World Champs and World Rankings

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Mike Tann » Tue, 03 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Much bandwidth has been devoted to largely subjective suggestions about
who was/is the best team in the world 1995/1996.

SA are current holders of World Cup, which in eyes of most, makes them
reigning World Champions.

But to cover the period between the WCs, we need a ranking system to give
an objective indication of where the teams stand.

Perhaps the for-and- against record of NZ, SA, Aust, plus the 5N teams
over the last 2 years would yield a table of the top 8 teams Open it up
to include Canada and W. Samoa if you really want to argue about the
position of the bottom group.

Or, you could apply the S12 points system if you wanted to reward try
scoring teams.

A bit of work if anyone can be bothered, but the result would be far
better than the emotive babling we've had on the subject.

MJT  

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Gallagh » Tue, 03 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> Much bandwidth has been devoted to largely subjective suggestions about
> who was/is the best team in the world 1995/1996.

     S.A are the World Champions they have earned the right to be called
that until the next world cup but:

Right now...

     1  New Zealand
     2  South Africa
     3  Australia
     4  France
     5  England
     6  Wales
     7  Canada
     8  U.S.A  

Well,  it just my opinion and I'm sure most will disagree...

Later

 Grant

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Mike Irelan » Tue, 03 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>S.A are the World Champions they have earned the right
>to be called that until the next world cup but:
>Right now...
>     1  New Zealand
>     2  South Africa
>     3  Australia
>     4  France
>     5  England
>     6  Wales
>     7  Canada
>     8  U.S.A  
>Well,  it just my opinion and I'm sure most will disagree...
>Later

Grant:

I agree with your first 5 order, but surely you can't be serious ranking
Canada and the U.S. higher than Scotland, Ireland, (and perhaps Western
Samoa)!  I'm Canadian and think that our team has a creditable record
(save for our recent rough ride "down under") and plays open, creative
rugby, but to be rated higher than Scotland and Ireland is not
realistic.  After the first 5, it becomes a crapshoot to "pick 'em."

Mike Ireland


 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Tom High » Wed, 04 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:



> > Much bandwidth has been devoted to largely subjective suggestions about
> > who was/is the best team in the world 1995/1996.

>      S.A are the World Champions they have earned the right to be called
> that until the next world cup but:

> Right now...

>      1  New Zealand
>      2  South Africa
>      3  Australia
>      4  France
>      5  England
>      6  Wales
>      7  Canada
>      8  U.S.A  

> Well,  it just my opinion and I'm sure most will disagree...

Yep that's me! OK, I agree with the top 5, but Wales in 6?!? Come off it,
Wales would be struggling to beat Scotland, Samoa, Fiji, those guys are B
grade apart from the odd close win, not consistent and liable to be
smashed by any half decent SH side. Wales have been B grade for almost 20
years. Western Samoa and Fiji would go in above Wales. And what about
Scotland? The team that played in NZ was ***y good, skillful and
committed up front and I would rank them higher than Wales. Ireland too
should be up there above Canada and the USA. And Argentina (at home!).

My list.

1. New Zealand.
2. South Africa.
3. Australia.
4. France.
5= England, Scotland.
7. Western Samoa.
9= Ireland, Wales, Argentina, Fiji (much improved recently).
13.Canada.

For places 7 to 13 ranking is difficult and much depends on home games.

May have forgotten some teams...
Just my 0.05c worth.

--

Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory,          Phone: +(64) 07 838 4278          
University of Waikato,                       WWW server
Hamilton, NEW ZEALAND.                http://SportToday.org/;                

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Aida » Wed, 04 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>S.A are the World Champions they have earned the right to be called
>that until the next world cup but:

>Right now...

>     1  New Zealand
>     2  South Africa
>     3  Australia
>     4  France
>     5  England
>     6  Wales
>     7  Canada
>     8  U.S.A  

>Well,  it just my opinion and I'm sure most will disagree...

Well the Irish and the Scots for a start yer wally ...

Shesh.

Cheers

Aidan

--
Tsch"usz!

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by The Ca » Wed, 04 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


> >     1  New Zealand
> >     2  South Africa
> >     3  Australia
> >     4  France
> >     5  England
> >     6  Wales
> >     7  Canada
> >     8  U.S.A
> I agree with your first 5 order,

Well, I don't! Has everyone forgotten that when England and Australia
last
met (on neutral territory as well) England were victors? That was only a
year
ago! Just because they're from south of the equator does not make
automatically
superior. Revise your ranking, pushing Oz down to five and pushing
France
and England up one. After the top five, you seem to lose the plot
entirely.
Where are Scotland? I'll throw my penny's worth in
        1 NZ
        2 SA
        3 France
        4 England
        5 Australia
        6 Scotland
        7 Canada
        8 Wales

Miaow!

