Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

World Rankings

Posts: 66
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 01:18
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: World Rankings

Postby ShyLockNo5 » Wed, 05 Dec 2018, 13:49

Tobar wrote:
ShyLockNo5 wrote:
Tobar wrote:
Canalina wrote:It's interesting to see that Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands all improved neatly and that they are near each other in the ranking, as they are near each other on the map.
This leads to think that they could help each other, even if I don't know in which way. Some years ago if I'm not wrong there was a german-dutch-belgian tournament for clubs, but it never had real success


There's the BeNeCup for Belgium and Netherlands but from listening to other users talk about that here it's been alright. A good tournament but not spearheading any major change. Most of the Bundesliga teams are in the SW part of Germany making them much closer to Belgium/Netherlands so it seems logical to include them as well (looks like around a 3-5 hour train ride).


Do the smaller countries get to play much at all? I know there are small regional tournaments here and there but it's a shame the big 8 play one another constantly but the small nations don't get to play beyond their region. It would be good for their development and confidence if countries such as, for example, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Finland, Rwanda and Mauritius (all ranked in the 90s) got to play one another. Only some rugby-mad billionaire could make this happen, of course. I don't think World Rugby would be interested.


Depends on what ranking they are. There are lots of regional tournaments and more have been created recently. Teams ranked up until around 20 just started getting regular games for all 3 test windows. By the mid-20s or so it starts to become a bit less confirmed. Countries like Brazil and Chile, to my knowledge, will get the 4 matches for the ARC in February but then after that can be very spotty and in some cases only against non-national sides (Brazil just played Maori ABs but then played 2 matches against Argentina regions). Then when you get to the 30s/40s you'd be lucky to have 5 matches in a year. For example, Colombia is now part of 2 regular tournaments (one of which was created this year) and played 5 matches which is the most they've ever played. If it were not for the ARCh they'd likely just play 2 or 3.

Long story short, smaller countries barely play any games but it is definitely improving, especially if you are in certain recently popular regions like the Americas.


Isn't part of World Rugby's role to facilitate the playing of more games among countries of similar standard? By all means, keep improving the shop window, but the grassroots, the base, should be tended to at least once in a while. Especially in countries that love their rugby and dont have just a passing interest.

Posts: 2706
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: World Rankings

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 05 Dec 2018, 16:12

Canalina wrote:Agree. They put all the results (or the fixtures) together: men XV, women XV, 7s men and women, U20, women U20. It's a maelstrom. Usually there's a little title upon the result (like "Euro Women Trophy") but not always and not always it makes clear what kind of game it is.
I don't think it would be difficult to mark the difference between one sex and the other and between different ages.
Maybe they could put two different colors on the background for men and women (blue men, purple women for example) and maybe with a little triangle on the upper left corner to specify if it is 7s (if it's XV no triangle at all) and a little triangle on the upper right corner to specify if it is an underage game


They apparently made a huge setup-mistake by not creating a "master-slave"-setup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology).
Should have been a three or maybe 4 level scheme.
-All Rugby
--Women
--- women XVs
---- all women XVs competition
--Men
--- men XVs
----all men competitions
---- Men 7s
---- U18

etc.


Apparently there is only 1 master-level and no slaves. When they realized this huge mistake they at least arranged those cups and competitions under the age groups. But this is absolutely useless if you search by results per team of one specific nation. Who ever set this up seems to have not the slightest idea about statistical databases. The data is there, just the execution is so amateurish it is a shame.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 2706
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: World Rankings

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 05 Dec 2018, 16:24

ShyLockNo5 wrote:
Tobar wrote:
ShyLockNo5 wrote:
Tobar wrote:
Canalina wrote:It's interesting to see that Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands all improved neatly and that they are near each other in the ranking, as they are near each other on the map.
This leads to think that they could help each other, even if I don't know in which way. Some years ago if I'm not wrong there was a german-dutch-belgian tournament for clubs, but it never had real success


There's the BeNeCup for Belgium and Netherlands but from listening to other users talk about that here it's been alright. A good tournament but not spearheading any major change. Most of the Bundesliga teams are in the SW part of Germany making them much closer to Belgium/Netherlands so it seems logical to include them as well (looks like around a 3-5 hour train ride).


