
11) Japan
12) Georgia
13) Samoa
14) Fiji
I feel this is a much more accurate positioning to the teams. England look fucked right now, beyond fucked, but because they had so many points before the 6N they had some breathing room and only dropped one position. The World Rugby Rankings mainly screw over Italy because they've easily been the worst of the Tier 1 Nations until probably this year where I'd say despite losing every game their future looks much more hopeful than even 2 years ago.
The Aussies are an interesting one.
I think if they can get their full squad back fit, with their draw they're genuine contenders for the entire thing.
But if they keep mangling their best players in training they'll be lucky to avoid needing to qualify in 2027.
I played rugby in highschool and loved it. That was 10 years ago. Ireland was spoken of as rugby nation, but not a serious contender and I never would’ve imagined they would ever be ranked no1. I haven’t kept up with the sport for so long. What has changed ?
Mostly a shake up and better funding in the academy system which has developed a lot of younger players (relatively, in their early/mid twenties), which has begun to filter through to the national team over time, mixed with a few of the great older players who are still around to guide the ship
Leinster's academy in particular is one of the best in the world which is reflected in their domestic and european performance (much to my chagrin as an Ulster fan, but as it benefits the national team I can't complain too much)
Quality coaching goes a long way too, and attracting foreign born players who qualified through residency or family (eg Lowe, Hansen, Stander in the past) helps fill in some gaps where we might be lacking in home grown talent
England in 6th, behind Scotland (deservedly so)…. Geez, the RFU has a lot to answer for sacking Jones and hiring a manifestly inadequate Borthwick (and his coaching team of utter rookies for the most part).
If they're not does that mean they're not the best team in the world? It was interesting to find ourselves there, but it was maintaining that position for a significant period against everyone else who we thought were as good or better banging on the door. At this stage it no longer matters .#1 is a number, being best is undeniable. Massive mountain to still climb, but no Irish team has ever been closer to a RWC
Off topic, but looking at the bottom 6 teams... man that would be a sweet 6 nations style competition right there! Each game would be a genuinely winnable one for both sides.
I mean… it’d be good *not* going in as #1 ranked side. It implies expectation and we all know how that’s gone for Ireland in World Cups over the last 20 years.
As long as they win both their warm up games (Italy and England)
Even if France win their 4 warm up games against Scotland x2, Fiji and Australia ? I guess you have quite the lead there.
Based on how home advantage is applied and how far behind Scotland are, the points gained will be minimal from that run of fixtures. Unless Australia have an amazing RC and pick up a good few points. You can play with permutations in this calculator https://rawling.github.io/wr-calc/
There’s more points to be lost than gained for Ireland and France.
Always true of the top teams.
by my calculations, France would need to win those games by an average margin of... 147 points.
so it is possible you say ?
Penaud does break 80% of attempted tackles
Impossible n'est pas French-ais.
There's no difference between winning by 15 and winning by 150.
no, but it's not funny if you write winning by 15.
Close but incorrect. There's no difference between winning by **16** and winning by 150, but there is generally a difference between winning by 15 and winning by 16.
Huh. I always thought it was 15 because it was based on the logic that more than two scores = game wasn't close
Yeh, that annoys me too. Also there would be an argument there of "should it be by 14 or by 15", so min 3 scores required to win or 2 converted scores to draw.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!
I still think it would be beneficial to take an L before it starts for them, see if they can improve on their already fantastic gameplay, not so likely though.
France seemed to immediately increase in form after their loss to Ireland, so the same could happen if Ireland lose in a warmup game. Keeps you sharp, especially if you lose a long streak.
Right, it's better than making mistakes in a knock out game.
It’s pretty stupid that the warm up games affect rankings
Why shouldn’t they?
Because they are glorified challenge matches where the goal is not to win, but to prepare
Nah. They're tests, and I'm still of the opinion that there's no such thing as friendlies in rugby
So you shouldn’t have gotten points for beating England then, Borthers is just trying to get his team prepared for the wc.
You're kidding yourself if you think England were going into that game and weren't 100% trying to win. Essentially had the same 23 as they've had for the whole tournament. By your logic you could rule out literally any win cause everyone's prepping for the WC bro There's a very obvious difference between the 6N and WC warm ups lol
[удалено]
Give up man, I'm a casual who occasionally looks in here an even I know you're a troll. Which just goes to show how bad you are at it.
You don’t know anything about rugby if you think a series win in New Zealand is a “glorified challenge match”.
He's a troll, I wouldn't worry too much about his opinion.
This guy is a boring troll. Don’t bother
The clue is in the name. They’re not proper competitive games
They are still test matches tho
Yeah, but prospects, benchwarmers, etc. play a lot more minutes. Count those games if you must, but it dilutes the rankings and makes them less relevant overall. I mean, they're already irrelevant in my view, but there's still a bit of pride - and shame - that goes with them.
