Switch to full style
Post a reply

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Sat, 19 Aug 2017, 16:36

One correction - that was also wrong on the Wiki list - from the 2002 WRWC. Ireland 23 Japan 3 (NOT 0-18).

At a guess whoever did that one (probably me) managed to put the time of the match in rather than the score. No-one has noticed before....

Also two possible Norwegian tests -
Sweden (development?) 101-0 "Spring 2001" (date TBC but newspaper article provided)
Norway 0-53 Sweden (development?) 6/10/2001 (Borre)

15/2/1998: Netherlands 5-29 Spain (Amsterdam)
15/3/1998: Spain 29-3 Kazakhstan (L'Hospitalet)

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Mon, 28 Aug 2017, 12:15

Thanks to the World Cup the Black Ferns overcame in the rankings also the All Blacks... 95.66 vs 95.21

Has any team ever reached quote 100? I suppose no-one

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Mon, 28 Aug 2017, 14:38

I think it isn't possible....

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Mon, 28 Aug 2017, 14:54

Portugal go up from 16th to 15th in the current rankings. How the ***** can a team that has only played one test, which the lost heavily, 20 years ago end up RISING in any sensible ranking system?

Japan go down... despite winning v Hong Kong and only losing to higher ranked teams

And Patricia Garcia's missed drop goal has proved VERY expensive!

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Mon, 28 Aug 2017, 15:36

Because if World Rugby had to clean women's rankings due to team inactivity just like they do with men's then they would see the poor state of global women's XV exposed.

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Mon, 28 Aug 2017, 20:34

Of the five games Canada played, only two counted for ranking points, and the one vs Australia barely so.

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Mon, 28 Aug 2017, 22:14

Only 15 games among 30 counted for the World Rugby rankings : 2/6 on day 1, 2/6 on day 2, 3/6 on day 3, 3/6 on semis and 5/6 on finals !

By countries
New Zealand : 2 (0-0-1, 0, 1).
England : 2 (0-0-0, 1, 1).
France : 4 (0-1-1, 1, 1).
USA : 3 (1-1-0, 0, 1).
Canada : 2 (0-0-1, 0, 1).
Australia : 4 (1-1-0, 1, 1).
Wales : 1 (0-0-0, 0, 1).
Ireland : 4 (1-0-1, 1, 1).
Italy : 4 (1-0-1, 1, 1).
Spain : 3 (0-1-1, 0, 1).
Japan : 1 (0-0-0, 1, 0).
Hong Kong : 0 (0-0-0, 0, 0).

As if New Zealand hadn't played any semi-final, as if England & Japan hadn't played any pool game, as if C Pool had only 3 teams, as if Wales had begun the tournament on the last day, as if Hong Kong wasn't in Ireland at all... :shock:

But 30/30 counted games for the unofficial Serge's rankings ;) : http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog. ... 07224.html

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Tue, 29 Aug 2017, 15:22

Movement over the entire tournament. Portugal & Netherlands both jumped a spot by Japan falling. Wales improved the most, going from 10th to 7th. Ireland fell the most, going from 5th to 9th.

1. New Zealand (+1)
2. England (-1)
3. France (+1)
4. Canada (-1)
5. USA (+2)
6. Australia (-)
7. Wales (+3)
8. Italy (+1)
9. Ireland (-4)
10. Spain (-2)
16. Japan (-2)
23. Hong Kong (-)

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Wed, 06 Sep 2017, 06:43

sjbret wrote:Only 15 games among 30 counted for the World Rugby rankings : 2/6 on day 1, 2/6 on day 2, 3/6 on day 3, 3/6 on semis and 5/6 on finals !

What exactly is your point? Should games against much weaker teams count for the rankings?

I would propose a system were you simply lose 10 ranking points if you don't play a game that very year. Will balance the Women's ranking out without reducing the "numbers".

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Wed, 06 Sep 2017, 06:58

RugbyLiebe wrote:What exactly is your point? Should games against much weaker teams count for the rankings?

Serge wrote:I wasn’t satisfied enough by the official World Rugby’s ranking which presents according to me many qualities but which, and I regret it, only concerns a restricted number of countries.
The ranking doesn’t take in account the level of the teams which is the main criterion I retain for every match because the World Rugby’s principle is simple : the winner gains some points, the loser loses them.
It doesn’t take into consideration the games against the countries which aren't members of World Rugby, even when the tournament is organized by a World Rugby affiliated federation, nor does it the matches against the teams I called special (Nomads...), as well as those against ranked teams having a difference of more or less than 10 points in a 0 to 100 ranking.
Finally, any introduction in the World Rugby’s rankings is arbitrarily fixed, no matter what the previous results of the countries are.
Calculation method
For every international match, I've attributed since 1982 for women, points to every country as a sum of several elements.
I mainly take into account the match level (generally the points average of the 2 teams before the match, with minima) and the kind of result (win, draw, defeat or forfeit).
But I also count the match venue (at home according to the opponent from the continent or not, in an other country of its own continent, on neutral ground, in a country of the continent of its opponent, away according to the opponent), the number of scored points and the difference between the number of scored points and the number of scored points by the opponent.
Finally, I add a bonus for WRC.
There are a few exceptions in this method, in particular when countries play A, B , Emerging, Amateur, Junior, Student, Army, Police or Services teams, even provinces or clubs in official competitions.
In an official competition too, results of A, B, Emerging or Juniors teams can make the said country points marginally move, with a specific calculation.
Finally, matches results with « special » teams (Nomads, Caribbean Select) are counted and these teams classified apart.
The points number after the match is equal to the sum of 10% of the match points and 90 % of the points number before the match (possibly 20 % and 80 % for women's teams playing very few or in the World Cup). This method allows to take less into account surprises and requires regularity in performance to progress. Besides, it favors countries the level of which improves by often playing to the detriment of those who play few, the number moreover decreasing in 2% each year.
To present my rankings on October 2009, I worked more than 2 years to compile men's data and one year to compile women's data from all the important sites (thanks to them). And also to realize multiple tests which allowed me to validate the method.

