World Rankings

[Armchair Fan Profile]

This is a big thing in Ireland. MMA became a lot more popular because of Conor McGregor. The entire country cared about cricket for a weekend because Ireland beat England. And the girls team making the handball (I think) finals one year had the whole country talking about it. Then again we are a small country with a big inferiority complex so maybe it is different.

Handball? I believe it was field hockey. I really don't know if there is any handball in Ireland

[kearnc25 Profile]

This is a big thing in Ireland. MMA became a lot more popular because of Conor McGregor. The entire country cared about cricket for a weekend because Ireland beat England. And the girls team making the handball (I think) finals one year had the whole country talking about it. Then again we are a small country with a big inferiority complex so maybe it is different.

Handball? I believe it was field hockey. I really don't know if there is any handball in Ireland

That was it, I knew it was some sport nobody really knows about here. Proves my point a bit lol

[Silver Fox Profile]

A thing I noticed just now is that the three new full members (Burkina Faso, Iran, Laos, if I remember correctly) have not been inserted in the ranking. Maybe in the first 2021 update?

Nope

[Thomas Profile]

BEFORE

AFTER


Go figure that one...

[victorsra Profile Website]

Well, the Ranking is based on points exchange, the winner takes points from the loser. For exemple, England had a strong 2019 and a perfect 2020, nobody drops that quickly. Rankings are pretty objetive, they are not a copy and paste of competitions standings....

[Thomas Profile]

Tell that to Scotland.

I know that is based on percentage wins and points since last WC. How is England still the top team in NH? should be lower.

Also how is it SA still top without a game?. trying to workout the formula can someone explain it?

[victorsra Profile Website]

I know that is based on percentage wins and points since last WC.

No, it isn't how it works at all. The ranking is not calculated since the last WC, it is since it was created, in 2003.

And it isn't percentage of wins. That's how it works:

Both Men's and Women's World Rugby Rankings are calculated using a 'Points Exchange' system, in which sides take points off each other based on the match result. Whatever one side gains, the other loses.

The exchanges are based on the match result, the relative strength of each team, and the margin of victory, and there is an allowance for home advantage.

Points exchanges are doubled during the World Cup Finals to recognise the unique importance of this event, but all other full international matches are treated the same, to be as fair as possible to countries playing a different mix of friendly and competitive matches across the world.

IMO WR's Ranking is pretty good, probably one of the best of all sports. But it has two major issues:

1) If a coutry never faces teams from other continents, it will definitly make it hard to compare teams. That is the case of all countries bellow the 30th place, as they never play outside their own continents;

2) If a country almost always plays better teams and loses a lot (like Italy) it will inevitably fall, while a team that plays more weaker teams and usualy wins (like Georgia) will be better ranked.

But those are not the Ranking's fault. They are Rugby's fault.

[Raven Profile]

Playing Home or Away also plays its role to add more or less points.

I know it may not reflect the current world rugby scenario thoroughly, but it tends to show where teams stand with some exceptions.

[victorsra Profile Website]

Since points are accumulated through time, it won't be a copy and paste of a championship standings. But it the idea of exchanging point I like.

[FLIDTA RISXVA Profile Website]

If a country almost always plays better teams and loses a lot (like Italy) it will inevitably fall,
while a team that plays more weaker teams and usualy wins (like Georgia) will be better ranked.

It is seen same way even in GEO -- by rugby pundits at least

[NaBUru38 Profile]

If I had to do a new ranking system, I would award points depending on the results of the past 24 test matches.

When I have time, I'll do a simulation.

[Rebus Profile]

If I had to do a new ranking system, I would award points depending on the results of the past 24 test matches.

When I have time, I'll do a simulation.

I would like to see this , particularly the rankings of Italy. I want to stress , I am not against the Italians , but you cannot lose the number of matches they do and still be considered one of the top 15 teams in the world in any rankings mechanism.
It is one of the flaws of a pretty decent system where a team consistently plays opposition ranked higher than them and therefore is not impacted by the loss. Would be interested to see what system is used NaBUru38 as there are few complex systems out there , from different sports , but I like the sound of the Womens FIFA rankings , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Wome ... d_Rankings

[victorsra Profile Website]

Italy only loses that amount of exactly because they almost only play teams from the Top 10 of the Ranking. You can only say this if the Italian were losing to teams below the Top 15, which isn't the case.

