Jump to content

England and Tonga jump Australia in world rankings


Pulga
 Share

Recommended Posts


New Zealand games in last 4 years: Wins 5, losses 4

(2018) Lost to England 36-18

Beat Australia 26-24

Lost to England 18-16

Lost to England 20-14

Beat England 34-0

(2019) Beat Tonga 34-14

Lost to Australia 26-4

Beat GB 12-8

Beat GB 23-8

 

Australia games in last 4 years: Wins 2, losses 2

(2018) Lost to NZ 26-24

Beat Tonga 34-16

(2019) Beat NZ 26-4

Lost to Tonga 16-12

 

England games last 4 years: Wins 5, losses 1

(2018)  Beat NZ 36-18

Beat France 44-6

Beat NZ 18-16

Beat NZ  20-14

Lost to NZ 34-0

(2021) Beat France 30-10

 

Tonga games last 4 years: Wins 3, losses 2

(2018) Beat Samoa 38-22

Lost to Australia 34-16

(2019) Lost to NZ 34-14

Beat GB 14-6

Beat Australia 16-12

 

How are England not 1st?

  • Thanks 1
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

New Zealand games in last 4 years: Wins 5, losses 4

(2018) Lost to England 36-18

Beat Australia 26-24

Lost to England 18-16

Lost to England 20-14

Beat England 34-0

(2019) Beat Tonga 34-14

Lost to Australia 26-4

Beat GB 12-8

Beat GB 23-8

 

Australia games in last 4 years: Wins 2, losses 2

(2018) Lost to NZ 26-24

Beat Tonga 34-16

(2019) Beat NZ 26-4

Lost to Tonga 16-12

 

England games last 4 years: Wins 5, losses 1

(2018)  Beat NZ 36-18

Beat France 44-6

Beat NZ 18-16

Beat NZ  20-14

Lost to NZ 34-0

(2021) Beat France 30-10

 

Tonga games last 4 years: Wins 3, losses 2

(2018) Beat Samoa 38-22

Lost to Australia 34-16

(2019) Lost to NZ 34-14

Beat GB 14-6

Beat Australia 16-12

 

How are England not 1st?

Key criteria relating to England's rank in this aspect: 

  • The date of the match - more recent matches are weighted more heavily - a result in the most recent 2 years is worth double a result 3 years ago and 4 times a result that is 4 years old. 
  • Relative strength of the opposition faced - if you play a higher ranked team that is of greater value than playing a lower ranked team. 

England playing 1 match against a much lower ranked opposition in the last 3 years would be the reason they're below NZ.

That does raise an interesting question though, how was "GB" accounted for in terms of 'relative strength' for the rankings of NZ/Tonga/PNG?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, UTK said:

Key criteria relating to England's rank in this aspect: 

  • The date of the match - more recent matches are weighted more heavily - a result in the most recent 2 years is worth double a result 3 years ago and 4 times a result that is 4 years old. 
  • Relative strength of the opposition faced - if you play a higher ranked team that is of greater value than playing a lower ranked team. 

England playing 1 match against a much lower ranked opposition in the last 3 years would be the reason they're below NZ.

That does raise an interesting question though, how was "GB" accounted for in terms of 'relative strength' for the rankings of NZ/Tonga/PNG?

 

Considering we're the only one of the 4 to play a game in the last 2 years, surely that should stand us in good stead?

Do defeats not harm it? We've beaten NZ 4-1 in this timeframe.

Just seems a bit daft that NZ are clear top but have a 5-4 record with no games in 2 years and 2 wins against an unranked nation with 0 wins in 14 years.

  • Like 1
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Considering we're the only one of the 4 to play a game in the last 2 years, surely that should stand us in good stead?

Do defeats not harm it? We've beaten NZ 4-1 in this timeframe.

Just seems a bit daft that NZ are clear top but have a 5-4 record with no games in 2 years and 2 wins against an unranked nation with 0 wins in 14 years.

Yeah looking at that record from 2018 the other criteria to consider is the margin of victory/defeat criteria. Even though England won the 2018 tests with a record of 3-1, NZ actually wins the overall score aggregate due to the blowout in the final Baskerville game. 

