Power Rankings

[mudskipper]

Power Rankings

Fox Sports Power Rankings provide you with a unique look at the form of your favourite team.

Each week the Fox Sports Stats team analyse the data from every game and then, in conjunction with the Fox Sports experts, rank the teams based on just how well they are really playing. The competition ladder doesn't always tell the full story!

Who's hot and who's not? Which team to pick in tipping? Is it worth bringing in players from a certain team to help your Fantasy performance? The Power Rankings will help you make a call.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/super14/powerrankings

[Darren]

Now there's a surprise ... Personally I think the Reds and even the 'tahs had it over the Brumbles

[AndyS]

Yes, got to smile. Starting the season the Force were rated a bottom 4 side and the Brumbies were Real Madrid. The Force then loses its first string 10, its second string 10, its best back, has to promote a player directly off of the injured list to the starting 15, put a rookie on the bench with borrowed equipment, and despite all that it takes the Showponies 70+ minutes to break free and were lucky to be leading at that point.

If that is the measure of the Brumbies without Giteau and Elsom, we aren't the only ones without depth. You'd have to hope they were just number 2s on the night (as opposed to rated No. 1), otherwise Andy Friend should be sweating.

[Burgs]

Giteau and Elsom will need to bring a huge amount if they are to be the Premiers.

[mudskipper]

Now there's a surprise ... Personally I think the Reds and even the 'tahs had it over the Brumbles

Its rated by who they played... I'm surprised also but the Force didn't have a line break which helps the Brumbies stats... Both the Reds and Tahs had several... The Bulls scored plentty but let in plenty as did the Chiefs so they're down the list...

I use the NFL Power ranking to assit the odd punt... This could help with S14? ... I guess we'll se in time...

[Sheikh]

Its rated by who they played... I'm surprised also but the Force didn't have a line break which helps the Brumbies stats...

You sure? I was at the game and saw some, even by Sare who was playing injured! Maybe the people who compiled the stats need to watch the game again.

Also, how does a team who "Dominated the Force on the field and smashed them in the stats" manage to be close to losing the lead with 10 minutes to go? Considering the Crusaders and the Bulls both managed four or more tries, how one-eyed is Fox to promote the Brumbies to No 1? [Note: rhetorical question]

[jargan83]

Its rated by who they played...

If the ratings are based on who they played why did the Brumbies rate so high when most expected them beat the Force, especially given the injury woes we went through at the eleventh hour?

You add in the fact that as stated above the Force have been tipped to be towards the end of the field at the end of the season and the Brumbies are expected to be chellenging for title.

One would argue the Force gave a good account of themselves and certainly punched above their weight.

To have to Brumbies straight to Number 1 doesn't add up

[palitu]

yep... smite for submitting a bulshit article to the forums...

just makes you think, journo's know fuck-nothing!

---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:32 ----------

yep... smite for submitting a bulshit article to the forums...

just makes you think, journo's know fuck-nothing!

[mudskipper]

no need to make so many excuses... This power ranking stuff really bugs you guys.... and its not why i posted it... harden up it will get better... your starting to sound like soccer mums...

[jargan83]

Ok don't shoot the messanger, but I was readin through some stuff on the Fox Sports website when I stumbled across this

Fox Sports Power Rankings

We didn't like what we saw in the opening week and the Force offered even less in round two. Strip the stars out of any team and they'll struggle but there are simply no positives coming out of the west as even default star James O'Connor went MIA against the Hurricanes.

Keep in mind I haven't watched the game yet hence why I haven't commented on it yet but I have been reading what you lot thought of it and did this guy watch a different game?

[mudskipper]

Week 2

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/super14/powerrankings

[Burgs]

Ok don't shoot the messanger, but I was readin through some stuff on the Fox Sports website when I stumbled across this



Keep in mind I haven't watched the game yet hence why I haven't commented on it yet but I have been reading what you lot thought of it and did this guy watch a different game?

Probably just from a different perspective Jargs.
Most on here in their praise admit that it wasn't good enough but, considering the circumstances, was worth looking to the good points, which were there for the viewing.
An East Coast perspective would be more likely to be "will they win the comp" orientated so have a different bar to measure against.

That said, it is amazing how many times my view of a match is different to people I didn't watch with but the same as those who I shared the match with, or different to someone who watched live v on tv or vice versa. It is also often the case that if you watch a match live and then watch it on replay within 24 hours your view changes significantly as well.

[jargan83]

Probably just from a different perspective Jargs.
Most on here in their praise admit that it wasn't good enough but, considering the circumstances, was worth looking to the good points, which were there for the viewing.
An East Coast perspective would be more likely to be "will they win the comp" orientated so have a different bar to measure against.

That said, it is amazing how many times my view of a match is different to people I didn't watch with but the same as those who I shared the match with, or different to someone who watched live v on tv or vice versa. It is also often the case that if you watch a match live and then watch it on replay within 24 hours your view changes significantly as well.

I see where your comming from, but most had written the Force off completely well before kick off and were according to most reports weren't embarrased in their efforts. granted they didn't display anything that would win the comp (assumption).

But a review that says "we expected them to be shit and they were and we find that dissappointing" is a bit harsh? I understand the media is biased at the best of times but surely this write up was harsh.

I bet that if the Brumbies or Waratahs had lost the amount of personel before the first game and then the casulties we suffered game 1 the write up would read "gallent in defeat" or something along those lines

[mudskipper]

I

I bet that if the Brumbies or Waratahs had lost the amount of personel before the first game and then the casulties we suffered game 1 the write up would read "gallent in defeat" or something along those lines

silly hypothetical journalism is meaningless... Force are 14th… Goods news is, will get better.

[palitu]

silly hypothetical journalism is meaningless... Force are 14th… Goods news is, will get better.

yeah, 14th for sure. However... i think they were better than last week. And how could they say JOC went missing? im pretty sure they didn't see the game... He played two positions, 15 in D and 10 (thats right... how he could go missing when playing 10 is beyond me) in A.

shit house journalism...