International teams tiers

[james5000]

Look at it this way (and I know there were mitigating factors to this) in 2007 Argentina beat France twice and Ireland once on the way to third place losing one match against SA in the following 8 years they've beaten Ireland once in this world cup but have routinely beaten France who have been mostly on a downward trend (but France still edges it by one game). This time they lost to every SH team.

They beat Aus last year which everyone thought may struggle to get out their group (till Pocock/Cheika turned it round) and SA this year who managed somehow to lose to Japan (which shouldn't happen no matter how good a coach Eddie Jones is).

I think we are reading too much into one or two good wins.

- - - Updated - - -

Bringing Wales into equation they've beaten them once since 2007 but only played 4 games.

Seriously I know they are a better side but it's going to take way more consistent results against top NH sides before I'll rank them above us.

Can I add that they barely by the skin of their teeth won that game, they weren't playing in OZ it was Argentina. (They haven't won in OZ since 1983). The refereeing was pitifully one sided they won the penalty count 16-8 and two Australian players were yellow carded.

 

[james5000]

Then the RFU is stretching the truth in some form. Not sure how, but as said, we don't have in 1 in 5 kids playing rugby regardless of gender gap.



A fair number of NH rugby players played football to a relatively high level, there is competition and the same type of athletes are in demand until you get to the tight five. Those picking rugby will put more weight on, but the same basic frame is there underneath - particularly when talking about young kids, where the competition is.

I feel reasonably certain that if you gave me carte blanche to remove the best suited 16 year olds from England's football academies and completely immerse them in rugby at the very least I'd get a professional standard 7s team out of it.

In fairness that's at least 8/23 players for a starting point, and you would practically eliminate 90% of players 5 ft 9 and under, apart from halfbacks, not many make it internationally being that short these days. Lionel Messi etc, wouldn't have much of a chance imo.

Adding weight isn't that hard but it isn't always beneficial as well, these guys might lose a lot of their athleticism doing that. I think rugby would in most cases attract bigger more physical kids who would have an early advantage. Kids are quite often drawn to sports that they are good at, that's most of the enjoyment.

 

[valley commando]

I was going to question that, but you're right (this is 2011 but it won't have changed much)

In total playing numbers, you are about par with Italy. However, in Senior Male players (from which your playing squads are drawn) you are about par with Ireland and New Zealand.

Looking at this chart, you have to wonder how on earth England don't utterly dominate the international game?

You are so right, England in terms of player numbers and budget should be winning at least 3 out of 4 world cups, but as long as they have the domestic premiership competition they will struggle to make a semi final at that level, they and their league are a mirror image of the Soccer side who have got steadily worse since the sky money and premiership began.
The problem in my opinion is that the soccer and rugby clubs at the top level are owned by dictatorial businessmen who's only concern is themselves and money and the governing bodies in both cases are spineless yes men. What the RFU and their soccer counterpart need to do is grow a spine and tell the clubs they are limited to a maximum of 25% non English qualified players in any matchday squad, but sadly for England it won't happen because the idiots running the game have let it go to far down the wrong road to turn back.

- - - Updated - - -

1. All Blacks
2. South Africa
3. Scotland
4. Wallabies
5. Wales
6. England

Scotland 3rd are you having a laugh, they got lucky against Oz and still lost, they aren't even 3rd best in Europe finishing bottom of the 6 Nations 50% of the last 4 years, in reality they should be playing in a 2nd tier European comp based on their last 4 years performances and give Georgia a chance at the top table .

- - - Updated - - -

I feel Argentina can now realistically be rated alongside the top NH teams. I get why some wouldn't and I suppose its also a question of timing and I might be weighing what I see as Argentina's future too favorably at this stage but my arguments then;

1) Argentina has beaten SA and Aussie in their backyards recently. I can't remember the last time a NH side got one over on us on our turf and Argentina did so convincingly.

2) They have gone very far this RWC and despite losing to NZ, SA and Aus during the course of the tournament only Japan in a once-in-a-lifetime one off managed to not get beaten by those 3 sides who took each other out of the tournament (NZ beating both SA and Aus, Aus and then SA beating Arg during the finals).

3) Is it really fair to say 'oh, well Ireland were depleted'? I'd say if that 'doesn't count' then neither do last year's November wins from Wales and Ireland over an injury hit SA. Injuries and depth requirements are just part and parcel of modern day rugby. I'd go as far as saying SA would've beaten both Aus and NZ this year if it weren't for the differences the benches made in both those fixtures. Your bench and injury cover is just as relevant as your best possible run on XV.