Do the smaller countries get to play much at all? I know there are small regional tournaments here and there but it's a shame the big 8 play one another constantly but the small nations don't get to play beyond their region. It would be good for their development and confidence if countries such as, for example, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Finland, Rwanda and Mauritius (all ranked in the 90s) got to play one another. Only some rugby-mad billionaire could make this happen, of course. I don't think World Rugby would be interested.


Depends on what ranking they are. There are lots of regional tournaments and more have been created recently. Teams ranked up until around 20 just started getting regular games for all 3 test windows. By the mid-20s or so it starts to become a bit less confirmed. Countries like Brazil and Chile, to my knowledge, will get the 4 matches for the ARC in February but then after that can be very spotty and in some cases only against non-national sides (Brazil just played Maori ABs but then played 2 matches against Argentina regions). Then when you get to the 30s/40s you'd be lucky to have 5 matches in a year. For example, Colombia is now part of 2 regular tournaments (one of which was created this year) and played 5 matches which is the most they've ever played. If it were not for the ARCh they'd likely just play 2 or 3.

Long story short, smaller countries barely play any games but it is definitely improving, especially if you are in certain recently popular regions like the Americas.


Isn't part of World Rugby's role to facilitate the playing of more games among countries of similar standard? By all means, keep improving the shop window, but the grassroots, the base, should be tended to at least once in a while. Especially in countries that love their rugby and dont have just a passing interest.


I think this is also a very regional affair.
Germany i.e. had 5 REC games, 3 playoff-games + 3 Repechage. That's 11 games. They year before it was 9 tests, in 2016 8, 2015 7, 2014 5. So there is an upwards trend
Portugal (a team playing in the thrid European tier if you count the 6N in) i.e. had 4 RET games, 1 RWC-playoff-game, 1 promotion/relegation-game + 1 test match against Namibia. That's 7 games if I haven't missed one.

But remember all of those nations have players who are no pros. 7-8 games is the most doable. The 11 games were only because a huge effort by the players because of the chance to qualify for a World Cup.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 66
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 01:18
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: World Rankings

Postby ShyLockNo5 » Thu, 06 Dec 2018, 07:02

I think this is also a very regional affair.
Germany i.e. had 5 REC games, 3 playoff-games + 3 Repechage. That's 11 games. They year before it was 9 tests, in 2016 8, 2015 7, 2014 5. So there is an upwards trend
Portugal (a team playing in the thrid European tier if you count the 6N in) i.e. had 4 RET games, 1 RWC-playoff-game, 1 promotion/relegation-game + 1 test match against Namibia. That's 7 games if I haven't missed one.

But remember all of those nations have players who are no pros. 7-8 games is the most doable. The 11 games were only because a huge effort by the players because of the chance to qualify for a World Cup.[/quote]

I remember in Asia, some teams played barely 2-3 matches a year. I really don't know what the regional unions are up to. I suspect most of them are just fans who want to gain easy access to tickets to the biggest games. They have zero interest in growing the sport.

User avatar
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: World Rankings

Postby Canalina » Thu, 06 Dec 2018, 07:11

Rugby is not just test matches. You can't judge the work of a national union by the number of international games they play, I think. It's an important aspect, but it's not the only one

Posts: 66
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 01:18
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: World Rankings

Postby ShyLockNo5 » Fri, 07 Dec 2018, 07:23

Canalina wrote:Rugby is not just test matches. You can't judge the work of a national union by the number of international games they play, I think. It's an important aspect, but it's not the only one


True but it's the shop window. If the national team is visible, or even better, improving, it's the best way of growing the game. And I'm not saying going out there to get hammered by better opponents: find opposition of about the same level and play regular games. Build a good domestic competiiton and pick the best players and go play against others. Simple

User avatar
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: World Rankings

Postby NaBUru38 » Fri, 07 Dec 2018, 16:04

When I say that Fiji has just 6 test matches this year, I mean that they are given few opportunities.

