Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IRB Rankings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sulla
    replied
    1. SA 94.19
    2. NZ 92.11
    3.Eng 88.82
    4. Wales 85.02
    5. Irl 84.45

    No more change until the 6N. Victories over Wales & Eng would push us up, loss to France and back down..

    snakes & ladders

    Leave a comment:


  • Daithi
    replied
    Originally posted by Munsterboy View Post

    Yawn. Still making it up as you go along, rather than just looking it up.
    And what exactly are you contributing here!?

    Yawn is right!!

    P.s. funnily enough did you notice all my assumptions & deductions were correct, and that the system is a crock!?

    Leave a comment:


  • Munsterboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Daithi View Post

    Mb, I only stated in that post what I presumed was logical, I never stated what I think at all.

    But I think one can infer from piquet's excellent post that they don't underweight RWC warm up matches, which is as you suggest, is like they plucked it out of their arses.

    Also, since Ireland went into RWC19 ranked number one, hello !?, I think it's fair to assume they either don't weight results for recency enough, or at all. Arse indeed.

    Finally, the rankings are quite important cos:

    1. They dictate the seedings & hence the draw for each RWC
    2. They impact on things like sponsorship agreements, & contracts, (coaches, players) etc and a few trivial matters like that
    3. They inform current commentary on the game, and leading up to tests between sides, 'Ireland the number one ranked side in the world are playing Wales ranked 2,...yada,yada, yada'

    so you know, it would be kinda nice if they could at least get close to actuality in assessing teams through the ranking system imho.
    Yawn. Still making it up as you go along, rather than just looking it up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Piquet
    replied

    There is no weighting given to recent games over "historical" games.

    Any other info you need, have a look at Post 108 above.

    In any ranking system, there will be the odd period where a particular person or team has a run of results which either boosts or diminishes their ranking.

    Things tend to even out over time.

    As I said above maybe if friendlies were de-weighted, it might improve things a bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daithi
    replied
    Originally posted by Munsterboy View Post

    Honestly Daithi, at least take the trouble to have a look before going “I presume this, therefore I think that” and having a go.
    ...
    Besides, they’re just rankings, who really cares?
    Mb, I only stated in that post what I presumed was logical, I never stated what I think at all.

    But I think one can infer from piquet's excellent post that they don't underweight RWC warm up matches, which is as you suggest, is like they plucked it out of their arses.

    Also, since Ireland went into RWC19 ranked number one, hello !?, I think it's fair to assume they either don't weight results for recency enough, or at all. Arse indeed.

    Finally, the rankings are quite important cos:

    1. They dictate the seedings & hence the draw for each RWC
    2. They impact on things like sponsorship agreements, & contracts, (coaches, players) etc and a few trivial matters like that
    3. They inform current commentary on the game, and leading up to tests between sides, 'Ireland the number one ranked side in the world are playing Wales ranked 2,...yada,yada, yada'

    so you know, it would be kinda nice if they could at least get close to actuality in assessing teams through the ranking system imho.
    Last edited by Daithi; 21st-October-2019, 17:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • Munsterboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Daithi View Post
    Okay I'll bite:
    without having a clue about how the system currently operates:

    - I presume it weights competitive games v tests ( say x 2, or 1.5)?

    - I presume it weights results in world cup over all else?? (Say x 2)

    I presume it has a recency weighting e.g Ireland being beaten by England & Wales in the spring, & England again in August, say, should surely now count for more relatively, than beating those same sides in the spring of 2018???

    Loads of other sports run very good ranking systems e.g tennis, golf, etc so surely rugby can also!?
    Honestly Daithi, at least take the trouble to have a look before going “I presume this, therefore I think that” and having a go.

    The people who came up with these didn’t pull them out of their arses. The RWC warm-ups did throw things out of whack but that was temporary and they’re back to normal now and look about right.

    Besides, they’re just rankings, who really cares?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daithi
    replied
    Okay I'll bite:
    without having a clue about how the system currently operates:

    - I presume it weights competitive games v tests ( say x 2, or 1.5)?

