Wallabies fall to No.6 in world rankings

[blueandblack]

Rankings matter little when preparing for a World Cup, but Australia falling to No.6 in the latest world rugby rankings is just another small reminder of the huge task facing the Wallabies this year.

World Rugby released their updated rankings on Monday, with the only change in the top 10 being Wales rising above the Wallabies to No.5.

Despite the Wallabies winning the last 10 matches against Wales, their Six Nations victory over Ireland last Saturday in Cardiff helped Warren Gatland's team edge ahead.

Also contributing to the fall was Australia's dismal record in 2014.

Just two wins in the Rugby Championship - including losing to Argentina in Mendoza - was followed by a Spring tour when Bernard Foley's late drop goal in their triumph over Wales in November preceded defeats to France, Ireland and England.

Australia face a tough battle just to get to the knockout phase of the World Cup in October given they've been drawn in the same pool with Wales and hosts England, who are ranked No.4.

Fiji (No.12) and Uruguay (No.20) round out Pool A.

WORLD RUGBY RANKINGS - TOP 10

1. New Zealand
2. South Africa
3. Ireland
4. England
5. Wales
6. Australia
7. France
8. Argentina
9. Samoa
10. Scotland

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sp...orld-rankings/

[jono]

How can they do anything but fall if they're not playing thoigh...

[The InnFORCEr]

How can they do anything but fall if they're not playing thoigh...

The All Blacks are not playing either, but they are not falling

[GIGS20]

Seems fair to me, with the way the Wallabies have been playing recently and the way the NH are approaching their rugby we SHOULD be dropping.

Hopefully it'll put some fire in the belly and we'll smash them in the pools of the RWC

[Buddha Handy]

Seems fair to me, with the way the Wallabies have been playing recently and the way the NH are approaching their rugby we SHOULD be dropping.

Hopefully it'll put some fire in the belly and we'll smash them in the pools of the RWC

I agree but maybe head to head results should count for more. We have beaten Wales ten times in a row so that should count for something.

[AndyS]

Seems fair enough to me. It is the end result of the Wallabies dismal performance on the EOYT, shipping a load of points to the NH teams to share around. If it is any consolation, at least it means we are now so far behind New Zealand that we don't lose any points at if we lose to them over there. We could be a lot lower if we drop games in the RWC.

[jono]

Seems fair enough to me. It is the end result of the Wallabies dismal performance on the EOYT, shipping a load of points to the NH teams to share around. If it is any consolation, at least it means we are now so far behind New Zealand that we don't lose any points at if we lose to them over there. We could be a lot lower if we drop games in the RWC.

Also means there ismorepoints on offer for us if we beat them right?
Cant remember exactly the way it works

[beige]

Also means there ismorepoints on offer for us if we beat them right?
Cant remember exactly the way it works

I think so but the only time I ever tried to work out the points system I accidentally disproved its own existence.

[jono]

I think so but the only time I ever tried to work out the points system I accidentally disproved its own existence.

I still think it was devised by Frank Duckworth & Tony Lewis!

i'm not going to look it up because i'm too bloody ill today to think about that crap, but I think more points are awarded for beating the teams ranked higher than you. the higher they are ranked, the more points you get.

so if in game 1 of the bledisloe we smash the kiwis (bursts out laughing) we could potentially jump 3-4 places.

the rankings don't really mean much until after the November test window, or when drawing out for the world cup pools... both hemispheres need to have completed their seasons before we know where things truly stand.

[jono]

cant believe i did this:

Current Calculation method:
All World Rugby member countries have been given a rating that is in the range of 0 to 100 with the top side achieving a rating of about 90 points. The point system is calculated using a 'Points Exchange' system, in which sides receive points from each other based upon the match result – whatever one side gains, the other loses. The exchanges are based on the match result, the ranking of each team, and the margin of victory, with an allowance for home advantage. As the system aims to depict current team strengths, past successes or losses will fade and be superseded by more recent results. Thus, it is thought that it will produce an accurate picture depicting the actual current strength and thus rank of the nations.[3] The rankings are responsive to results and it is possible to climb to the top from the bottom (and vice versa) in less than 20 matches. As all matches are worth a total of 0 points there is no particular advantage to playing more matches. A rating stays the same until the team plays again. Although matches often result in points exchanges, 'predictable' results lead to very minor changes, and may result in no change to either side's rating.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_R...ulation_method

there is, like I said, slants for say if the Eagles beat the Blicks they's get more points than if say the boks or we beat then.
also if they beat the kiwis at home, it would also be worth a higher points swap.

[oxleymoron]

The only time that the rankings are relevant is wen the pools are allocated for the RWC. Go back to 2012, because we beat the welsh, that knocked them down into 9th spot and were then destined to end up in a pool of death. Samoa were actually ranked 7th at the time of the pool allocation for this year.