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Tom Johnsto » Wed, 04 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:



>> >     1  New Zealand
>> >     2  South Africa
>> >     3  Australia
>> >     4  France
>> >     5  England
>> >     6  Wales
>> >     7  Canada
>> >     8  U.S.A
>> I agree with your first 5 order,

>Well, I don't! Has everyone forgotten that when England and Australia
>last
>met (on neutral territory as well) England were victors? That was only a
>year
>ago! Just because they're from south of the equator does not make
>automatically
>superior. Revise your ranking, pushing Oz down to five and pushing
>France
>and England up one. After the top five, you seem to lose the plot
>entirely.
>Where are Scotland? I'll throw my penny's worth in

One game does not a rating make...
Or to put it more clearly, England beating Australia once (and by only a
last minute kick) is not enough to change their respective rankings.
What's more, most people would probably agree that Aust. in the W.C. were
at a low, and that since then they've improved (and will continue to do
so). What's changed in the English game since the W.C? Well Di got
divorced I guess...
:-)

Cheers,
Tom Johnstone

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by JBergm67 » Wed, 04 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


> >     1  New Zealand
> >     2  South Africa
> >     3  Australia
> >     4  France
> >     5  England
> >     6  Wales
> >     7  Canada
> >     8  U.S.A
> I agree with your first 5 order,

Well, I don't! Has everyone forgotten that when England and Australia last
met (on neutral territory as well) England were victors? That was only
ayear
ago! Just because they're from south of the equator does not make
automatically
superior. Revise your ranking, pushing Oz down to five and pushing France
and England up one. After the top five, you seem to lose the plot
entirely.
Where are Scotland? I'll throw my penny's worth in
 1 NZ
 2 SA
 3 France
 4 England
 5 Australia
 6 Scotland
 7 Canada
 8 Wales

Miaow! "

I couldn't agree more! Also, have you forgotten that France is the only
team in the world to have a winning record against NZ in the last three
years? They have beaten NZ 3 of the last 4 outings-how can you possibly
rate the Aussies above them when OZ has lost 4 in a row to NZ? Plus Fance
record against SA in the last 3 years is 1 win 1 loss and 1 tie with all
those matches played in SA!
I wouldn't say this qualifies them as first or second in the world-they
are too inconsistant for that, but placing them behind  Oz-gimmie a break.

Greg

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Andr » Thu, 05 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:



>> >     1  New Zealand
>> >     2  South Africa
>> >     3  Australia
>> >     4  France
>> >     5  England
>> >     6  Wales
>> >     7  Canada
>> >     8  U.S.A
>> I agree with your first 5 order,

>Well, I don't! Has everyone forgotten that when England and Australia last
>met (on neutral territory as well) England were victors? That was only
>ayear
>ago! Just because they're from south of the equator does not make
>automatically
>superior. Revise your ranking, pushing Oz down to five and pushing France
>and England up one. After the top five, you seem to lose the plot
>entirely.
>Where are Scotland? I'll throw my penny's worth in
> 1 NZ
> 2 SA
> 3 France
> 4 England
> 5 Australia
> 6 Scotland
> 7 Canada
> 8 Wales

>Miaow! "

>I couldn't agree more! Also, have you forgotten that France is the only
>team in the world to have a winning record against NZ in the last three
>years? They have beaten NZ 3 of the last 4 outings-how can you possibly
>rate the Aussies above them when OZ has lost 4 in a row to NZ? Plus Fance
>record against SA in the last 3 years is 1 win 1 loss and 1 tie with all
>those matches played in SA!
>I wouldn't say this qualifies them as first or second in the world-they
>are too inconsistant for that, but placing them behind  Oz-gimmie a break.

>Greg

Also, let us not forget that France is the only country to have won test
series in both SA and NZ.

Andre

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by David Flewell » Thu, 05 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Also, let us not forget that France is the only country to have won test
>series in both SA and NZ.