Italy's only matches against teams outside the 6N/TRC recently (after RWC 2015) were:

2019: Italy 49-10 Canada
2019: Italy 47-22 Namibia
2019: Italy 85-15 Russia
2018: Italy 28-17 Georgia
2018: Italy 25-22 Japan
2017 - Italy 19-10 Fiji
2017 - Italy 19-22 Fiji
2016 - Italy 17-19 Tonga
2016 - Italy 20-18 Canada
2016 - Italy 24-20 USA

Italy is in fact probably better than their current ranking.... or at least definitly not worse.

The problem isn't the Ranking. It is Rugby's fixtures.

[NaBUru38 Profile]

Could a new ranking encourage national teams to set better fixtures? Who knows.

[geuvanio22 Profile]

Could a new ranking encourage national teams to set better fixtures? Who knows.

I think the current ranking system is probably one of the best rankings in teams sports, so the problem is not the ranking system, but what the ranking is used for.
What encourages better fixture is money and access to competitions that bring in some revenue.
Diversification of opponents would make the ranking more accurate, but since everyone is always playing the same teams we won't be seeing any of that.
If we had a World League with promotion and relegation, or even a better World Cup qualifying system, the current ranking system would reflect a lot better the reality of each national team.
But rankings have no value if they aren't used for anything. Using the rankings to draw the RWC pool stage groups more than 3 years in advance and without every team already qualified is a joke.
The ranking would be a lot more attractive if the RWC draw was made after everyone is qualified and/or if it was somehow used in a World League (eg. with 2 relegations per division, one spot could be filled up by the lower division champion and the other by the best ranked team).

[victorsra Profile Website]

Could a new ranking encourage national teams to set better fixtures? Who knows.

I think the current ranking system is probably one of the best rankings in teams sports, so the problem is not the ranking system, but what the ranking is used for.
What encourages better fixture is money and access to competitions that bring in some revenue.
Diversification of opponents would make the ranking more accurate, but since everyone is always playing the same teams we won't be seeing any of that.
If we had a World League with promotion and relegation, or even a better World Cup qualifying system, the current ranking system would reflect a lot better the reality of each national team.
But rankings have no value if they aren't used for anything. Using the rankings to draw the RWC pool stage groups more than 3 years in advance and without every team already qualified is a joke.
The ranking would be a lot more attractive if the RWC draw was made after everyone is qualified and/or if it was somehow used in a World League (eg. with 2 relegations per division, one spot could be filled up by the lower division champion and the other by the best ranked team).

Yep. The idea of WR Ranking being a joke is unfair. The joke lies in the fixtures, that make it impossible to create a ranking system more accurate.

The only faults I see in the Rankings are:

- the criterea for a team to enter the ranking... I don't have an answer, but we always complained about it;

- And the Women's Ranking that keeps inactive teams in higher positions than they should. IMO, a whole RWC cycle inactive should be enough to consider the team inactive and make it restart from the last position. If a country hasn't played in a whole RWC cycle, come on, that 15s national team is over. It might return, but that's a restart;

[Raven Profile]

2019: Italy 85-15 Russia

I had completely forgotten about that game, it caught my attention cause I was sure they didn't share the pool at the RWC... Clearly does not reflect what the Russians could do and showed in Japan after.

More diversification of fixtures: 100% IN
World League: 99% UNCONVINCED

For me it would take the "magic" of the Rugby World Cup away.

[victorsra Profile Website]

I do understand why you and others don't like the idea of a World League, but it realy looks like a matter of "when" and not "if". There is too much competition from other sports and entertainment industries that friendly matches are definitely bad products. Specialy now with funds investing in rugby. The question IMO is basicaly how to make it decent for T2 rugby. The RWC won't lose as much as you think. The model of every 4 years in a host country gives the event a special taste and exceptionality. Nations League won't damage the Euro just like a World League wouldn't damage the RWC IMO. It is up to the format, you can preserve the hierarchy of the competitions.

[geuvanio22 Profile]

More diversification of fixtures: 100% IN
World League: 99% UNCONVINCED

For me it would take the "magic" of the Rugby World Cup away.

Is the risk of losing magic the only reason why you oppose to the World League?
I honestly don't see why this would happen, each competition has its own nature and spirit. World Cups are meant to be an event to celebrate the sport, to gather all the best players in the same country every four years, with many knock out matches and matches concentrated within a short period of time. A World League would be meant to keep public interest during 3 non-RWC years and to spread the sport, it would focus on a league format, spread over an entire year, with maybe one or two knock out matches. Volleyball has three MAJOR events and each one has its own magic: World Legue, World Cup and Olympics, they all work, are known and attractive. If an eventual World League doubles as RWC qualifying it might even make RWC even bigger.
I don't see how to diversify fixtures without a league structure. And without diversification, rankings will always be inaccurate.