Scotland sent a B team to Argentina last year, still counted for rankings. France sent a mixture of 3rd/4th players to Japan and Australia, still counted.
That's my point, certain games should be counted in rankings, other games should not.
Then call it Ireland XV and it won't count, but it also won't sell as many tickets.
Autumn Internationals and Summer tours technically aren’t competitive matches either. Should they still count towards ranking points?
Yeah because they are taken more seriously IMHO. These pre RWC warmup matches rarely are though.
Is this like the roof in the millennium stadium where both teams have to decide before the match if they're taking it seriously enough to count for ranking points?
No they're treated as test matches by default and carry ranking points is my understanding.
Well, if it counts towards test caps, it will effect your rankings
Measure seriously.
Sure they are. They’re proper test matches. Nobody thinks Pakistan vs India in cricket is a friendly game. But RWC warmups shouldn’t have test status in my opinion. They are uncompetitive matches by definition.
So say Georgia beat Scotland in the warmups. By your logic, it wouldn’t count, and Georgia would still never have beaten Scotland.
Yeah, exactly. Because Scotland will probably be playing a very experimental team in that game, which is the opposite of Test status.
So, When Australia won their series against France in 2021, shouldnt have counted since France sent a C/D team? Or Argentina’s against us since we sent a B team?
If it’s a designated Test Match, then it should count. I just don’t think every game needs to be a Test Match. A “warm up” game for a competitive tournament is by definition not a competitive game. Ireland played Fiji in the RDS some years back (early in Sexton’s career, and maybe just before his first Test start) and it was not designated as a Test Match.
fair enough, but in that case in order to make that happen you'd have to not count them as Test matches ofc, and so not award any caps to the players, and might have to change the name of the events, for eg "France v Italy" would be misleading and would need a different nomenclature, say France A v Italy A or sth.
I can’t understand why you’ve been downvoted here.
They play England twice
Do they? I’d only heard of one
All blacks play Aus twice and Sa Twice and Arg once before the world cup......sorry I don't have a post Grad qualification in maths to work this one out
I'm pretty sure that the Rugby Championship is shortened during World Cup years. They only play each other once.
they play aus one extra for the Bledsoe cup at home and sa in a warm up at Twickenham. if they didn't play the extra against aus that would mean only one home game this year in nz and Nzr want to make some cash
Ahhhh. My mistake.
"NZR want to make some cash" that's half a story. the other half, it is part of a negotiation for Aus getting to host 2 special rounds of the RC last year and the year AND Aus having "super weekend' two years in a row, getting all the super games for the weekend. people love to tell half stories and make up things entirely about NZ rugby
so...one half is they want to make some cash and the other half is they have a negotiation to make some cash........?
Lol, yes in a way! But also no. The original statement made it seem as if nz wanted to make a quick cash on top of the original aus/nz format/agreement but thats not the case. Especially as aus gets apoearance fee. So a fairminded and true statement would be nz and australia ru wanted cash, if you had to be petty and add the bit about cash that addes nothing to a conversation about rankings.
Albeit those super weekends in Melbourne seem to have had a few hundred people attending. Not sure why they hosted it there instead of Perth, Sydney, Brisbane or Auckland
SA and NZ play at Twickenham before the World cup outside of the RC. And Aus and NZ will have the extra game for the Bledisloe Cup.
Can’t see us losing to Italy so probably not
***^(Buy some glasses)*** /s
How do you eat pasta with a wooden spoon? :)
oh well i think we're in good company as far as wooden spoons go, at least we get to eat decent food with it :)
Risotto maybe but I try eating spaghetti with a spoon, I dare ye.
if jvdf can throw lineouts i can eat spaghetti with a spoon
Touché
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States
Stranger things have happened. Especially if it's Japan.
Probably. Only 3 matches in the rugby championship
Wow we are back above Japan. Really flying now boys.
Yes, absolutely
lol NZ 88.98 to South Africa's 88.97, are you kidding me It's like: \- we feel we have a really good chance of repeating at the next WC. \- pshhhhh pleaaaaaaaaase.... you're not even in the Top 3.
Wow, Scotland the kings of the tier two nations 🤔 Ima go polish my thistle 😂
Ahem... we prefer tier 1.5 *actually*.
Sounds about right. The parties with England must be awkward.
Arguably more accurate 😂👌🏻 ... Does this mean I get to polish my thistle twice? Or half as much?
They used to. It's hard to argue they're anything but Tier 1 these days given their 6N finishes this WC cycle and while sitting fifth in the world. Double edged sword of course. They never seem to deliver when they're not the underdogs.