4) Argentina has up till now fielded decidedly B teams in June internationals and November tests are in the NH so the combination of these factors skew recent results in their opposition's favor. This is more than likely to change from now on that their players are playing in a SH (semi) domestic tournament thoug of course we'll only see the results of this later on.

5) In Sanchez, Tuculet, Imhoff and Cordero they now have the world class threats in the backline to work off of their traditional forward strength that they have been lacking in patches in the past other than with their previous 'golden generation' containing Contepomi, Pichot and JMH.

Its a pity in my opinion that Argentina didn't get added to the 6 nations, after all from a logistic point most of their players play in Europe, our loss and the SH's gaIN

- - - Updated - - -

I'll give it a go:

1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Argentina
5. Ireland
6. Wales
7. England
8. France
9. Japan
10. Scotland
11. Fiji
12. Italy
13. Georgia
14. Samoa
15. Tonga
16. Romania
17. USA
18. Canada
19. Namibia
20. Uruguay

Potential Controversies:

Ireland above Wales - yeah, VC will clearly have a problem with it, but I think any logical human being would agree with me in saying Ireland are a better side, unbeaten in their group and the match they lost they was a really good game in which they were the better side for a good amount, but just not good enough overall.

Scotland in 10th, below Japan and England - I'm sorry I really don't think Scotland were that good this tournment, scraped a victory over a poor Samoan side, beat a knackered Japanese side and lost to an Australian side that tried their best to give the Scottish as many points as they could. If Australia and Foley had played like that against England then there is no way the English would have let them back into that, same with the Welsh or any other side in that top 10.[/QUOTE

Ireland had an easy group anyone not delusional would now put Wales above Ireland, had Wales or indeed England been in that group they would have gone unbeaten, Wales would have beaten Argentina as well.

 

[smartcooky]

As for Los Jaguares, I think it's fair to expect a team playing at superugby level week in week out to struggle to make the jump to international level. It's pure speculation though as there's no precedent or stats for it. I think the UAR should push for another superugby side though.

I think the whole restructure of Super Rugby has been a massive cock up

► conferences with different numbers of teams
► a competition format that is difficult to understand for the ordinary fan

I think the sixth South African team is a big mistake because it will weaken the overall strength of their franchises by diluting the talent pool. With more players leaving South Africa because of SARU's absurd race based selection policies (enforced by a short sighted government) this situation won't be getting better any time soon IMO.

What SANZAR should have done is called SARU's bluff where they threatened to pull out of SANZAR and go to Europe. That was never going to happen; the addition of five or six teams to the already packed game schedule up north would not only have been untenable, it would have scotched any of the their own expansion plans for at least 10 years. The only thing they could have done is ditched their own franchises and gone back to the Currie Cup, using it as qualifiers for the RCC. The drawback there is that much of the RCC is played over the South African summer; anyone who has been to the Republic in the summertime (and I have) will tell you that you do not want to be playing rugby at that time of year.

The Super Rugby format should simply have stayed as it was, with a Japanese team added to the Australian conference (geographically makes the most sense), and two Argentine teams added, one to the New Zealand conference, and one to the South African conference. That would give you Super 18 with each team playing all the teams on their own conference twice, and playing four of the six teams in each other conference once. The travel situation could be managed by having no byes in the first round (for which one of the six teams in each conference would start in a foreign country) and then arrange the byes in such a way that they fall either directly after or directly before arriving home. It was doable, it just needed the will and some people in SANZAR with the gonads to stand up to SARU's bluff, bluster and bullying tactics!

 

[profitius]

I don't see Wales getting much better in the coming years. Gatland has squeezed every drop of effort out of them that he can.
I can see Ireland getting stronger in the coming years. Loads of quality in the provinces waiting to be capped.
The Scots are also improving from where they were a few years back. In the Pro 12 the Irish and Scottish teams are averaging a lot more points than the Welsh sides.
France and England should improve. England will but I'm not sure about France because their clubs are running the show over there.

I was going to question that, but you're right (this is 2011 but it won't have changed much)

In total playing numbers, you are about par with Italy. However, in Senior Male players (from which your playing squads are drawn) you are about par with Ireland and New Zealand.

Looking at this chart, you have to wonder how on earth England don't utterly dominate the international game?

The Irish numbers have been updated. Something like 13,000 senior males.
Not a chance England have that many rugby players either. I suspect government grants have something to do with the numbers.

 

[marianodan]

Loving all this understimation of Argentina! I still remember people here arrogantly writing that Pumas were going to be "dismantled" by Ireland even with a depleted squad.

