Rankings
-
OK.
The No. 1 all-time world ranking sorted, I think.
These observations are based strictly on stats compiled using the WR official rankings formula.
So they are “OFFICIAL”
Only 8 nations have ever attained the top ranking.
And only 4 of them have held the overall all-time No 1. Rank.
England and Scotland swapped the all-time ranking back and forth in the early days.
England had a run from 1880 to 1891, but the 1895 split seems to have stuffed the poms.
So Scotland established a margin as No. 1 that lasted a very long time, 1893 to 1946, even tho they didn’t hold a current No. 1 rank after 1905.
In 1946 the late starters finally consigned the Scots to history, South Africa taking over as the No. 1.
South Africa then retained the No. 1 all-time ranking for 71 years, until 2017, when New Zealand finally chased them down.
NZ retained that status until 2021 when the saffers reclaimed it, and they still hold it.
As of September 17th SA are both the current No. 1 and the all-time No. 1.
The total amount of time each nation has been current No. 1 (1871-2025), as of September 17th:
Right now, NZ will have to go on a run of over two years at the top to reclaim all-time status. All other nations are too far behind to have the slightest prospect of ever achieving that.
NOW.
The asterisks!
I’m not putting actual asterisks in, because this is OFFICIAL!
BUT.
Two of SA’s runs as No. 1 happened to coincide with WWI and WWII. No matches were played 1915-19 or 1941-45, 10 years.
For 10 years SA never played a game, while ranked No. 1. No body did. So . . . .
If you knock 10 years off the SA total; today, that would leave NZ 8 years ahead of them (49 years to 41).
-
@No-Quarter a period when SA rugby was once again intent on nailing its own dick to the floor. Didn’t help that the financial pressures you mention were even more acute in the SA context.
Not a coincidence that France and Australia were dogshit for most of the decade and England were abysmal until Jones rocked up in 2016.
-
@No-Quarter a period when SA rugby was once again intent on nailing its own dick to the floor. Didn’t help that the financial pressures you mention were even more acute in the SA context.
Not a coincidence that France and Australia were dogshit for most of the decade and England were abysmal until Jones rocked up in 2016.
Australia weren't bad in the 2010s. They were invariably the team to trip the ABs up when they were hunting down the consecutive wins record. They were just wildly inconsistent, but still had a big game in them.
-
And only 4 of them have held the overall all-time No 1. Rank.
Love your work @mohikamo but can you please explain "all time No.1"?
Is that number of years (or total period) as No.1?
Re Scotland and England swapping top spot early on: suspect they were the only teams playing at that stage.
-
The all-time ranking is the total amount of time a nation has been ranked No. 1.
The current No. 1 ranking can virtually change day-to-day, WR does the calculation every 7 days.
Scotland managed to accumulate 20 years worth of No. 1 rankings in ancient times.
But since 1905 Scotland have not garnered one single day of rank, while NZ and SA have been piling up decades worth, nearly a whole century.When NZ and a little later SA arrived on scene, that was the end for the Scots and all the rest of the Euros.
The Euros only occasionally pop their heads up at the top, sometimes only for a matter of days.
Since then the contest for world rugby supremacy has been solely a contest been NZ and SA. Making SA v NZ one of the most intense contests in all sport.
SA finally knocked the Scots out of the way in 1946.
Of the following graphs, one shows the time accumulating at various dates, and the other, the running total.
The total number of days ranked number 1, 1871 to 2025:
SA*
As per the WR formula, last time I looked, if you do not play any games, you do not lose points.
SA had the good fortune to be ranked No. 1 at the time of both WWI and WWII, no official games were played during those periods.
That meant under the WR formula they accumulated ten years worth of No. 1 ranking without having to play a game.
Even so; NZ still overtook them, some time in 2017. If you knock ten years off their total (I would) we would have overtaken them in 2007.
To-day SA lead NZ by a bit over two years; or NZ leads SA by about 8 years. Depends how you want to look at it.
Everyone else is decades behind.
The Scots are still closest, and they haven’t been ranked at No. 1 for 120 years! -
I remember when I started following these sorts of records it was quite strongly in SA's favour.
Rough numbers and times - You must have started following around the early '80s when it was about 14 to 20 to SA. We then went 8 to 2 through the 80s to catch up. I started paying attention in the early / mid 90s because it even at that 22 each mark (or there abouts). We then dominated for 3 decades as shown by us being 20 ahead now.
We are 7 to 4 down in the 2020's which is our worst patch since the 40s but that was 4 losses in one tour (when we were probably struggling to find a touring party of young men at all given our population and our "contribution" to the war).
-
-
OK
This one is very close to my heart.
You read a lot of criticism on here about referees; about their competence.
But you seldom ever read a comment about a referee being biased.
It was not always like this.For the young ones; in olden times international referees were provided by the home team.
The accusations of referee bias were, therefore, relentless; and the saffer referees were definitely the most biased.
It’s actually quite a relief not to have to talk about referee bias anymore, but I will for moment.NZ had a negative record against SA for a very long time.
