Rankings
-
As I've said, the structure for the RWC playoffs are consistent. That isn't the problem.
The real problem is allocating the teams to bands, and therefore pools, so far in advance of the tournament.
Wiki says the draw was made on 14 Dec 2020, but they used the rankings from Jan 2020. So even worse!
Yep - THIS.
There's absolutely zero "weird" about the QFs/SFs setup.
It's just that the use of old rankings, led to a scenario where the top 4 teams happen to be in 2 pools.
And for those who don't think things through - the fact that those pools just happen to be named "A" & "B" - it might look even worse... but it's not. There could have been 2 in Pool B & 2 in Pool D - to the same net effect.
There is no "2 sides to the draw - with the top 4 teams all on one".
There are 4 sides to the draw, and we just happen to have the top 4 congested into 2 of them.And the end result - to get to the final, you're still going to have to beat one of the "top 4", and 1 of the top 8, and then the only other team who has managed to accomplish the same thing. Just in a different order to normal.
The more I think about it - the more I'm coming to think it's kinda cool...- Pool matches
- QF against somebody else of your general level (top 4 playing each other, ~5~8 playing each other)
- SFs - in theory a little less competetive than normal - but still, the ~5~8 teams aren't exactly slouches, and now have a shot - one upset away from a RWC final - that's gotta bring some game out of a team
- Final
-
As I've said, the structure for the RWC playoffs are consistent. That isn't the problem.
The real problem is allocating the teams to bands, and therefore pools, so far in advance of the tournament.
Wiki says the draw was made on 14 Dec 2020, but they used the rankings from Jan 2020. So even worse!
I believe they are not consistent, in 2019 the pool winners and runners-ups at the quarters, which is how SA got such an easy run to the final.
My issue with it is that raised so much discussion, whereas this time we'll know that the France/AB game only decides who gets to play who in the semis - the pools don't have any fun to them as they don't affect the whole tournament makeup.
-
In 2019, the QFs were still:
C1 vs D2
B1 vs A2D1 vs C2
A1 vs B2The winners played in the SFs. SA were only seeded 7th so were in Band 2. Japan beating Ireland, and Wales beating Australia meant those teams ended up switching from the expected QF matchups.
-
Re the rankings, they can change pretty quick.
The 6N don't often get completely dominated by one side. That's why Grand Slams and Triple Crowns are still celebrated.
I can see any of the 5 top 6N sides beating the others in the New Year. And Italy beat Aussie ...
So the current rankings could get scrambled again between now and October.
That is not to say WR shouldn't try and do the draw later in the cycle.
-
In 2019, the QFs were still:
C1 vs D2
B1 vs A2D1 vs C2
A1 vs B2The winners played in the SFs. SA were only seeded 7th so were in Band 2. Japan beating Ireland, and Wales beating Australia meant those teams ended up switching from the expected QF matchups.
You are right and I am wrong.
-
In 2019, the QFs were still:
C1 vs D2
B1 vs A2D1 vs C2
A1 vs B2The winners played in the SFs. SA were only seeded 7th so were in Band 2. Japan beating Ireland, and Wales beating Australia meant those teams ended up switching from the expected QF matchups.
You are right and I am wrong.
Mods - ban him for crimes against the Fern.
Admitting you're wrong cannot be allowed to stand.
-
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Rankings:
Admitting you're wrong cannot be allowed to stand.
Yeah, you're right.
I see what you did there.
-
My quick mental arithmetic seems to suggest the points exchange after last night is somewhere between 0.65 and 0.70.
Meaning SA drops to third on 89.4ish below Ireland on 89.83.
Looks like Aus and Arg stay at 6 and 7 respectively. Not enough points exchanged to affect placings.
-
That is the No. 1 world ranking as per the WR formula.
Official 2003-2025.
During covid someone used the formula and reverse calculated it backwards, from 2003 to 1870.
I teased out the No. 1 ranking.
If you add up the days at No. 1; NZ and SA are almost dead-level all-time.
Pretty incredible after 155 years.
Everyone else is a very, very long way behind. -
Long may it continue. Few things saffirs enjoy more than playing against, and (if we’re lucky) alongside, Kiwis. Just ahead of tuning each other fuktup before, during and after an BoksvEvil Test and sharing rugby yarns about each others’ countrymen that you share a mutual loathing because of provincialism. And just behind beating you in World Cup Finals.
And it’s because we respect you all so much that we are going to keep humilificating you senseless until the Cantab mafia is destroyed and the earth around the accursed hellhole known as Christchurch has been salted.
-
-
2010 - 2018 was just incredible. It was exactly the time we should have been slipping right back into the pack with the game going fully professional and our talent being sucked offshore searching for $$, but that period of dominance is basically unparalleled in the history of rugby.
-
I don't care about rankings or RWC wins when it comes to the Boks, I just need to know how long before they have an overall winning record against us. Does anyone who is good at maths able to predict that so I know when to drop dead to avoid it?
NZ have won 20 more games in head-to-heads with South Africa, so the Boks are unlikely to take a winning record anytime soon.
-
I don't care about rankings or RWC wins when it comes to the Boks, I just need to know how long before they have an overall winning record against us. Does anyone who is good at maths able to predict that so I know when to drop dead to avoid it?
NZ have won 20 more games in head-to-heads with South Africa, so the Boks are unlikely to take a winning record anytime soon.
8 years minimum at an average of 2.5 games per season.
I remember when I started following these sorts of records it was quite strongly in SA's favour.