I wonder what will be the next excuses from NH users now that we'll be able to compete in fair conditions in June/November tests!

 

[jomjom]

Loving all this understimation of Argentina! I still remember people here arrogantly writing that Pumas were going to be "dismantled" by Ireland even with a depleted squad.

Who said that? Can you care to point it out? I see plenty of NZers and Argentinians claiming people were saying that Ireland were going to run over Argentina, yet I don't remember a single person online or in real life who said that. Everyone knew it was going to be tough and close. Some thought we'd win, naturally (you know belief in your team and all that), others thought we might lose. No one predicted a "dismantling". No one underestimated Argentina.

I know it's an irrelevant point but I'm getting a bit tired seeing people revel in Argentina's victory based on the fact that Irish fans "arrogantly" wrote them off, which is simply not true. It gives the impression that we didn't respect Argentina, which is not true. Seriously, even the media were 50/50.

I personally am dying to see Argentina play the top NH teams and see how they fare again. I don't think lumping Argentina in along with the likes of Ireland, England and Wales is an underestimation. If anything, it's blindingly obvious truth. It's hard to judge from a one off result in knock-out rugby, but based on the recent RC results, your World Cup showing and the energy/talent exhibited, there's nothing to say that Argentina are better than the top NH teams, and most definitely not favourites to beat all NH sides, as some Argentinians arrogantly claimed after their QF victory...

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

Scotland 3rd are you having a laugh, they got lucky against Oz and still lost.

Umm, for all intents and purposes, Scotland beat the Wallabies. So, they are definitely a category higher.

ps; they got unlucky and lost.

 

[nzlizard]

Umm, for all intents and purposes, Scotland beat the Wallabies. So, they are definitely a category higher.

ps; they got unlucky and lost.

I think that Aus would win 9/10 times if these 2 teams played more often and the only time Scotland would have a chance is when they play at home imo.

Yup was a bit unlucky, but how many times have we said that about the AB's where you have to ensure you are in a good position to ensure a bit of luck to the opposition doesn't end you. That call is the way the game goes and we have been on the receiving of those bad calls, SBW and Messam calls I can think off, yet in all honesty we should have not been in a position to let that affect us tbh and neither should have Scotland.

 

[smartcooky]

Who said that? Can you care to point it out? I see plenty of NZers and Argentinians claiming people were saying that Ireland were going to run over Argentina, yet I don't remember a single person online or in real life who said that. Everyone knew it was going to be tough and close. Some thought we'd win, naturally (you know belief in your team and all that), others thought we might lose. No one predicted a "dismantling". No one underestimated Argentina.

100%. Most people I know really rated Argentina's chances against Ireland, especialy with them missing key players.

 

[saulan]

100%. Most people I know really rated Argentina's chances against Ireland, especialy with them missing key players.

I agree with this. If we look back at it I think on these forums the only people who were expecting the Irish to win was the Irish. The upset vote thread had Argentina as the most likely to win of the upsets. I think the only SH member on here that didn't think Argentina would win was @Lourens . Argentina had significant support going into that game.

 

[jomjom]

I agree with this. If we look back at it I think on these forums the only people who were expecting the Irish to win was the Irish.

And even then, a good chunk of us were not exactly confident. I know for sure that myself and my mates definitely weren't. Many had belief that we could, and therefore not entirely implausible that we would win, but I don't know a single person who thought that Ireland would trounce Argentina - from fans, to journalists, to the team and Schmidt himself. I'm pretty sure it's only Argentinians and the odd Kiwi who thinks that the Irish thought we would walk over Argentina

As soon as that France match finished I knew it was going to be so difficult, and I felt a little awkward seeing how some Irish people were celebrating that victory - all we did was top a pool full of average teams... Honestly, I hope we meet Argentina again in 2019! At this point they're as good a rival as Wales.

 

[petite]

I was going to question that, but you're right (this is 2011 but it won't have changed much)

In total playing numbers, you are about par with Italy. However, in Senior Male players (from which your playing squads are drawn) you are about par with Ireland and New Zealand.

Looking at this chart, you have to wonder how on earth England don't utterly dominate the international game?

argentina is not in this chart i think we have like 55000 players

 

[WaterboySA]

I agree with this. If we look back at it I think on these forums the only people who were expecting the Irish to win was the Irish. The upset vote thread had Argentina as the most likely to win of the upsets. I think the only SH member on here that didn't think Argentina would win was @Lourens . Argentina had significant support going into that game.

I never thought Ireland would run away with it. I just really rated them. I still think people made too much of the Argentina win over SA in Durban.