The main reason for this was the bias of SA referees.
The NZ v SA record since the introduction of neutral referees clearly bears this out.
The first time NZ had a neutral referee in a match in SA (1992); they won.
The first and only time NZ had neutral referees in a series in SA (1996); they won the series.Wins in matches between SA and NZ; by referee:
NZ has a better record against SA with neutral referees than they do with New Zealand referees!!!!!
NZ referees are actually too unbiased!SA v NZ has more interest for me than even World Cups. The teams are virtually always ranked No. 1 and 2. So always the ultimate competition. So long as we have the edge on them, I’m ok.
World Cups are nice; Bledisloe cups, fuck no one knew what the Bledisloe cup was when I was a kid . . . whatever.
-
I remember when I started following these sorts of records it was quite strongly in SA's favour.
Rough numbers and times - You must have started following around the early '80s when it was about 14 to 20 to SA. We then went 8 to 2 through the 80s to catch up. I started paying attention in the early / mid 90s because it even at that 22 each mark (or there abouts). We then dominated for 3 decades as shown by us being 20 ahead now.
We are 7 to 4 down in the 2020's which is our worst patch since the 40s but that was 4 losses in one tour (when we were probably struggling to find a touring party of young men at all given our population and our "contribution" to the war).
Sometime in the 1970s after visiting the Rugby Museum in Palmy and coming away with a plastic ruler (it was green) with the logos of all 8 of the Test playing nations and I started tallying wins and losses on them. Then I got the 1982 version of Men in Black with stats and records at the back.
Will have to find it. In a box somewhere.Just loved seeing which records were broken.
Cricket and the stats in the season magazine for the 80-81 B&H World Series Cup (yes, that one) and subsequent Rothman's series were similar in that I loved seeing the milestones bettered.
-
Bledisloe cups, fuck no one knew what the Bledisloe cup was when I was a kid . . . whatever.
Became a thing in 1979. 12-6 them at SCG (bastards, we were doing them a favour generating some $$ for them). Then they wandered around the ground with this cup noone had heard of.
-
-
OK
This one is very close to my heart.
You read a lot of criticism on here about referees; about their competence.
But you seldom ever read a comment about a referee being biased.
It was not always like this.For the young ones; in olden times international referees were provided by the home team.
The accusations of referee bias were, therefore, relentless; and the saffer referees were definitely the most biased.
It’s actually quite a relief not to have to talk about referee bias anymore, but I will for moment.NZ had a negative record against SA for a very long time.
The main reason for this was the bias of SA referees.
The NZ v SA record since the introduction of neutral referees clearly bears this out.
The first time NZ had a neutral referee in a match in SA (1992); they won.
The first and only time NZ had neutral referees in a series in SA (1996); they won the series.Wins in matches between SA and NZ; by referee:
NZ has a better record against SA with neutral referees than they do with New Zealand referees!!!!!
NZ referees are actually too unbiased!SA v NZ has more interest for me than even World Cups. The teams are virtually always ranked No. 1 and 2. So always the ultimate competition. So long as we have the edge on them, I’m ok.
World Cups are nice; Bledisloe cups, fuck no one knew what the Bledisloe cup was when I was a kid . . . whatever.
Interesting post. It begs a few questions:
Are you an unbiased neutral observer?
How old are you?
Are your columns labeled unbiased NZ referees and biased SA referees based on a feeling you have, or empirical evidence?
You state that: "The first time NZ had a neutral referee in a match in SA, they won." NZ won plenty of matches in SA before 1992. Can you reconcile this fact?
Do you think the fact that SA were excluded from competing internationally and missed the first 2 world cups might have had an impact on the game in South Africa, causing the national team to stagnate and fall behind?
Do you think the political situation in SA from that period until ... probably very recently, meant that players were often not selected on merit might have had an impact on the success of the boks?
What do you put the recent dominance of the springboks over the AB's down to? Is it biased refereeing, or something else?
What does NZ referees are too unbiased actually mean? -
National bias by international refs was the refereeing discussion point—until the advent of neutral refs.
If they had a forum like this at that time; you would've heard the squealing coming out of your screen.
I don’t think I’ve noticed anyone on this site say a ref was biased. Just incompetent. Which is actually a lot nicer than biased.I always have considered that refereeing bias was a big part of Enzeds poorer record against SA (as compared to all their other opposition).
I watched the 76 series in SA on TV. This series was meant to be in NZ.
The need for neutral refereeing was discussed before, during and after the series.
NZ lost 3 to 1; if it was in NZ I have no doubt the “rub of the green” would have meant the result being reversed.
SA players were calling their ref “oom.” More deferential even, than “Sir.”New Zealanders are probably too unassuming for their own good.
I was going to say “less” biased NZ referees until I looked at the stats.
NZ has a better winning % with neutral refs, than NZ refs.NZ didn’t win plenty of matches in SA; 5 games from 1928 up to the 1992 game, 64 years. The 92 game being only the 6th win.