Posts: 1656
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: World Rankings

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 07 Dec 2018, 18:47

Canalina wrote:Rugby is not just test matches. You can't judge the work of a national union by the number of international games they play, I think. It's an important aspect, but it's not the only one


I disagree here. The Unions that host 5-6 Tests/year make themselves a lot of money and the international game funds the grassroots. The money that flows back to the youth game in the top five Unions is pretty insane. Look at the RFU building 60 pitches for the amateur game.

User avatar
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: World Rankings

Postby Canalina » Fri, 07 Dec 2018, 19:53

Well, I think your statement fits for T1 teams and maybe T2 teams, but I doubt that Senegal, Peru or Moldova, just to pick some examples, make a lot of money with test matches. I even doubt they make some money.
If you are not sure to gather several thousands people, maybe it's more productive to use those money to organize some grassroots events, or school tournaments, or 7s events, like Sri Lanka have done this year. Few years ago Sri Lanka hosted a four-teams XV tournament with Poland, Madagascar and one other team: which benefit it brought? I think almost nobody.
But maybe Sri Lanka is a wrong example because they seem to love school rugby more than senior rugby and to love senior club rugby more than national team's matches.
It's a double-start path: you may invest your funds in some big events like test matches, hoping to make profit and to give visibility to your sport and so to reclutate new young players; or you may bet on kids' events hoping to grow a generation of players tat one day will play test matches.
If I were a chairman of a T3 nations, I would follow this second way

Posts: 1656
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: World Rankings

Postby TheStroBro » Sat, 08 Dec 2018, 01:54

I think for Emerging Nations, the only way is to recruit coaches from your populace, educate them and fund them so they can then recruit children to play Rugby. For some T2 and T3 countries their Unions are of substantial size that they need to host home tests to generate revenue and move away from the membership based funding model. What makes a T1 Nation is the revenues they generate and then distribute back to the grassroots game. Take the US for Example, the primary means of funding the Union is Member Fees. Due to poor event management we have not been able to commercialize and gain revenues from most Tests. We know for a fact that the teams that will fill a stadium like Solder Field is basically the All Blacks and England. France probably would get close. Every other T1 Nation we host would have to be somewhere smaller. Then look at teams we've hosted in the ARC, the best we've drawn is in Round Rock and LA with roughly 6500 average with those three tests. This year we'll be hosting at Round Rock and Starfire, much smaller venues but I'm guessing we'll sell out well and make a few shekels.

Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: World Rankings

Postby Tobar » Sat, 08 Dec 2018, 14:53

It’s pretty terrible how bad of a job USAR has done selling test matches. We’ve had maybe 5-10 break 20,000 and I’m pretty sure they were all against Tier 1 countries. Fans don’t have much interest in lower tiered opponents apparently. But they could be doing such a better job marketing these events even with their limited to non existing budget.

Posts: 66
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 01:18
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: World Rankings

Postby ShyLockNo5 » Sun, 09 Dec 2018, 08:57

Canalina wrote:Well, I think your statement fits for T1 teams and maybe T2 teams, but I doubt that Senegal, Peru or Moldova, just to pick some examples, make a lot of money with test matches. I even doubt they make some money.
If you are not sure to gather several thousands people, maybe it's more productive to use those money to organize some grassroots events, or school tournaments, or 7s events, like Sri Lanka have done this year. Few years ago Sri Lanka hosted a four-teams XV tournament with Poland, Madagascar and one other team: which benefit it brought? I think almost nobody.
But maybe Sri Lanka is a wrong example because they seem to love school rugby more than senior rugby and to love senior club rugby more than national team's matches.
It's a double-start path: you may invest your funds in some big events like test matches, hoping to make profit and to give visibility to your sport and so to reclutate new young players; or you may bet on kids' events hoping to grow a generation of players tat one day will play test matches.
If I were a chairman of a T3 nations, I would follow this second way


Why can't World Rugby fund the staging of the games itself? As long as the unions show they are making efforts to increase popularity etc.

Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: World Rankings

Postby Armchair Fan » Sun, 09 Dec 2018, 09:36

I already does with most of the test matches happening, but there is a limit to what they can do.