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

1. New Zealand
2. Wales
3. Australia
4. South Africa
5 Argentina
6 Japan
7 Ireland
8 France
9 England.
10 Fiji
11 Georgia
12 Samoa
13 Scotland
14 Italy
15 Romania
16 Tonga
17 Canada
18 USA
19 Namibia
20 Uraguay

Wales are 2nd not because I'm Welsh but with a full compliment of fit players I honestly think only the All Blacks are better. Japan are the unluckiest team at the WC, winning 3 games and not qualifying, it was a travesty that they had only 4 days between their Bok victory and Scotland, I reckon given a couple of 3 days extra they could have turned Scotland over as well.
Scotland are at 13 for a few reasons, if there was relegation in the 6 Nations they'd have been replaced by Georgia is one reason another is Hogg I can't forget his cheating against the Boks and don't think any team should ever be penalised for late tackling him, in fact as I have said before teams that don't repeatedly late tackle him should receive a points deduction.

Biased as much.

- - - Updated - - -

You are so right, England in terms of player numbers and budget should be winning at least 3 out of 4 world cups, but as long as they have the domestic premiership competition they will struggle to make a semi final at that level, they and their league are a mirror image of the Soccer side who have got steadily worse since the sky money and premiership began.
The problem in my opinion is that the soccer and rugby clubs at the top level are owned by dictatorial businessmen who's only concern is themselves and money and the governing bodies in both cases are spineless yes men. What the RFU and their soccer counterpart need to do is grow a spine and tell the clubs they are limited to a maximum of 25% non English qualified players in any matchday squad, but sadly for England it won't happen because the idiots running the game have let it go to far down the wrong road to turn back.

- - - Updated - - -



Scotland 3rd are you having a laugh, they got lucky against Oz and still lost, they aren't even 3rd best in Europe finishing bottom of the 6 Nations 50% of the last 4 years, in reality they should be playing in a 2nd tier European comp based on their last 4 years performances and give Georgia a chance at the top table .

- - - Updated - - -



Its a pity in my opinion that Argentina didn't get added to the 6 nations, after all from a logistic point most of their players play in Europe, our loss and the SH's gaIN

- - - Updated - - -

I'll give it a go:

1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Argentina
5. Ireland
6. Wales
7. England
8. France
9. Japan
10. Scotland
11. Fiji
12. Italy
13. Georgia
14. Samoa
15. Tonga
16. Romania
17. USA
18. Canada
19. Namibia
20. Uruguay

Potential Controversies:

Ireland above Wales - yeah, VC will clearly have a problem with it, but I think any logical human being would agree with me in saying Ireland are a better side, unbeaten in their group and the match they lost they was a really good game in which they were the better side for a good amount, but just not good enough overall.

Scotland in 10th, below Japan and England - I'm sorry I really don't think Scotland were that good this tournment, scraped a victory over a poor Samoan side, beat a knackered Japanese side and lost to an Australian side that tried their best to give the Scottish as many points as they could. If Australia and Foley had played like that against England then there is no way the English would have let them back into that, same with the Welsh or any other side in that top 10.[/QUOTE

Ireland had an easy group anyone not delusional would now put Wales above Ireland, had Wales or indeed England been in that group they would have gone unbeaten, Wales would have beaten Argentina as well.

Not a fair excuse we also had a 3/4 day gap between the Japan game and the USA game. Still beaten the U.S though.

 

[YoungScud]

You seem quite bias. Wales were full strength in the six nations and a depleted England turned them over quite easily. Wales haven't beaten Australia in years and years and have only managed one home win against south Africa in n recent memory. How you can put them second with a straight face is beyond me.

Really? You think? I peed my pants laughing at this. It's a joke, and can only be read as such. Yes, Scotland should be 13th while japan should be 6th, even though they gave up 45 points in the last meeting. Not to mention coming within two points of beating Australia to a semi final. Yes, Scotland didn't perform at all well during RWC, while Wales shone. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. Oh, and you never bear a grudge, right?

- - - Updated - - -

I think that Aus would win 9/10 times if these 2 teams played more often and the only time Scotland would have a chance is when they play at home imo.

Yup was a bit unlucky, but how many times have we said that about the AB's where you have to ensure you are in a good position to ensure a bit of luck to the opposition doesn't end you. That call is the way the game goes and we have been on the receiving of those bad calls, SBW and Messam calls I can think off, yet in all honesty we should have not been in a position to let that affect us tbh and neither should have Scotland.

Well, Aus better start winning more, because the stats say it's just over 2-1 in favour of Aus. That's a bit of a way away from 9-1. Nice effort at backing your argument up though.