http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog. ... women.html
http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog. ... 07224.html

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Mon, 02 Oct 2017, 19:34

On World Rugby rankings' page there's an explanation about how the various women teams entered in the chart


The women’s rankings differ from the men’s in the way that the starting ranking points are calculated:

*The first official women’s full international match was played in 1987 and since then the number of women’s matches is considerably fewer than the number of men’s matches.
*There are a number of women’s teams who do not play regular matches.
*As a result of the relatively small number of matches compared to the men’s and the discrepancies in the number of matches played by different Unions the effect that one result will have on the rankings could unfairly skew the result.
*To combat this effect, it has been decided to start all teams out on 80 ranking points (an arbitrarily chosen figure which does not have any bearing on the subsequent results of the rankings) in 1987, then for each year between 1987 and the year that an individual Union played their first women’s full international match 2 points are deducted from their total.
*This deduction occurs up until 2007, so if a team plays their first ever full international after 2007 then they will begin with 40 ranking points.

This is not totally true. According to our glorious researches, the 2-points-deduction went up until 2012

2008: Brazil and Uzbekistan started from 38.00
2009: Barbados, S.V.&Grenadines from 36.00
2010: Bahamas 34.00
2011: Switzerland 32.00
2012: Philippines 30.00
2013: Czech Republic 30.00
2014: no new entry
2015: no new entry
2016: no new entry

Just in 2017, with the inclusion of Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana, they restored the entry at 40.00 points

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Tue, 30 Jan 2018, 08:02

In the last men's ranking ten nations have been penalized by six points cause they have not played any test match in the last two years (at least this is the most probable explanation). Maybe next monday, with the first women's ranking of 2018, we will see some revolution also in this ranking. Even if probably they use different criteria for men and women

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Mon, 05 Feb 2018, 13:44

No, no variations in the ranking this monday. They don't use the same criteria they applied in the men's one

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Sun, 15 Apr 2018, 09:53

I tried to summarise the both first years of World Rugby official rankings.
Firstly, I'ld want to say and repeat that WR rankings have a main quality : they exist. And we waited them since a too long time !
And if we aren't satisfied by the method, it's always possible to create another ranking as in Serge's archives.
http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog. ... women.html

Since february 2016, 140 XV women's games have been recorded by WR with a WR number (from 23073 to 25787).
If we eliminate the both Barbarians games (Vs Munster & British Army) and the 3 matches with a single country (Czechia Vs Brown University, Wales Vs British Army & Australia Vs Auckland), we have 135 games between 2 countries, including a total of 24 playing countries.

In the 135 games, 77 (57 %) were used for the rankings (among which 8 couldn't according to the method).
And 58 (43 %) were not (among which 7 could).

By country, the data are following.
England : 33 games, among which 22 (67%) were counted - 2nd place in WR rankings, 1st place in Serge's archives,
France : 27 with 17 (63%) - 3rd in WR & AS,
Ireland : 23 with 17 (74%) - 8th in WR & 6th in AS,
Wales : 23 with 11 (48%) - 9th in WR & 7th in AS,
Italy : 21 with 14 (67%) - 7th in WR & 8th in AS,
Canada : 19 with 16 (84%) - 4th in WR & AS,
Scotland : 18 with 5 (28%) - 11th in WR & 10th in AS,
Spain : 14 with 6 (43%) - 10th in WR & 11th in AS,
New Zealand : 13 with 7 (54%) - 1st in WR, 2nd in AS,
Hong Kong : 13 with 4 (31%) - 23rd in WR, 14th in AS,
United States : 12 with 10 (83%) - 5th in WR & AS,
Japan : 12 with 5 (42%) - 16th in WR & 12th in AS,
Australia : 10 with 6 (60%) - 6th in WR & 9th in AS,
Other Countries : 32 with 14 (44%).

The 11 other counties which have played at least one game :
Belgium (5 games/3 counted, 22th/20th), Netherlands (5/3, 14th/16th), Switzerland (5/0, 37th/22nd), Germany (4/1, 19th/19th), Russia (3/2, 20th/21st), Fiji (3/1, 30th/27th), Czechia (3/0, 52nd/24th), Zimbabwe (1/1, 38th/45th), Papua New Guinea (1/1, 42nd/49th), Botswana (1/1, 43nd/50th) & Singapore (1/0, 34th/25th).

And the 28 WR ranked countries without a game since february 2016 are :
Samoa (12th/15th), South Africa (13/13), Portugal (15/63), Kazakhstan (17/17), Sweden (18/18), Trinidad & Tobago (21/30), China (24/29), Denmark (25/37), Jamaica (26/34), Guyana (27/44), Romania (28/32), Norway (29/31), Kenya (31/26), Bosnia & Herzegovina (32/53), Thailand (33/35), Uzbekistan (35/36), Cayman Islands (36/33), Tonga (39/39), Namibia (40/58), Uganda (41/28), Luxembourg (44/41), Finland (45/23), Brazil (46/46), Serbia (47/46), Barbados (48/51), Saint-Vincent & the Grenadines (49/61), Bahamas (50/55) & Philippines (51/40).

Lastly, 15 games (50%) were counted in WRWC among the 30 played and 23 (51%) among 45 in the three 6 nations (6 among 15 in 2018).
Post a reply