User avatar
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: World Rankings

Postby Canalina » Sun, 09 Dec 2018, 10:12

It's hard to understand which tests you should fund, or fund more. The Africa Cup Gold is promising, with good crowds on the stands (if I recall correctly), all the matches on TV (even if in a minor channel, I think) and an increasing popularity on the net and on the press. Other tests, included several of the REC lower pools, attract few hundreds people and maybe no tv.
Funding the first ones could be a smart move because they bring light and popularity to rugby. Funding the second ones could be a bad investment because they are not an efficacious propaganda.
As ShyLock says, World Rugby or the continental confederations could fund the test matches on the ratio of the effort previously produced by the local federation to spread the game and to bring spectators. But maybe they're already following this policy

User avatar
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: World Rankings

Postby NaBUru38 » Tue, 11 Dec 2018, 13:38

USA Rugby could host Argentina in Miami. Crowds would be interesting.

Posts: 66
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 01:18
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: World Rankings

Postby ShyLockNo5 » Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 09:52

Canalina wrote:It's hard to understand which tests you should fund, or fund more. The Africa Cup Gold is promising, with good crowds on the stands (if I recall correctly), all the matches on TV (even if in a minor channel, I think) and an increasing popularity on the net and on the press. Other tests, included several of the REC lower pools, attract few hundreds people and maybe no tv.
Funding the first ones could be a smart move because they bring light and popularity to rugby. Funding the second ones could be a bad investment because they are not an efficacious propaganda.
As ShyLock says, World Rugby or the continental confederations could fund the test matches on the ratio of the effort previously produced by the local federation to spread the game and to bring spectators. But maybe they're already following this policy


Instead it looks like theyre going to devote more money to making the top nations richer through their world league concept. theyre going to kill the golden goose, i reckon

Posts: 409
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: World Rankings

Postby Blurandski » Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 12:17

ShyLockNo5 wrote:
Canalina wrote:It's hard to understand which tests you should fund, or fund more. The Africa Cup Gold is promising, with good crowds on the stands (if I recall correctly), all the matches on TV (even if in a minor channel, I think) and an increasing popularity on the net and on the press. Other tests, included several of the REC lower pools, attract few hundreds people and maybe no tv.
Funding the first ones could be a smart move because they bring light and popularity to rugby. Funding the second ones could be a bad investment because they are not an efficacious propaganda.
As ShyLock says, World Rugby or the continental confederations could fund the test matches on the ratio of the effort previously produced by the local federation to spread the game and to bring spectators. But maybe they're already following this policy


Instead it looks like theyre going to devote more money to making the top nations richer through their world league concept. theyre going to kill the golden goose, i reckon


The whole point of the NL is to give WR a share of test match income, which they can use to further develop rugby and bailout your sorry excuse for a union. Under the NL the top nations will receive less.

Posts: 66
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 01:18
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: World Rankings

Postby ShyLockNo5 » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 02:15

Blurandski wrote:
ShyLockNo5 wrote:
Canalina wrote:It's hard to understand which tests you should fund, or fund more. The Africa Cup Gold is promising, with good crowds on the stands (if I recall correctly), all the matches on TV (even if in a minor channel, I think) and an increasing popularity on the net and on the press. Other tests, included several of the REC lower pools, attract few hundreds people and maybe no tv.
Funding the first ones could be a smart move because they bring light and popularity to rugby. Funding the second ones could be a bad investment because they are not an efficacious propaganda.
As ShyLock says, World Rugby or the continental confederations could fund the test matches on the ratio of the effort previously produced by the local federation to spread the game and to bring spectators. But maybe they're already following this policy


Instead it looks like theyre going to devote more money to making the top nations richer through their world league concept. theyre going to kill the golden goose, i reckon


The whole point of the NL is to give WR a share of test match income, which they can use to further develop rugby and bailout your sorry excuse for a union. Under the NL the top nations will receive less.


Which "sorry excuse" do you mean? Why the unnecessary hostility?