[Working Class Rugger Profile]

I do understand why you and others don't like the idea of a World League, but it realy looks like a matter of "when" and not "if". There is too much competition from other sports and entertainment industries that friendly matches are definitely bad products. Specialy now with funds investing in rugby. The question IMO is basicaly how to make it decent for T2 rugby. The RWC won't lose as much as you think. The model of every 4 years in a host country gives the event a special taste and exceptionality. Nations League won't damage the Euro just like a World League wouldn't damage the RWC IMO. It is up to the format, you can preserve the hierarchy of the competitions.

I actually think it would add to the event. Certainly would be a more interesting qualification pathway. If there were two division of say 16 teams we could see the RWC expanded to 24. Meaning each and every game in the 2nd division will be crucial in the chase for 4-8 spots. From a 1st division perspective it would be about consistency. Who is actually the best team in the world as opposed to who can managed the occasion best. Which is what the RWC is all about alongside the showcase of game in general.

[Raven Profile]

[b]Is the risk of losing magic the only reason why you oppose to the World League?

No, it's not the only reason. Uncertainty of many details such as promotion / relegation, ringfence for some teams, how many nations would actually participate in it and at first glance, rankings won't change THAT much if T1s play mainly T1s, T2s play mainly T2s, etc.

But won't extend myself as we have a whole thread for that viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2559

[thatrugbyguy Profile]

I do understand why you and others don't like the idea of a World League, but it realy looks like a matter of "when" and not "if". There is too much competition from other sports and entertainment industries that friendly matches are definitely bad products. Specialy now with funds investing in rugby. The question IMO is basicaly how to make it decent for T2 rugby. The RWC won't lose as much as you think. The model of every 4 years in a host country gives the event a special taste and exceptionality. Nations League won't damage the Euro just like a World League wouldn't damage the RWC IMO. It is up to the format, you can preserve the hierarchy of the competitions.

It’s more a question of whether it’s the right answer to the question. I think many are ok with the idea in principle, but the proposals to date haven’t actually addressed many of the issues that are raised.

[thatrugbyguy Profile]

More diversification of fixtures: 100% IN
World League: 99% UNCONVINCED

For me it would take the "magic" of the Rugby World Cup away.

Is the risk of losing magic the only reason why you oppose to the World League?
I honestly don't see why this would happen, each competition has its own nature and spirit. World Cups are meant to be an event to celebrate the sport, to gather all the best players in the same country every four years, with many knock out matches and matches concentrated within a short period of time. A World League would be meant to keep public interest during 3 non-RWC years and to spread the sport, it would focus on a league format, spread over an entire year, with maybe one or two knock out matches. Volleyball has three MAJOR events and each one has its own magic: World Legue, World Cup and Olympics, they all work, are known and attractive. If an eventual World League doubles as RWC qualifying it might even make RWC even bigger.
I don't see how to diversify fixtures without a league structure. And without diversification, rankings will always be inaccurate.

The World League is is about trying to figure out how to move the game forward in a way that satisfies everyone. Rugby’s problem though is that it’s trying to do two things that are at odds with each other - trying to raise the level of the smaller nations whilst trying not to destabilise the status quo of the current T1 nations. At some point as Japan has demonstrated when a smaller nation rises this inevitably starts to put pressure on the current status quo. Eventually if enough T2 nations rise like Japan one or more of these T1 nations is going to fall. That is an inevitable outcome. You only have to look at basketball today to see what happens when nations become elevated. 20 years ago the USA were guaranteed gold medals at the Olympics, now even with their best players they are coming up against far greater and more skilled opposition meaning they are no longer certain to win.

Now this is a good thing for basketball because it’s popular throughout the world, I believe it’s the second biggest team sport outside of football in terms of participation and professional leagues and has a large fan base to draw from. So, upsetting the established order is healthy for that sport. Rugby’s problem is its established order is a small group of nations with a relatively small support base. The entire population rugby draws from from the ten T1 nations is only about 320 million. Japan’s population alone is 125 million. Now imagine the USA, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Spain, India, Mexico, etc all rising to Japan’s level in rugby. The status quo in rugby would crumble. Of the ten T1 nations only England, France and probably Argentina and South Africa would be able to withstand such an upheaval. Australia and even New Zealand would simply not be able to compete anymore on the world stage. Scotland and Wales would lose their place too. Ireland could maybe survive. So that’s the dilemma the game faces. It cannot expand without sacrificing something. The World League is an attempt to find a middle ground - give some form of opportunity to upcoming nations but not enough of a chance where they can pose a serious threat down the line. In the end that satisfies no-one.

[Working Class Rugger Profile]

More diversification of fixtures: 100% IN
World League: 99% UNCONVINCED

For me it would take the "magic" of the Rugby World Cup away.