And all NZ teams were very good; maybe 49 not as good as the others (but still good enough for at least one win with some fair play).
The first time they had a neutral ref in SA, they didn’t lose. Nuff said.The first World Cup in 1987 was the idea of the NZRFU, who pushed the idea hard. They clearly looked at it as a replacement for the series against SA, which would no longer take place. Up to this point the SA v NZ series was viewed as the the World Series of Rugby. Both teams invariably being the top two in the rankings.
As for the effect of SA politics on the performance of Springbok teams.
I can remember Errol Tobias and Avril Williams, neither played in a losing Bok side.
I leave it to the Saffers to have a good look at themselves.
That is not to say that Enzeders are saintly. There is darkness in NZ history, some very, very pouri business.
At one point there was a movement by the Maori to establish a New Zealand Maori Rugby Football Union.
The pakeha NZRFU stepped in and invited them into their house, and the Maori still hold a special status in the NZRFU.
Some may say too special, but that discussion would be for the political forum.The recent edge that SA have gained of NZ is very interesting.
For two decades NZ played an up-tempo passing game which was good enough to pretty much deal with everything they came up against.
But, that game did breakdown when it came up against the intensity of World Cup knock-out Rugby.
Hence, although favoured in virtually all World Champs up to 2015, the failed in 1991, 1995, 1999, and 2007.
Now, SA, with rigorous attention to the basics (set piece, possession, field position, gain-line) applies that intensity every time they face off, and it works.
Most of the time it does not look pretty, but is very effective.
NZ seems incapable of making an adjustment, wedded to a strategy that gave them so much success for so long, and still does, most of the time, but not all the time.
The interesting thing is how this pans out, it’s a few seasons already. I thought they would have already made an adjustment by now. -
The big picture
The rankings affect the ceding’s for the RWC Finals draw coming up.
Have not looked at the draw extra close, but I’d say only cedes 1 and 2 are really important, assuming those two will be on opposite sides of the draw and stay apart until the final if they keep winning.South Africa did not earn any points for the win against Japan, they are too far apart on the rankings.
The All Blacks earnt 0.98 points for the win over Ireland, and now have a 2.15 point buffer to third place.
They would have got even more points had Fainga’anuku’s last-minute try not been ruled out by a forward pass call. You get extra ranking points for a win by more than 15.
This would have meant the ABs would have been very, very close to SA at No 1, and an AB win v Scotland, and an SA loss v France would have sent NZ back to the top this weekend.
Be interesting to see if that Fainga’anuku no try has any importance in the final wash.
Just shows while the rankings are very, very big picture, and points can stay in the system for years; one call/no-call can have an effect.England moved ahead of France into fourth position after the win over the Aussies.
Ireland, England and France are now very close together.
The Wallabies loss meant they are now even further away from Argentina.
Scotland, earned no ranking points despite hammering the Yanks, too far apart.
All teams can earn points this weekend, except Ireland.
-
Ceding's competition.
Even though the Boks and Blacks won, Boks have extended their lead, with the away win over a big opponent. Scotland was a lesser opponent.
Blacks increased their margin on Ireland and should be safe in 2nd now, even if they lose to England (having Wales next up). Would have been nice to have extra padding with a couple of 15+ point wins.
Ireland got nothing for the win (Japan too far down the rankings), and won’t get a lot of points for a win over Aus.
England could go third this weekend, any win will see them move ahead of Ireland, even if Ireland win.
France remain 5th, and wont get much for a home win over Fiji.
Argentina should be safe in 6th now, with their win and Aus loss. Although 6th is still technically open.
It is still possible for Australia to claim 6th, but would need to beat the Irish by more than 15 points and have Scotland beat Argentina.
A win over Argentina could see Scotland move up into seventh, and even higher, depending on other results.
Remember:
Away wins count more; SH teams will move further in the rankings with wins, than will NH teams.
Wins by 15 plus also get extra.
Wins against higher ranked opponents also count more.
Beating up on someone down the rankings doesn’t get you much, if anything.
-
Had a look.
This is how I see it.I think all pools are drawn randomly per band.
Except Australia are in Pool A no matter what band.For Pool winners; A, B and E are on one side of the of the knock-out draw; C, D and F on other.
The actual draw is important; and could tell you a lot about how the comp will pan out.For example; if Boks and Blacks win pools A and B; and win thru R16; they will meet in a Quarter-final.
Not sure I like that.When the draw is made that is what to watch for.
You want to see cede 1 in A, B or E pool, and cede 2 C, D or F.
That sets up the possibilty of cedes 1 and 2 meeting in the final.
Otherwise there will be a big collision early in the comp.
As it stands rn.I think.
-
-
I had forgotten about Wales.
Gone right of my radar.
If they lose to Japan on the weekend, they drop to 13th.
That will put them in a RWC "group of death."
And with NZ and SA the next two opponents . . . not looking good.A loss to either of us won't bother them much: differential is too big.
A win however ...
We only played 3 matches against the Boks in the 80s. 2-1 in 1981.