The IRB Rankings and the gulf between NH and SH...

Diamondmaker

My understanding on the rankings is that you get points, weighted by the ranking and relative strength, of the opposition. Please correct me if I am worng or embelish if its relevant...

If the above basic assumption is true then the SH teams are always going to be seeded / ranked above the NH teams for the simple reason that they get more games against each other to rack up greater points, than what NH teams may get by beating Scotland for example.

During a 3N season any SH team gets 4 shots at a top 4 ranked team, during a 6N season you get 5 shots at rankings 4 or 5 and under... ( this year any way ). This therefore means they will always have that edge ranking wise which translates to RWC seeding.

Am I correct in assuming this ??

Also you are only as good as the teams you regularly play, I feel the strength of NZ rugby has meant that Aus and SA have always been strong. They play regularly against the best team in the world and have much more exposure to techniques, tactics and skills that come from the world leaders in rugby.
As the NH teams have had more and more exposure to the SH the gap has occasionally closed. ( perhaps culminating in Irl nealry beating Aus in Telstra and England winning that RWC )

They too also have a huge pool of Islander all to keen to move to NZ and Aus and what better way than to do this through pro rugby.

Basically the SH, will always be stronger and it would take generations for the shift to ever go to the NH, if ever ??

Will the NH ever be consistently competitvie to the SH I dont know and I dont think so......

toomevara

I was going to start a post-mortem on the autumn series after the AB's muller England next weekend to complete the Home nations slam, but hey why not now..Just why are they so good?...better than us everywhere that counts, but especially psychologically.

They've got a mental toughness I'd love to see in an Irish team. None of those SH teams ever really looked like losing any of those games, even France went down to the Wallabies (the one game I thought might upset the SH applecart)...Our only hope is the Welsh next weekend.

Any thoughts on the dominance of the SH? (they also seem to have adapted to the ELV's better than us.)

Goodluck2me

Yeah but If the NH teams beat the SH teams in these friendlies, we would be higher ranked and playing each other more often and therefore the show would be on the other foot.

toomevara

goodluck2me wrote: »

Yeah but If the NH teams beat the SH teams in these friendlies, we would be higher ranked and playing each other more often and therefore the show would be on the other foot.

Sorry goodluck, I'm probably being especially dense today (nowhere near enough caffeine on board), could you explain a wee bit?

anonymous_joe

To the best of my knowledge, if let's say France started mullering all the SH teams, and made it to top of the rankings, then if any NH beat France it'd drag them up, and leave the SH below us playing each other too often and thus costing each other points.

It's a fair enough system.

hardCopy

anonymous_joe wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge, if let's say France started mullering all the SH teams, and made it to top of the rankings, then if any NH beat France it'd drag them up, and leave the SH below us playing each other too often and thus costing each other points.

It's a fair enough system.

Also (correct me if I'm wrong), the world cup is weighted especially heavy, so an all Northern final would result in the top 2, or at least 2 of the top 3 being Northern.

One good world cup from the Northern teams could swing it in our favour and if we continued to play well in autumn/summer tests we would end up with a heavily Northern top tier for subsequent world cups

Podge_irl

Diamondmaker wrote: »

My understanding on the rankings is that you get points, weighted by the ranking and relative strength, of the opposition. Please correct me if I am worng or embelish if its relevant...

If the above basic assumption is true then the SH teams are always going to be seeded / ranked above the NH teams for the simple reason that they get more games against each other to rack up greater points, than what NH teams may get by beating Scotland for example.

The amount of points you get is based on the difference in ranking points between you the oppo, not the overall number of points. NZ often can't get any points off SA or Aus when playing at home. similarly, Scotland can get as many points off beating England as SA can get off beating Aus say (if not more). The difference in rankings between the teams is quite easily maintained by the twice-yearly man-shaming the SH gives to the NH teams as we all lose points to them.

dub_skav

Argentina have no tri-nations advantage but have seen themselves steadily climb the ranks by always playing to the best of their abilites. Add to this a good World Cup and they are now up to fourth.

The reason the SH teams are higher ranked comes down to their consistency - they rarely play really badly and rarely lose to the same team twice in a row.

corny

When England were the best team in the world pre 2003 they were rightly ranked number 1. It had nothing to do with playing the SH teams regularly they just had a great generation of players. Think i'm right in saying AUS, NZ and SA were ranked 2, 3 and 4 (maybe not the Springboks) so England didn't drag our co-efficient up. It's a decent system and IMO the rankings don't lie.