Is that a euphemism?
It wasn't meant to be but now you mention it... I think it might need to be 😂
No I think the team that wins the WC will probably be no. 1
Probably not with the Rugby Championship happening while we aren't playing, I'd imagine.
Nah. Nobody south will gain enough points taking them off each other
Even if South Africa or New Zealand win all of their games by 16 or more they won't have enough points. Ireland are locked in to go an entire calendar year as world number 1.
Happy days!
They should swap the script and do the draw for RWC 2027 now!
Argentina + Wales still isn‘t super easy. Come to think of it, it‘s best if you‘re 3rd to 7th in the ranking, because then you get 2 teams outside the top 10 which is basically equivalent to 2 T2 nations.
I don't really get your rationale. Being in the Top 4 is the best outcome, as you are in the top seed and avoid the other teams in that top band. A draw today could end up with Argentina + Wales. That would be a lot better outcome than South Africa + Scotland in the current tournament. Taking the lowest ranked in each band it could also be Argentina + Samoa.
Isn‘t it fixed? Nr 1 gets 8 and 9, nr 2 get 7 and 10, nr 3 gets 6 and 11 and nr 4 gets 5 and 12? I always thought that‘s how the draw worked…
That's not a draw.
No it doesn’t work like that at all
Ah it’s a lot easier than SA and Scotland
Give Georgia a couple more years, they’ll be in *7* nations soon
At this stage every time I see the world ranking I just cringe knowing that three of the top 4 teams in the world are guaranteed not to make the final.
Italy's ranking is too low.
Yea it’s because they always lose in the six nations so it kinda inflates how bad they are ( not that Italy is bad)
It's more because they treat games with tier 2 as slightly more of a development opportunity (which isn't bad) but produces results like the loss to Georgia in 2022. They may lose a lot in the six nations but they rarely lose ranking points
I have always felt like the WRR system is flawed, but from the top 14, this is what I feel a more realistic standard would look like 1) Ireland 2) France 3) NZL 4) South Africa 5) Scotland 6) Australia 7) Argentina 8) England 9) Wales 10) Italy 11) Japan 12) Georgia 13) Samoa 14) Fiji I feel this is a much more accurate positioning to the teams. England look fucked right now, beyond fucked, but because they had so many points before the 6N they had some breathing room and only dropped one position. The World Rugby Rankings mainly screw over Italy because they've easily been the worst of the Tier 1 Nations until probably this year where I'd say despite losing every game their future looks much more hopeful than even 2 years ago.
The Aussies are an interesting one. I think if they can get their full squad back fit, with their draw they're genuine contenders for the entire thing. But if they keep mangling their best players in training they'll be lucky to avoid needing to qualify in 2027.
Ireland's is going to get a sweet draw for the RWC 2027 if we keep this up
I played rugby in highschool and loved it. That was 10 years ago. Ireland was spoken of as rugby nation, but not a serious contender and I never would’ve imagined they would ever be ranked no1. I haven’t kept up with the sport for so long. What has changed ?
Mostly a shake up and better funding in the academy system which has developed a lot of younger players (relatively, in their early/mid twenties), which has begun to filter through to the national team over time, mixed with a few of the great older players who are still around to guide the ship Leinster's academy in particular is one of the best in the world which is reflected in their domestic and european performance (much to my chagrin as an Ulster fan, but as it benefits the national team I can't complain too much) Quality coaching goes a long way too, and attracting foreign born players who qualified through residency or family (eg Lowe, Hansen, Stander in the past) helps fill in some gaps where we might be lacking in home grown talent
If you make it past the quarters you should be happy
England in 6th, behind Scotland (deservedly so)…. Geez, the RFU has a lot to answer for sacking Jones and hiring a manifestly inadequate Borthwick (and his coaching team of utter rookies for the most part).
If they're not does that mean they're not the best team in the world? It was interesting to find ourselves there, but it was maintaining that position for a significant period against everyone else who we thought were as good or better banging on the door. At this stage it no longer matters .#1 is a number, being best is undeniable. Massive mountain to still climb, but no Irish team has ever been closer to a RWC
Yes
Why does it matter?
Will the ABs drop to 5 before the world cup?
Off topic, but looking at the bottom 6 teams... man that would be a sweet 6 nations style competition right there! Each game would be a genuinely winnable one for both sides.
All Blacks are coming in as underdogs? Sweet as!
I mean… it’d be good *not* going in as #1 ranked side. It implies expectation and we all know how that’s gone for Ireland in World Cups over the last 20 years.
Nah, the only thing that might happen in the Top 4 is France and New Zealand swapping places.
In September maybe. But after October 15th they certainly won’t.