    - I presume it weights results in world cup over all else?? (Say x 2)

    I presume it has a recency weighting e.g Ireland being beaten by England & Wales in the spring, & England again in August, say, should surely now count for more relatively, than beating those same sides in the spring of 2018???

    Loads of other sports run very good ranking systems e.g tennis, golf, etc so surely rugby can also!?

    Leave a comment:


  • Piquet
    replied
    I don't say this a lot, but I agree with OL. It's a good system.

    You gain Ranking Points when you win a match, gaining more points for beating a team that is ranked higher than you, the bigger the gap, the more points you gain.

    Similarly, you lose points if you lose, losing more if the team is ranked below you.

    If the gap in Ranking Points is ten or more,then you gain nowt for the win but you lose two for a loss.

    The gap in Ranking Points is adjusted to allow for home advantage and gains and losses are doubled for World Cup matches and multiplied by 1.5, if the margin is 15 points or more.

    A possible tweak might be to multiply gains and losses for "non-competitive*" games by 0.75.


    * this definition would have to be agreed but how about all non-6-Nations and non-Championship matches?
    Last edited by Piquet; 21st-October-2019, 14:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daithi
    replied
    Of course you should, I mean that's just basic common sense. The coaches were ringing each other beforehand to decide what type of sides and run outs they wanted sure!?

    Leave a comment:


  • ormond lad
    replied
    Originally posted by Daithi View Post

    I dunno, but the current ranking system has thrown up some mighty peculiar rankings in the lead up to this RWC in particular....
    Wales number 1, then Ireland came in to RWC 19 ranked 1, just a few weeks after being absolutely hammered by England, and after losing to both England & Wales in the spring. I mean come on!
    'It sure don't take a mechanic to know a car is broke. ..'
    rankingswere close from previous seasons results so of course warm up games will change things considerably when countries will have very different teams out as intentions are so different based on what they're aiming for in world cup. If so easy to change then propose something. Unless you reduce warm up games ranking points compared to 6 nations and normal summer tour and November games.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daithi
    replied
    Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
    what did you change to rankings then? World cup games get higher ranking then November tests and 6 nations. All varies on who you play and where they're rated as well.
    I dunno, but the current ranking system has thrown up some mighty peculiar rankings in the lead up to this RWC in particular....
    Wales number 1, then Ireland came in to RWC 19 ranked 1, just a few weeks after being absolutely hammered by England, and after losing to both England & Wales in the spring. I mean come on!
    'It sure don't take a mechanic to know when a car is broke. ..'
    Last edited by Daithi; 21st-October-2019, 14:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • ormond lad
    replied
    Originally posted by Daithi View Post

    They're gas those rankings, Ireland were quite clearly the 8th best side at this RWC. They so badly need to recalibrate how they work these out imho.
    what did you change to rankings then? World cup games get higher ranking then November tests and 6 nations. All varies on who you play and where they're rated as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • AwayFromHome
    replied
    Originally posted by Daithi View Post

    They're gas those rankings, Ireland were quite clearly the 8th best side at this RWC. They so badly need to recalibrate how they work these out imho.
    We are not definitively worse than France, Japan and Australia. As cr@p as we were on Saturday Australia were worse.

    Its a fair argument if you personally think that we are 8th but it is not outrageous either for the ranking system to end up saying we are better than the 3 above over the medium term. No ranking system will be perfect I think the current one does a decent job. It's biggest constraint is that Japan and Fiji don't get enough meaningful tests to pick up points and Argentina and Italy don't play enough games against non-top 10 sides to test where they really stand. That problem is really a fixture scheduling one and not a ranking system one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daithi
    replied
    Originally posted by Sulla View Post
    Dust settles..

    Ireland down to 5th, France up to 7th, Japan down to 8th, Wales down to 3rd. England up to 2nd, SA to 4th.
    They're gas those rankings, Ireland were quite clearly the 8th best side at this RWC. They so badly need to recalibrate how they work these out imho.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sulla
    replied
    Dust settles..

    Ireland down to 5th, France up to 7th, Japan down to 8th, Wales down to 3rd. England up to 2nd, SA to 4th.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X