Pinetree Boy

Also you are only as good as the teams you regularly play, I feel the strength of NZ rugby has meant that Aus and SA have always been strong. They play regularly against the best team in the world and have much more exposure to techniques, tactics and skills that come from the world leaders in rugby.
As the NH teams have had more and more exposure to the SH the gap has occasionally closed. ( perhaps culminating in Irl nealry beating Aus in Telstra and England winning that RWC )

Good point. It is not the only issue but when I compare Irelands fixture list with the ABs it is in my view insular. I think the ABs benfit every year from NH tours while the NH teams don't seem to do tours to the SH.

Ireland this year came down for two one off games.

The current AB tour has seen 8 new All Blacks. They may not have played much but they have been in the enviroment with the top players and coaches NZ has to offer for six weeks which has to be a benefit.

In addition to the eight on this tour you also have Kahui and Thompson debuting this year and Kaino and Flynn who had only played 2 or 3 games before 2008 season.

Ireland on the other hand hasn't had this advantage and by my reckoning has had only 3 new boys intorduced this year.

Diamondmaker

Pinetree Boy wrote: »

Also you are only as good as the teams you regularly play, I feel the strength of NZ rugby has meant that Aus and SA have always been strong. They play regularly against the best team in the world and have much more exposure to techniques, tactics and skills that come from the world leaders in rugby..

I know Im technically quoting myself but is this perhaps the simplest and truest factor in the consistent gulf across the equator ?

It is quite simple to evaluate why the ABs are the best. Very few would argue .....( and I have to really enforce this having been there for a weel last week ) ...that rugby is a way of life there.

It is by far and away the number one sport. This quite simply means it gets all of the nations attention, support and athletes per capita that no other nation has. Its simple to explain why they are so good.

Follow this on, but the Ozzies are in no way any where near as supporting about Union, yet they can produce from a pool of players that has been ravage by AFL and League a top 4 team and multiple RWC winners.

How can they do this ?

I believe it is as simple as they have so much exposure to the ABs.
Example:
If Ireland began playing the ABs 2 or 3 times every year and many of our players played against them ( or with them ) week in week out - in a club scenario, I think we too, in a few geneartions would be a top team.

Its never gonna happen of course and thereofre the gulf will always remain I think.
There is nothing fundamentally better about Australian rugby that makes them a better nation. In fact, my experience of the last year here, has lead me to believe that we ( Irl) have a better set up, support and of course geographics*, for breeding an international unit.

*How inconvenient is junior development. grass roots, with kids in Perth or Brizzy - 5 hours apart! This is surely a huge hurdle at under age development for national squads here...

corny

Diamondmaker wrote: »

I know Im technically quoting myself but is this perhaps the simplest and truest factor in the consistent gulf across the equator ?

It is quite simple to evaluate why the ABs are the best. Very few would argue .....( and I have to really enforce this having been there for a weel last week ) ...that rugby is a way of life there.

It is by far and away the number one sport. This quite simply means it gets all of the nations attention, support and athletes per capita that no other nation has. Its simple to explain why they are so good.

Follow this on, but the Ozzies are in no way any where near as supporting about Union, yet they can produce from a pool of players that has been ravage by AFL and League a top 4 team and multiple RWC winners.

How can they do this ?

I believe it is as simple as they have so much exposure to the ABs.
Example:
If Ireland began playing the ABs 2 or 3 times every year and many of our players played against them ( or with them ) week in week out - in a club scenario, I think we too, in a few geneartions would be a top team.

Its never gonna happen of course and thereofre the gulf will always remain I think.
There is nothing fundamentally better about Australian rugby that makes them a better nation. In fact, my experience of the last year here, has lead me to believe that we ( Irl) have a better set up, support and of course geographics*, for breeding an international unit.

*How inconvenient is junior development. grass roots, with kids in Perth or Brizzy - 5 hours apart! This is surely a huge hurdle at under age development for national squads here...

John Eales, Michael Lynagh, David Campese, George Gregan, Stephen Larkham, Mark Ella, Nick Farr-Jones, Tim Horan......etc. These are great players with or without exposure to NZ rugby and they are the reason the Aussies have been successful in World cups. The Aussies are an enigma anyway. They punch well above their weight in every sport they play and South Africa have always been the second best Rugby nation even before the Tri Nations. Also by your rationale the Argies will come to dominate when they join the Tri Nations in 2011 or 2012. I guarantee you that won't happen.

Just think of soccer for a moment. Brazil would be the New Zealand of Soccer. Do Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay or any other South American country bar arguably Argentina even make a dent on the world stage? They don't benefit from having it handed to them by the Brazilians twice a year.