User avatar
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: World Rankings

Postby NaBUru38 » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 19:44

ShyLockNo5 wrote:
Canalina wrote:It's hard to understand which tests you should fund, or fund more. The Africa Cup Gold is promising, with good crowds on the stands (if I recall correctly), all the matches on TV (even if in a minor channel, I think) and an increasing popularity on the net and on the press. Other tests, included several of the REC lower pools, attract few hundreds people and maybe no tv.
Funding the first ones could be a smart move because they bring light and popularity to rugby. Funding the second ones could be a bad investment because they are not an efficacious propaganda.
As ShyLock says, World Rugby or the continental confederations could fund the test matches on the ratio of the effort previously produced by the local federation to spread the game and to bring spectators. But maybe they're already following this policy


Instead it looks like theyre going to devote more money to making the top nations richer through their world league concept. theyre going to kill the golden goose, i reckon

Participants of te Six Nations share money between each other. Test rivals share money between each other (or don't). The World League would let World Rugby share part of the money with lower tier countries.

Posts: 66
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 01:18
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: World Rankings

Postby ShyLockNo5 » Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 02:22

NaBUru38 wrote:
ShyLockNo5 wrote:
Canalina wrote:It's hard to understand which tests you should fund, or fund more. The Africa Cup Gold is promising, with good crowds on the stands (if I recall correctly), all the matches on TV (even if in a minor channel, I think) and an increasing popularity on the net and on the press. Other tests, included several of the REC lower pools, attract few hundreds people and maybe no tv.
Funding the first ones could be a smart move because they bring light and popularity to rugby. Funding the second ones could be a bad investment because they are not an efficacious propaganda.
As ShyLock says, World Rugby or the continental confederations could fund the test matches on the ratio of the effort previously produced by the local federation to spread the game and to bring spectators. But maybe they're already following this policy


Instead it looks like theyre going to devote more money to making the top nations richer through their world league concept. theyre going to kill the golden goose, i reckon

Participants of te Six Nations share money between each other. Test rivals share money between each other (or don't). The World League would let World Rugby share part of the money with lower tier countries.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. I do agree it's a good idea.

User avatar
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: World Rankings

Postby Canalina » Mon, 17 Dec 2018, 21:47

End of 2018 SuperKombi ranking: men XV + women XV + men 7s* + women 7s**
Only the nations appearing in the top20 of at least one of the four charts are included in this superkombi. Nations not appearing in a ranking (Georgia and almost all the southamerican nations in women's XV) receive a base ranking 100

* http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog. ... culin.html
** http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog. ... 31036.html

Image

Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: World Rankings

Postby Tobar » Tue, 18 Dec 2018, 00:30

NaBUru38 wrote:USA Rugby could host Argentina in Miami. Crowds would be interesting.


That’d be fun, especially if it was in Beckham’s new proposed stadium. Not sure how many argentinians are there but the amount of Latinos alone would at least help raise those numbers. Hell, the Brazilians who hate Argentina could fill out the stadium alone.

Posts: 2706
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: World Rankings

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 18 Dec 2018, 08:27

Canalina wrote:End of 2018 SuperKombi ranking: men XV + women XV + men 7s* + women 7s**]



Thanks for your relentless efforts.
I still think that such a ranking makes no sense at all, if it is based on the ridiculous Women's XVs ranking, where with Portugal a nation who played one match a decade ago can be ranked 15th ahead of many others who actually play the game.

The 7s ranking is nearly as worse. I picked out my nation Germany and it is shockingly off. Germany is ranked 29th after reaching the HK qualifier finals in a row, a second place in the Grand Prix Series this year and the 4th place in the Olympic Qualifier in 2016. A solid case could be made on this performances, that Germany is in fact the 16th best 7s team in the world and for sure in the top20. But in this one, Germany is ranked 29th. I.e. Italy still ranks before Germany, apart from having finished behind Germany in every tournament since 2014.

The author apparently states that only World Series tournaments count (no idea what OG stands for, I reckon it is not Original Gangsta).

Basing anything on such rankings simply makes no sense at all in the T2&T3 part of the rankings and gives a very false impression.
Thanks for your efforts, but my statistics wish for next year is, that you get better rankings to base your combos on :D
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: World Rankings

Postby Armchair Fan » Tue, 18 Dec 2018, 09:14

OG, Olympic Games I imagine.

Posts: 2706
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: World Rankings

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 18 Dec 2018, 09:18

Armchair Fan wrote:OG, Olympic Games I imagine.


Ah. So how do any nations outside of the World Series and Olympic Games get points?
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Wolves and 8 guests