RWC and Ranking Graph

[The InnFORCEr]

I had been looking for something like this for a while!

[jono]

further proof that the kiwis cant capitalise

[Blackswan]

I'm just a simple engineer who analyses almost everything.

The first thing to recognise is that the chart shows average annual ranking points and therefore does not track a teams improvement or deterioration over the course of the year. As an illustration, the fact that the Wobblies and 'Boks are currently much the same ranking points is not evident from the chart since the average ranking points over the year has had the 'Boks ahead by much more.

So with that in mind -

The ranking system appears to have been a good indicator of the four teams most likely to contest the semi-finals in each world cup.

RWC 1987
Final NZ v Fr (rank 1 & 2)
Semi Aus, Wal (rank 4 & 3)

RWC 1991
Final Aus v Eng (rank 2 & 3)
Semi NZ, Sco (rank 1 & 5) - Fra rank 4, not much difference to Sco ranking points

RWC 1995
Final RSA v NZ (rank 1 & 2) - not much difference in ranking points
Semi Fra, Eng (rank 3 & 5) - Aus rank 4, not much difference in ranking points for Fra, Aus, Eng

RWC 1999
Final Aus v Fra (rank 1 & 5)
Semi NZ, RSA (rank 3 & 2) - Eng rank 4, not much difference to Fra ranking points

RWC 2003
Final Eng v Aus (rank 1 & 3)
Semi NZ, Fra (rank 2, 5) - Ire rank 4, not much difference in Ire Fra and RSA ranking points

RWC 2007
Final RSA v Eng (rank 2 & 6)
Semi Fra, Arg (rank 4 & 5) - Nz rank 1, Aus rank 3 - the year NZ and Aus went crashing out in the quarter finals.

It also shows some trends -

The two years that Aus have 'peaked' on ranking points also coincide with winning the RWC.
Similarilly for RSA with a clear improvement over the preceding years.
Argentina's performance in 2007 coincided with their best ranking points ever.
England's win in 2003 coincided with their peak after a steady rise over the previous six years.

None of which is particularly surprising as it merely confirms that the teams that are 'in form' when it comes to a RWC are the ones that are most successful. With one notable exception

Which gets us back to the point that the trend in the year prior to the RWC might cast some further light on which teams were significantly improving in the immediate year's lead up the tournament.

[Happy]

and we shouldn't forget that the 1987 cup was an ammature cup so 2 points to note here, it shouldn't be recognised in this graph and should also be noted that NZ have never won a "professional" world cup

[The InnFORCEr]

I'm just a simple engineer who analyses almost everything.

The first thing to recognise is that the chart shows average annual ranking points and therefore does not track a teams improvement or deterioration over the course of the year. As an illustration, the fact that the Wobblies and 'Boks are currently much the same ranking points is not evident from the chart since the average ranking points over the year has had the 'Boks ahead by much more.

So with that in mind -

The ranking system appears to have been a good indicator of the four teams most likely to contest the semi-finals in each world cup.

RWC 1987
Final NZ v Fr (rank 1 & 2)
Semi Aus, Wal (rank 4 & 3)

RWC 1991
Final Aus v Eng (rank 2 & 3)
Semi NZ, Sco (rank 1 & 5) - Fra rank 4, not much difference to Sco ranking points

RWC 1995
Final RSA v NZ (rank 1 & 2) - not much difference in ranking points
Semi Fra, Eng (rank 3 & 5) - Aus rank 4, not much difference in ranking points for Fra, Aus, Eng

RWC 1999
Final Aus v Fra (rank 1 & 5)
Semi NZ, RSA (rank 3 & 2) - Eng rank 4, not much difference to Fra ranking points

RWC 2003
Final Eng v Aus (rank 1 & 3)
Semi NZ, Fra (rank 2, 5) - Ire rank 4, not much difference in Ire Fra and RSA ranking points

RWC 2007
Final RSA v Eng (rank 2 & 6)
Semi Fra, Arg (rank 4 & 5) - Nz rank 1, Aus rank 3 - the year NZ and Aus went crashing out in the quarter finals.

It also shows some trends -

The two years that Aus have 'peaked' on ranking points also coincide with winning the RWC.
Similarilly for RSA with a clear improvement over the preceding years.
Argentina's performance in 2007 coincided with their best ranking points ever.
England's win in 2003 coincided with their peak after a steady rise over the previous six years.

None of which is particularly surprising as it merely confirms that the teams that are 'in form' when it comes to a RWC are the ones that are most successful. With one notable exception

Which gets us back to the point that the trend in the year prior to the RWC might cast some further light on which teams were significantly improving in the immediate year's lead up the tournament.

That's one way to look at it

Simple Engineer I thought that was TEF's title

[Blackswan]

I wouldn't dream of upsetting TEF by claiming to be simpler

[travelling_gerry]

Where the bit where the ice started melting?

[tdevil]

It's only stats, the saffers love the stats and were quick to point out that we haven't won a game on the highveld in 47 years. If however you give them stats on why they can't win the world cup they tend to disagree.
If you use their stats logic, they can't win the world cup, because the semi as well as the final is at Eden park and the last time the boks won at eden park was in 1937, they have to do it twice to lift the cup....impossible(if you use their logic),
but they won't agree with that....it's just stats
Personally I like that stats and will agree to that....bring it on