NZ do lead the way but their performances are there for all to see and its not like we never play them. We know exactly whats required, we just can't produce it. They don't have secrets you just uncover by playing them regularly.

The difference in my opinion is this. BOD first picked up a rugby ball when he was a teenager i think. They're playing under 6 Rugby in New Zealand and SA!

anonymous_joe

corny wrote: »

John Eales, Michael Lynagh, David Campese, George Gregan, Stephen Larkham, Mark Ella, Nick Farr-Jones, Tim Horan......etc. These are great players with or without exposure to NZ rugby and they are the reason the Aussies have been successful in World cups. The Aussies are an enigma anyway. They punch well above their weight in every sport they play and South Africa have always been the second best Rugby nation even before the Tri Nations. Also by your rationale the Argies will come to dominate when they join the Tri Nations in 2011 or 2012. I guarantee you that won't happen.

Just think of soccer for a moment. Brazil would be the New Zealand of Soccer. Do Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay or any other South American country bar arguably Argentina even make a dent on the world stage? They don't benefit from having it handed to them by the Brazilians twice a year.

NZ do lead the way but their performances are there for all to see and its not like we never play them. We know exactly whats required, we just can't produce it. They don't have secrets you just uncover by playing them regularly.

The difference in my opinion is this. BOD first picked up a rugby ball when he was a teenager i think. They're playing under 6 Rugby in New Zealand and SA!

He went to Rock so the oldest he could have been was 13. And did he not go to Willow as a kid...?

In my old school we started playing at 7 or 8, so it's not that different from SA/NZ.

I doubt the year makes a crucial difference.

premierstone

anonymous_joe wrote: »

He went to Rock so the oldest he could have been was 13. And did he not go to Willow as a kid...?

In my old school we started playing at 7 or 8, so it's not that different from SA/NZ.

I doubt the year makes a crucial difference.

Your school would be the exception here though joe, in NZ its the rule

anonymous_joe

Think every rugby school with a junior school starts at that age. I can remember playing Marys when I was 7 or 8. Belvedere, Willow, etc had all started by then.

It is true that a huge whack of people came in at secondary school having never played the game though.

dfx-

You know there's a sizeable gulf when SA win three tests away from home

Diamondmaker

corny wrote: »

. Also by your rationale the Argies will come to dominate when they join the Tri Nations in 2011 or 2012. I guarantee you that won't happen.

Just think of soccer for a moment. Brazil would be the New Zealand of Soccer. Do Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay or any other South American country bar arguably Argentina even make a dent on the world stage? They don't benefit from having it handed to them by the Brazilians twice a year.
!

My rationale was based on generations of exposure, Argentinas inclusion will not have the effect that you say I am saying, I agree on this.
It will serve some benefit and thats goes without saying.

Again I only stated 1 neighbour has benefited from proximity and you have given 1 example in soccer, I think you are enforcing my theory with your example of Brazil.
Soccer is a poor example is it is so widely played however.

corny

Diamondmaker wrote: »

My rationale was based on generations of exposure, Argentinas inclusion will not have the effect that you say I am saying, I agree on this.
It will serve some benefit and thats goes without saying.

Again I only stated 1 neighbour has benefited from proximity and you have given 1 example in soccer, I think you are enforcing my theory with your example of Brazil.
Soccer is a poor example is it is so widely played however.

I understood your point perfectly and i think i can say again with near certainty the Argies will never come to dominate or co-dominate rugby (as in consistantly dominate NH hemisphere teams). Not this generation or generations to come.

Far from enforcing your point i'm downright contradicting you. You originally said Australia and South Africa benefit from game time against NZ, game time not proximity "(you are only as good as the teams you regularly play, I feel the strength of NZ rugby has meant that Aus and SA have always been strong.)" South Africa don't need to play NZ to keep their standards up. They've a huge tradition themselves always have done. Put it this way if tomorrow they were removed from the Tri Nations and replaced by Italy do you think in 50 years time Italy would be the 2nd best side in the world and SA also rans? Its an extreme but it proves a point.

Also, what would soccer being widely played have anything to do with game time against Brazil? You're talking about exposure to the best team nothing more. Whether it be rugby, soccer or table tennis! Loads of countries of border and play Brazil on a regular basis and if its true for one it has to be true for all to support your theory. And Argentina had a footballing tradition long before Brazil influenced them! They established the first football league outside of the British Isles. They contested the first WC final in 1930 and the game itself was introduced and played by English and Italian immigrants. The increasing popularity had very little to do with Brazil.