I'd guess this criteria dims the impact of that 3-1 record and the considering 2018 games have significantly less weight in the 4 year cycle those matches in effect have little impact on the 2021 rankings.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anita Bath said:

Do you think anyone down under gives a monkeys?

 

They play the game on grass, not paper

I don't think Australia get enough credit anyway. To be the best side for 50 years is a fantastic achievement in any sport. 

I know the rankings reflect recent form, but the system is flawed when arguably the best side in world sport is ranked in 4th place in its own game.

Then we wonder why people enthuse over the All Blacks and not the Kangaroos. 🤷🏿‍♀️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

New Zealand games in last 4 years: Wins 5, losses 4

(2018) Lost to England 36-18

Beat Australia 26-24

Lost to England 18-16

Lost to England 20-14

Beat England 34-0

(2019) Beat Tonga 34-14

Lost to Australia 26-4

Beat GB 12-8

Beat GB 23-8

 

Australia games in last 4 years: Wins 2, losses 2

(2018) Lost to NZ 26-24

Beat Tonga 34-16

(2019) Beat NZ 26-4

Lost to Tonga 16-12

 

England games last 4 years: Wins 5, losses 1

(2018)  Beat NZ 36-18

Beat France 44-6

Beat NZ 18-16

Beat NZ  20-14

Lost to NZ 34-0

(2021) Beat France 30-10

 

Tonga games last 4 years: Wins 3, losses 2

(2018) Beat Samoa 38-22

Lost to Australia 34-16

(2019) Lost to NZ 34-14

Beat GB 14-6

Beat Australia 16-12

 

How are England not 1st?

I’d say GB’s results have been factored in to England’s ranking and rightly so as it’s the same team under a different name. Wins against low rankings teams (France) carry very little weight compared to wins against high ranking teams

It’s great to see every side winning and lose multiple games, it makes for a great World Cup, especially in the knockout stages.

Edited by Sir Kevin Sinfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Niels said:

I don't think Australia get enough credit anyway. To be the best side for 50 years is a fantastic achievement in any sport. 

I know the rankings reflect recent form, but the system is flawed when arguably the best side in world sport is ranked in 4th place in its own game.

Then we wonder why people enthuse over the All Blacks and not the Kangaroos. 🤷🏿‍♀️

Surely the rankings need to take results into account? Australia have played 4 games in the last 4 years, they’ve won 2 lost 2. I’m not sure how they can be ranked number 1 after that? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Niels said:

I don't think Australia get enough credit anyway. To be the best side for 50 years is a fantastic achievement in any sport. 

I know the rankings reflect recent form, but the system is flawed when arguably the best side in world sport is ranked in 4th place in its own game.

Then we wonder why people enthuse over the All Blacks and not the Kangaroos. 🤷🏿‍♀️

Because one of them plays games, the other is an end of season fantasy selection?

  • Like 4

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

Do you think anyone down under gives a monkeys?

 

They play the game on grass, not paper

Undoubtedly they will view the rankings as a joke, but nevertheless it will rankle and be perceived as a slight. It could play on their mind in a tight situation.

As we have seen in test matches if Australia are behind on the scoreboard and there`s 5 minutes to go this will only add to the pressure that can sometimes lead to a sense of panic in the Kangaroos.

The key for oppositions is of course, either getting in front or at least close behind with not long to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

someone needs to tell the bookies- they have the kangaroos as overwhelming favourites to lift the wc! have they not seen these rankings? they must not know a thing about rugby league 

Ok, I'll tell them later on today. Just gotta get my shopping first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Niels said:

I don't think Australia get enough credit anyway. To be the best side for 50 years is a fantastic achievement in any sport. 

I know the rankings reflect recent form, but the system is flawed when arguably the best side in world sport is ranked in 4th place in its own game.

Then we wonder why people enthuse over the All Blacks and not the Kangaroos. 🤷🏿‍♀️

They enthuse over the All Blacks because they actually play games  regularly & all over the world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...