Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Banbury Wolf

New International Team Rankings

43 posts in this topic

http://www.rlwc2013.com/rugby-league-world-news/article/1462/australia-strengthen-grip-as-world

 

1 Australia (1108.833)

2 New Zealand (742.3752)

3 England (570.7717)

4 France (268.1451)

5 Fiji (201.4252)

6 Wales (173.2988)

7 PNG (166.7454)

8 Samoa (145.528)

9 Ireland (128.1147)

10 USA (127.2906)

11 Scotland (101.7701)

12 Italy (84.06377)

13 Tonga (54.86558)

14 Cook Islands (48.44054)

15 Russia (42.78)

16 Canada (41.60659)

17 Serbia (38.55369)

18 Germany (30.9796)

19 Norway (28.1608)

20 Lebanon (23.81483)

21 Ukraine (19.68)

22 Malta (19.3424)

23 Jamaica (15.4378)

24 Netherlands (10.416)

25 South Africa (8.353601)

26 Czech Republic (6.953681)

27 Denmark (5.6336)

28 Greece (5.488)

29 Belgium (4.6592)

30 Sweden (1.56)

31 Hungary (1.232)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know how these rankings are worked out?Is it purely games at International level or does the domestic game count for anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there is some logic behind this, but I can't work it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually a depressing read as it just highlights the lack of games for some teams.

 

Wales' results from the last 2 years:

 

Lost v Cook Islands 24v28

Lost v USA 16v24

Lost v Italy 16v32

Lost v England 12v80

Lost v France 6v20

Lost v France 16v28

Lost v Australia 14v56

Lost v NZ 0v36

Lost v England 4v42

 

Yet the above performance keeps them in 6th.

 

I'd love to see them facing full strength teams from PNG, Samoa, Scotland and Tonga to hold onto that spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not a perfect list-but its certainly a lot stronger than 10 years ago.In the 1980,s we would have only got to 5 teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is France fourth?

Which teams have they beaten to be there?

 

3 wins in 21 games gets you fourth spot?

 

PNG in the WC

Wales in 2012

Scotland 2008

 

The other 18 games were loses, many massacres.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know how these rankings are worked out?Is it purely games at International level or does the domestic game count for anything?

Just full international matches over the last five years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is France fourth?

Which teams have they beaten to be there?

 

3 wins in 21 games gets you fourth spot?

 

PNG in the WC

Wales in 2012

Scotland 2008

 

The other 18 games were loses, many massacres.        

there is one problem. Who exactly should be above them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly a detailed explanation - link - but they are trying to mimic FIFA without realising that you need a much more comprehensive and comparable fixture list.

Think about the way UEFA structure the competitive fixture lists for their member nations. As a result of seeding, similar nations will get a similar standard of fixtures in the UEFA and FIFA qualification competitions. Say six teams in each group for UEFA cup and 7 in FIFA, that's each team getting 22 games against a similar range of opposition in terms of quality. That is a great basis for working out comparisons and sorting out teams into standards, and thus setting quality factors. You get awarded points for a result against, say, Germany or Spain then those points are multiplied by a certain factor. Get the same result against San Marino and it will be multiplied by a lower factor.

In rugby league we just don't have enough games, and we certainly don't have enough games between teams in the different 'tiers', to be able to work out realistic comparisons. It looks as though teams get awarded points for losing: Wales have lost all those games but some of them have been against the highest quality opposition (England and Australia) and therefore their points have been multiplied by the 'difficulty' factor.

Back to the drawing board, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia have lost 100 points, NZ have lost 80 points and England have lost 50. There are now 11 teams with over 100 points as opposed to 6 in October

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do these rankings actually determine anything in terms of qualification/seedings for tournaments? If not, I don't see what purpose they serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

france above fiji, usa and scotland............what a load of rowlocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

france above fiji, usa and scotland............what a load of rowlocks.

France started in 4th, Fiji have gone from 7th to 5th, and cut the gap to France from 140 points to 65 points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been announced today that Fiji will play Samoa to decide who will play in next year's 4 nations (definitely the right decison based on World Cup performances), but again, this wouldn't be the play-off according to the international rankings (France vs Fiji)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be a southern hemisphere nation, but I don't see why Fiji should have to play off at all.

Given their paying numbers, that they have a virtually home grown team and their crowds are fantastic France deserve a decent seeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France deserve a decent seeding.

May be fact that France can actually host games is a factor too.

Since 2009 they have played home games against: Australia, NZ x2, England, Wales x2,

Scotland x2,Ireland & Samoa

10 matches - 115,000

Av. crowds 11,500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be fact that France can actually host games is a factor too.

Since 2009 they have played home games against: Australia, NZ x2, England, Wales x2,

Scotland x2,Ireland & Samoa

10 matches - 115,000

Av. crowds 11,500

all well and good but they are on the pitch......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the rankings should be relative to performance and not relative to their ability to host games?

Without a proper international window, many international sides won't be able to host games due to insufficient players and no-one to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all well and good but they are ###### on the pitch......

France are only well behind the big three. They've getting nearer to Samoa too. 1995 in Cardiff 62-14 and Sydney in 2008 40-12. Wales like France fielded one NRL player this WC and PNG I think a few more. But these three nations have better infrastructures than the other contenders. Fiji, Samoa and Tonga have benefited hugely from NRL involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make it like the chess ladder we used to have at school, if you beat someone you go above them, regardless of where they are!

 

There's an Unofficial Football World Cup done on this basis (Scotland held it recently!) http://www.ufwc.co.uk/

 

If there are any stattos out there with loads of time on their hands (or a night shift!), we might get the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make it like the chess ladder we used to have at school, if you beat someone you go above them, regardless of where they are!

 

There's an Unofficial Football World Cup done on this basis (Scotland held it recently!) http://www.ufwc.co.uk/

 

If there are any stattos out there with loads of time on their hands (or a night shift!), we might get the same

This is based on the RLIF rankings as of October, with all the October and November matches included. I have assumed the RLWC warm ups were full internationals (except England v Italy, as I know that was played under different rules. New teams have just been added to the bottom.

 

1 Australia

2 New Zealand

3 England

4 Scotland

5 United States

6 Fiji

7 Samoa

8 France

9 Tonga

10 Italy

11 Cook Islands

12 Wales

13 Papua New Guinea

14 Ireland

15 Russia

16 Serbia

17 Canada

18 Lebanon

19 Norway

20 Germany

21 Jamaica

22 Malta

23 Ukraine

24 South Africa

25 Netherlands

26 Denmark

27 Czech Republic

28 Belgium

29 Sweden

30 Vanuatu

31 Solomon Islands

32 Niue

33 Phillipines

34 Thailand

35 Greece

36 Hungary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France are only well behind the big three. They've getting nearer to Samoa too. 1995 in Cardiff 62-14 and Sydney in 2008 40-12. Wales like France fielded one NRL player this WC and PNG I think a few more. But these three nations have better infrastructures than the other contenders. Fiji, Samoa and Tonga have benefited hugely from NRL involvement.

is that wht france were the lowest points scorers in the world cup?? get over it they are garbage........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is that wht france were the lowest points scorers in the world cup?? get over it they are garbage........

France do at least develop their own players. Take the Australians and Kiwis out of the likes of Fiji, Samoa and Fiji and see how they perform. France would beat them all comfortably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make it like the chess ladder we used to have at school, if you beat someone you go above them, regardless of where they are!

 

There's an Unofficial Football World Cup done on this basis (Scotland held it recently!) http://www.ufwc.co.uk/

 

If there are any stattos out there with loads of time on their hands (or a night shift!), we might get the same

So Italy should be ranked above England?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017