In truth Ireland can't even dominate the 6 Nations. We've always played teams better than us in that competition yet we have the poorest record of all the home nations and France. Why can't we improve to the level of the French and English seen as we play them regularly for club and country?

Diamondmaker

Its no coincidence that the SH teams regularly shift in power between themselves but consistently dominate NH teams.

Conversely NH teams shift in power amongst themselves, but are on average, dominated by SH teams.

There is much more cross polination of skills and techniques over the generations amongst the 2 hemispheres, than across, this like wise has contributed to a consistent gulf.
In the modern age whereIreland see and play the ABs regularly, our performnces have become more competitive, is this coincidence or is it increased exposure to the best teams and techniques??
Have Italy improved since joing the 6N in a few years ?

I think it is very reasonable to say the 3 SH teams keep each other, on average, at a superior level to the NH, for the very simple reasoning Im using.

Take a SH team out of play in the 3N for a generation, put them in the 6N and then reintroduce them to 3N, I think it would be fair to say they would be less likely to be as competitive in the 3N.

corny

Diamondmaker wrote: »

There is much more cross polination of skills and techniques over the generations amongst the 2 hemispheres, than across, this like wise has contributed to a consistent gulf. In the modern age where Ireland see and play the ABs regularly, our performnces have become more competitive, is this coincidence or is it increased exposure to the best teams and techniques??Have Italy improved since joing the 6N in a few years ?

I think it is very reasonable to say the 3 SH teams keep each other, on average, at a superior level to the NH, for the very simple reasoning Im using.

Take a SH team out of play in the 3N for a generation, put them in the 6N and then reintroduce them to 3N, I think it would be fair to say they would be less likely to be as competitive in the 3N.

I'm sorry but thats bs. What you're saying is ridiculous. You make it sound like we're living in the dark ages. We're not. Cross polination? How many aussies and NZ'ers ply their trade over here? There's a New Zealand coach at Wales at the minute. We've had the same coach recently and the scots have had an aussie coach. Leinster, Munster and Ulster all have Tri nations coaches. Players too? We have munster hakas for fk sake! Didn't do us much good. We lost tamely to New Zealand as did Wales and Scotland and soon England. Increased exposure? There's nothing secret about what they're doing and we play them often enough for your reasoning to make an impact. Our defensive coach under Eddie O' Sullivan (his name excapes me, rugby league convert i think) said "Australia are the most predictable side in world rugby but that doesn't make it easy to stop them".

What you are saying is taking New Zealand (world leaders) out of the tri-nations into the 6N would instigate a power shift towards the NH ie we'd start to dominate SA! Thats laughable. You couldn't be more wrong in my view. SA and to a lesser extent Australia will always produce good teams and Ireland have been reasonably competitive in recent times because of our so called "golden generation" of players.

BTW England produced a WC winning team and proven best team in the world pre 2003 playing their traditional game. Taking nothing from NZ. They beat SA by 50 points, beat all the 3N in their back yards and won a world cup. There's nothing superior about their "skills and techniques" its the players they have to execute them that counts.

Diamondmaker

corny wrote: »

I'm sorry but thats bs. What you're saying is ridiculous. You make it sound like we're living in the dark ages. We're not. Cross polination? How many aussies and NZ'ers ply their trade over here? There's a New Zealand coach at Wales at the minute. We've had the same coach recently and the scots have had an aussie coach. Leinster, Munster and Ulster all have Tri nations coaches. Players too? We have munster hakas for fk sake! Didn't do us much good. We lost tamely to New Zealand as did Wales and Scotland and soon England. Increased exposure? There's nothing secret about what they're doing and we play them often enough for your reasoning to make an impact. Our defensive coach under Eddie O' Sullivan (his name excapes me, rugby league convert i think) said "Australia are the most predictable side in world rugby but that doesn't make it easy to stop them".

What you are saying is taking New Zealand (world leaders) out of the tri-nations into the 6N would instigate a power shift towards the NH ie we'd start to dominate SA! Thats laughable. You couldn't be more wrong in my view. SA and to a lesser extent Australia will always produce good teams and Ireland have been reasonably competitive in recent times because of our so called "golden generation" of players.

BTW England produced a WC winning team and proven best team in the world pre 2003 playing their traditional game. Taking nothing from NZ. They beat SA by 50 points, beat all the 3N in their back yards and won a world cup. There's nothing superior about their "skills and techniques" its the players they have to execute them that counts.

Ill leave it to you, Im talking BS all together.