Rubbish, Andre! SA has won test series in SA and NZ, and so has NZ!
Even though it took NZ 49 years longer to do it! :)
--
David Flewellen - Cape Town, South Africa
 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Anthony Els » Thu, 05 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:




>>> >     1  New Zealand
>>> >     2  South Africa
>>> >     3  Australia
>>> >     4  France
>>> >     5  England
>>> >     6  Wales
>>> >     7  Canada
>>> >     8  U.S.A
>>> I agree with your first 5 order,

>>Well, I don't! Has everyone forgotten that when England and Australia last
>>met (on neutral territory as well) England were victors? That was only
>>ayear
>>ago! Just because they're from south of the equator does not make
>>automatically
>>superior. Revise your ranking, pushing Oz down to five and pushing France
>>and England up one. After the top five, you seem to lose the plot
>>entirely.

>Also, let us not forget that France is the only country to have won test
>series in both SA and NZ.

>Andre

OK, try this:

1 - NZ
2 - SA
3 - France
4 - England
5 - Australia
5 1/2 - OTAGO
6 - Scotland
7 - Western Samoa
8 - Canada
9 - USA
10 - Italy
11 - Argentina
12 - Ireland
13 - Fiji
14 - Romania
15 - Tonga
16 - Wales
(17 - Griquland West)
cheers

--
Tony Elson
GIS Analyst
Geographic Technologies Unit (GTU)              
Auckland UniServices Limited          

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Andr » Fri, 06 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


>>Also, let us not forget that France is the only country to have won test
>>series in both SA and NZ.

>Rubbish, Andre! SA has won test series in SA and NZ, and so has NZ!
>Even though it took NZ 49 years longer to do it! :)
>--
>David Flewellen - Cape Town, South Africa

Oh David, read my post.  France managed a test series victory against SA
in SA and a test series victory against NZ in NZ.  NZ can not beat
themselves in NZ, nor can SA beat themselves in SA, so they are both out
of this equation.  Also France beat both NZ and SA in a test series in
their own back yards in a one year span.

Andre

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Bill Tayl » Fri, 06 Sep 1996 04:00:00

|> OK, try this:
|>
|> 1 - NZ
|> 2 - SA
|> 3 - France
|> 4 - England
|> 5 - Australia
|> 5 1/2 - OTAGO
|> 6 - Scotland
|> 7 - Western Samoa
|> 8 - Canada
|> 9 - USA
|> 10 - Italy
|> 11 - Argentina
|> 12 - Ireland
|> 13 - Fiji
|> 14 - Romania
|> 15 - Tonga
|> 16 - Wales
|> (17 - Griquland West)

Not bad - best effort yet.  Here's my tiny alterations to it.

1 - NZ
2 - SA
3 - France
4 - Australia
5 - England
6 - Scotland
7 - Western Samoa
8 - Canada
9 - Italy
10 - Argentina
11 - Wales
12 - Ireland
13 - USA
14 - Fiji
15 - Tonga
16 - Japan
17 - Romania
18 - Tonga
19 - Namibia
20 - Hong Kong

And for dark horse fast improvers - keep an eye on Spain, Morocco and Uruguay!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     ABBA spelt backwards is AceOfBase.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by Aidan Philip Heerdeg » Fri, 06 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Much bandwidth has been devoted to largely subjective suggestions
>about who was/is the best team in the world 1995/1996.

I would contend the b/w nas been wasted ..

Quote:
>But to cover the period between the WCs, we need a ranking system
>to give an objective indication of where the teams stand.

Might I suggest this is THE LAST THING WE NEED!

Just cut it with the best in the world crap.

Who cares.

Later

Aidan

 
 
 

World Champs and World Rankings

Post by David Flewell » Fri, 06 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:



>>>Also, let us not forget that France is the only country to have won test
>>>series in both SA and NZ.

>>Rubbish, Andre! SA has won test series in SA and NZ, and so has NZ!
>>Even though it took NZ 49 years longer to do it! :)
>>--
>>David Flewellen - Cape Town, South Africa

>Oh David, read my post.  France managed a test series victory against SA
>in SA and a test series victory against NZ in NZ.  NZ can not beat
>themselves in NZ, nor can SA beat themselves in SA, so they are both out
>of this equation.  Also France beat both NZ and SA in a test series in
>their own back yards in a one year span.
>Andre

Oh Andre, read what I quoted - you mentioned teams winning test series
in SA and NZ... *not* *beating* SA in SA or NZ in NZ. Therefore they
qualify for your equation. ;)

But yeah - mucho respect to France for being the only side to have won
away series against both SA and NZ!
--
David Flewellen - Cape Town, South Africa