 

[ncurd]

Yes YoungScud in the entire history of rugby union (29 games in 88 years) in the last 10 games it was 2/10 times, last 20 games it was 1/10, before 2009 win the last time Scotland beat Australia was 1982....
You could shorten it to last 4-5 games to make your stats work I suppose.

Stupid one-eyed stats from you methinks which hardly surprise with your track record.

 

[Maverick1987]

1. New Zealand
2. Wales
3. Australia
4. South Africa
5 Argentina
6 Japan
7 Ireland
8 France
9 England.
10 Fiji
11 Georgia
12 Samoa
13 Scotland
14 Italy
15 Romania
16 Tonga
17 Canada
18 USA
19 Namibia
20 Uraguay

Wales are 2nd not because I'm Welsh but with a full compliment of fit players I honestly think only the All Blacks are better. Japan are the unluckiest team at the WC, winning 3 games and not qualifying, it was a travesty that they had only 4 days between their Bok victory and Scotland, I reckon given a couple of 3 days extra they could have turned Scotland over as well.
Scotland are at 13 for a few reasons, if there was relegation in the 6 Nations they'd have been replaced by Georgia is one reason another is Hogg I can't forget his cheating against the Boks and don't think any team should ever be penalised for late tackling him, in fact as I have said before teams that don't repeatedly late tackle him should receive a points deduction.

There's no reason to have Wales at 2 you got knocked out in the quarter finals and have been 3rd in the last 2 six nations .....

Also other than the win against SA (which I thought was amazing) Japan are no higher than 10th and on most days would be beaten by Italy imo

Also the fact you base your opinion on Scotland being so low because 1 player decided to dive is a joke .

I think Wales should be 15th because Gareth Davies and Dan Biggar are both arrogant cocks .....

Mine is

NZ
SA
AUS
ARG
ENG
IRE
SCO
WAL
FRA
FIJI
ITA
JAP
SAM
TON
GEO
ROM
USA
NAM
CAN
URU

 

[RedruthRFC]

I was going to question that, but you're right (this is 2011 but it won't have changed much)

In total playing numbers, you are about par with Italy. However, in Senior Male players (from which your playing squads are drawn) you are about par with Ireland and New Zealand.

Looking at this chart, you have to wonder how on earth England don't utterly dominate the international game?

Apologies if I'm repeating points that other have already made, I'm not long back from a holiday and missed this thread the first time around.

This graphic wildly overstates the number of players in the English game. IIRC, at the time this was made, the RFU's IT systems were as poor as most other within the organisation and counted a lot of players who had long since retired as active players. I believe that this came to a head as they were receiving funding based on these numbers. Sport England had the temerity to ask them to prove that these numbers were correct, at which time the "mistake" came to light and a new system was put into place. World Rugby's website is rather confusing making a distinction between "registered players" and "total players". Apparently as of 2014, there were 340,347 registered players in England, compared to 148,483 in New Zealand, 342,316 in South Africa and 230,663 in Australia. This makes no distinction between youth and senior players which may be accounted for by the disparity between "registered players" and "total players" for some countries. New Zealand's "total players" number is the same as the "registered players" number, possibly a reflection of the union working closely with schools?

Maybe it's the same for all countries, but my perception in England is that sheer numbers don't lead to floods of superb players is because the vast majority of the playing numbers are recreational players with little or no desire to improve their playing standards. The Championship is the second tier of rugby in England, a few years ago, a Kiwi coach commented that home advantage would be the difference between his then team Cornish Pirates who were runners up that year beating their ITM Cup counterparts. Saying that, Mark Bright, who was damn good, but not a superstar for Tasman Makos is still regarded as one of the best players in The Championship at the age of 37. Anyway, I digress.....once you get below that level, the drop off in playing standard is significant, a promoted team from National One (3rd tier) will typically have to recruit heavily in order to stand any chance of survival. National 2 teams promoted to National 1 struggle almost as much to survive at the level above. All of this is a long winded way of saying that I'm not sure that the elite player base in England is significantly bigger than it is in New Zealand, South Africa or Australia.

 

[YoungScud]

Yes YoungScud in the entire history of rugby union (29 games in 88 years) in the last 10 games it was 2/10 times, last 20 games it was 1/10, before 2009 win the last time Scotland beat Australia was 1982....
You could shorten it to last 4-5 games to make your stats work I suppose.

Stupid one-eyed stats from you methinks which hardly surprise with your track record.

Interesting choice of words. Me using actual stats is one-eyed, while a wild generalisation of 9/10 isn't. No bias there then.