The rugby

[AndyRM]

If he'd played advantage on that early line out and if he'd sent Hogg to the sin bin, would that have changed your opinion.

In Golf the saying is the harder I work the luckier I get. In Rugby it could be the more we dominate the more the opposition fans find fault with the refereeing. I truly believe that fans only see the bad refereeing decisions that go against their team.

The ref was awful. I'd have the same opinion if I'd been watching England v Wales with Luke Pearce involved.

He isn't experienced enough for this level of rugby, which is why he got so much wrong.

I've not been as frustrated by a ref since every game Wayne Barnes has refereed.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Yeah, that's fair, I don't mind going against the grain.

For all Ireland are marginally quicker than they used to be, I still see them as very cynical at the breakdown and slow the ball down as much as possible.

I don't believe in rankings - I have no idea why they're the number one side in the world. We have a comparable record against them - they've won 69, we've won 66, and we've drawn 5 times.

Interesting isn't it, that whenever a side is particularly dominant - England in the late Johnson years, New Zealand nearly all bloody time, they are always branded "cynical" by their detractors. It's code, I think, for "I can't bear to admit that they might be really good".

The world rugby rankings algorithm doesn't give much weight to Scotland's victory at Lansdowne Road in 1923, impressive as it was.

 

[Alex321]

Yeah, that's fair, I don't mind going against the grain.

For all Ireland are marginally quicker than they used to be, I still see them as very cynical at the breakdown and slow the ball down as much as possible.

I don't believe in rankings - I have no idea why they're the number one side in the world. We have a comparable record against them - they've won 69, we've won 66, and we've drawn 5 times.

The full record is irrelevant. The ranking is supposed to reflect current strength, not historical quality.

And it works on a "points exchange" system, where in any given match, one teams rating will rise and the other teams rating will fall by the same amount. The amount by which the ratings change is dependent on a number of factors, with the main one being the difference between the teams at the start of the match.

All teams will normally have a rating between 0 and 100, and the team with the highest current rating is ranked number 1.

The explanation of the calculations is here https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/explanation

 

[Alex321]

The ref was awful. I'd have the same opinion if I'd been watching England v Wales with Luke Pearce involved.

He isn't experienced enough for this level of rugby, which is why he got so much wrong.

I've not been as frustrated by a ref since every game Wayne Barnes has refereed.

I think that is one thing almost every rugby supporter can agree on - Wayne Barnes is almost certainly the worst referee in International rugby. England are lucky, in that being English, he has never "refereed" any of their matches.

 

[Dogtrousers]

The full record is irrelevant. The ranking is supposed to reflect current strength, not historical quality.

And it works on a "points exchange" system, where in any given match, one teams rating will rise and the other teams rating will fall by the same amount. The amount by which the ratings change is dependent on a number of factors, with the main one being the difference between the teams at the start of the match.

All teams will normally have a rating between 0 and 100, and the team with the highest current rating is ranked number 1.

The explanation of the calculations is here https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/explanation

I've followed WRR for years. I think it does an excellent job. It is, of course, dependent on there being sufficient fixtures to give it meaning - so the relative rankings of - say - the 5N teams is always pretty sensible, but relative rankings between - say - Peru and Portugal may be more questionable.

RWC run into a bit of a problem with using it for seeding the pools because, although (IMO) it gives a good and fair reflection of current form, the pools need to be set some time in advance of the RWC - esp because the RWC tends to be spread around the host nation so people need to book hotels and so on where their team is playing. And once the draw is done, teams lose (like England and Wales) or gain (like Scotland) form and it all goes wonky.

 

[Alex321]

I've followed WRR for years. I think it does an excellent job. It is, of course, dependent on there being sufficient fixtures to give it meaning - so the relative rankings of - say - the 5N teams is always pretty sensible, but relative rankings between - say - Peru and Portugal may be more questionable.

RWC run into a bit of a problem with using it for seeding the pools because, although (IMO) it gives a good and fair reflection of current form, the pools need to be set some time in advance of the RWC - esp because the RWC tends to be spread around the host nation so people need to book hotels and so on where their team is playing. And once the draw is done, teams lose (like England and Wales) or gain (like Scotland) form and it all goes wonky.

Yes, that is the big problem with RWC seeding, the fact it is done so far in advance.

I must admit, I don't understand why it has to be quite as far ahead as it is. I understand the issues with hotels etc. But this time the seedings were based on rankings as at 1st January 2020! With the draw being made in December 2020.

They could easily have made the draw as much as a year later, which would still have given teams 18 months to organise things, and by then the effects of COVID on the rankings would have largely passed, and they could have used current rankings at that time.

Making the draw 2.5 years before the tournament, and seeding based on rankings a year old even then is just silly.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Making the draw 2.5 years before the tournament, and seeding based on rankings a year old even then is just silly.

Au contraire, as an England fan* I think it was a stroke of genius.

* Sort of. But I've sneakily supported France ever since a school trip to Twickenham in the 70s where I saw Jean Pierre Rives being very French. That side of me is less pleased with the seeding.

 

[AndyRM]

England should be really good. Considering the nation has more professional players than any other nation.

 

[matticus]

England should be really good. Considering the nation has more professional players than any other nation.

And off we go again!

 

[AndyRM]

And off we go again!

I'm not really sure what you mean by this?

England's national side is currently useless, but shouldn't be given the resources and investment in it.

Club rugby is in an embarrassing state too.

 

[Dogtrousers]

England should be really good. Considering the nation has more professional players than any other nation.

An interesting an novel opinion, but why did you quote my post? It has nothing to do with it. Maybe you should edit it to remove my quote.

 

[AndyRM]

The full record is irrelevant. The ranking is supposed to reflect current strength, not historical quality.

And it works on a "points exchange" system, where in any given match, one teams rating will rise and the other teams rating will fall by the same amount. The amount by which the ratings change is dependent on a number of factors, with the main one being the difference between the teams at the start of the match.

All teams will normally have a rating between 0 and 100, and the team with the highest current rating is ranked number 1.

The explanation of the calculations is here https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/explanation

Thanks for the 'splain.

I know how the rankings work, I just think they're nonsense, as I do with football, cricket, and everything else which has rankings attached.

For example, in football, Brazil are currently top ranked. The finalists of the World Cup final are second and third. Belgium are inexplicably fourth, despite having never won anything.

Likewise Ireland, for years. Rankings are a joke.

 

[AndyRM]

An interesting an novel opinion, but why did you quote my post? It has nothing to do with it. Maybe you should edit it to remove my quote.

Duly edited, not entirely sure how I managed that, apologies.

 

[Dayvo]

Au contraire, as an England fan* I think it was a stroke of genius.

* Sort of. But I've sneakily supported France ever since a school trip to Twickenham in the 70s where I saw Jean Pierre Rives being very French. That side of me is less pleased with the seeding.

I might have been at that same match. France became my 2nd team after that, and I even almost played club rugby there in 1980. The nearest I got was to tour Bordeaux at Easter in 1983.
HARD games but a LOT of fun and great cameraderie!

 

[Dogtrousers]

I might have been at that same match. France became my 2nd team after that, and I even almost played club rugby there in 1980. The nearest I got was to tour Bordeaux at Easter in 1983.
HARD games but a LOT of fun and great cameraderie!

IIRC Alastair Hignell was playing fullback for England that day. I think that makes it 1977.

Edit. Here it is http://en.espn.co.uk/france/rugby/story/177287.html

Great to go back and re-read those names. Rives, Fouroux, Skrela, Bastiat (caused much tittering on the coach going down) Charlie Kent( Kent the Dent), Uttley, Slemen, Beaumont ...