Is the risk of losing magic the only reason why you oppose to the World League?
I honestly don't see why this would happen, each competition has its own nature and spirit. World Cups are meant to be an event to celebrate the sport, to gather all the best players in the same country every four years, with many knock out matches and matches concentrated within a short period of time. A World League would be meant to keep public interest during 3 non-RWC years and to spread the sport, it would focus on a league format, spread over an entire year, with maybe one or two knock out matches. Volleyball has three MAJOR events and each one has its own magic: World Legue, World Cup and Olympics, they all work, are known and attractive. If an eventual World League doubles as RWC qualifying it might even make RWC even bigger.
I don't see how to diversify fixtures without a league structure. And without diversification, rankings will always be inaccurate.

The World League is is about trying to figure out how to move the game forward in a way that satisfies everyone. Rugby’s problem though is that it’s trying to do two things that are at odds with each other - trying to raise the level of the smaller nations whilst trying not to destabilise the status quo of the current T1 nations. At some point as Japan has demonstrated when a smaller nation rises this inevitably starts to put pressure on the current status quo. Eventually if enough T2 nations rise like Japan one or more of these T1 nations is going to fall. That is an inevitable outcome. You only have to look at basketball today to see what happens when nations become elevated. 20 years ago the USA were guaranteed gold medals at the Olympics, now even with their best players they are coming up against far greater and more skilled opposition meaning they are no longer certain to win.

Now this is a good thing for basketball because it’s popular throughout the world, I believe it’s the second biggest team sport outside of football in terms of participation and professional leagues and has a large fan base to draw from. So, upsetting the established order is healthy for that sport. Rugby’s problem is its established order is a small group of nations with a relatively small support base. The entire population rugby draws from from the ten T1 nations is only about 320 million. Japan’s population alone is 125 million. Now imagine the USA, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Spain, India, Mexico, etc all rising to Japan’s level in rugby. The status quo in rugby would crumble. Of the ten T1 nations only England, France and probably Argentina and South Africa would be able to withstand such an upheaval. Australia and even New Zealand would simply not be able to compete anymore on the world stage. Scotland and Wales would lose their place too. Ireland could maybe survive. So that’s the dilemma the game faces. It cannot expand without sacrificing something. The World League is an attempt to find a middle ground - give some form of opportunity to upcoming nations but not enough of a chance where they can pose a serious threat down the line. In the end that satisfies no-one.

See. I view a bit differently. Yes, they don't want to upset the established nations. They are the primary revenues generators of the game. It's simply fact and cannot be reasonably ignored. But a large part of my thinking around the World League is around expanding that group as opposed to replacing anyone within it. The goal should be to start with 16 in the top division based on current rankings. While also establishing a similar 16 team 2nd division. I think it should run over the span of two years allowing for plenty of crossover play and strictly within the June/July and November windows. This gives team time to grow and develop. I also believe structures like the PNC, SAC, REC etc. like the RC and 6Ns should be run external in their current windows in order to provide exposure to teams across divisions or not actually in the 32 to these levels of play.

A pro/rel playoff would be put in place in order to determine who will play in the next edition. The nature of playing a greater mix of teams will have greater effects in the 2nd divisions than the 1st but the likes of Georgia and the USA will still see significant progress. But what will be key in all of this is money. And specifically the split. I for one think that each team in the structure regardless of division should receive an equal cut. But even a 66/33% split would have pretty big impacts in most if not all of the 2nd division nations. Particularly around development and HP pathways. Which is what really drives my interest. If say the value of the structure was $500m(Euro) annually. Which is half that of the original WANDA offer. Even if the 2nd div teams only saw a 1/3 split that would exceed their current operating and development budgets many times over. Investing in participation and pathways over 2 or 3 of these cycles would begin to see significant jumps forward and then these structures could be expanded upon.

[victorsra Profile Website]

I do understand why you and others don't like the idea of a World League, but it realy looks like a matter of "when" and not "if". There is too much competition from other sports and entertainment industries that friendly matches are definitely bad products. Specialy now with funds investing in rugby. The question IMO is basicaly how to make it decent for T2 rugby. The RWC won't lose as much as you think. The model of every 4 years in a host country gives the event a special taste and exceptionality. Nations League won't damage the Euro just like a World League wouldn't damage the RWC IMO. It is up to the format, you can preserve the hierarchy of the competitions.

It’s more a question of whether it’s the right answer to the question. I think many are ok with the idea in principle, but the proposals to date haven’t actually addressed many of the issues that are raised.

Yes, the questions of "when" and "what". The format is the central issue.