IRB Rankings

[Jehna]

All Blacks' No.1 ranking slashed

From correspondents in Paris
October 09, 2007
WORLD Cup flop New Zealand has maintained its No.1 spot in the latest IRB world rankings but it has seen its lead over France slashed.

The All Blacks were knocked out of the World Cup 20-18 by the French in Saturday's quarter-finals and their lead over Bernard Laporte's side is now just 1.25 points.

France leapt from fifth to second place in the rankings while Australia slipped to fifth after its 12-10 quarter-final defeat by England.

South Africa remains third and Argentina fourth after their respective quarter-finals wins over Fiji and Scotland.

England remains sixth but trails Australia by less than a point heading into its semi-final against France on Saturday.

Ireland, Scotland, Fiji and Wales complete the top 10, their positions unchanged.

Agence France-Presse


______________________________________________
IRB World Rankings - 08 October 2007

[Sagerian]

From what I gleened from pick and go, France, Saffas and Argies will only be decimals behind the all blacks with a semi win, so out of the 3 of them, whoever wins the cup should end up one in rankings (which makes sense to me).

[LarryNJ]

How could a team beat a team and be ranked behind them?

[Happy]

go to www.irb.com Larry.. you get points for a win, NZ had quite a margin

[LarryNJ]

Q. How does the system deal with freak results?

There is a maximum that any side's rating can move, either up or down, based on one match result, to make sure that the system does not over-react.

Would that be considered a freak result? What about the Wallabies loss?

[GIGS20]

Based upon the poll matches, there would be a certain amount of 'freakiness' attributed to the weekend's results much of it will be offset by further wins though.

Eg if England's win WAS a true freak result, they will lose this weekend and stay where they are, If they win against France, they will get more points and climb the ladder.

[hopep]

This is the first time I can recall that NZ had a ranking below 90 points. Sort of suggests that international rugby has lifted all round and the era of single team dominance may be over.

On the ranking shifts - bear in mind that ALL RWC games carried double values. So shifts in RWC period are much more radical than normal (hence Aust. plummet)

[gustafsl]

Q. How does the system deal with freak results?

There is a maximum that any side's rating can move, either up or down, based on one match result, to make sure that the system does not over-react.

Would that be considered a freak result? What about the Wallabies loss?

Don't think they are considered freak results. Think it has to be more along the lines of Portugal beating New Zealand to be considered freak result.

Basically the idea with the rankings is that if the teams were to have a one-off game on neutral ground, the higher team should win. And I think the ratings reflect this. If NZ-FRA and ENG-AUS games were played today I'd say that New Zeland and Australia would still be favourites.