Rugby World Cup 2019 predictions

[Brigantine]

Wales and and New Zealand have the relative rise and fall of NH and SH rugby respectively to thank for the current positions. With the rise of Ireland and England, Wales has gotten more rank points for beating them. With the decline of Aus and SA down the rankings comparatively, a loss or a draw to these teams really hurts NZ in ranking points. Without the hiding Aus have NZ in Perth, they would still be No1. In spite of all of Wales rightful success.

That's an important part of it yes. New Zealand's rise up until 31 Oct 2016 was limited by the weakness of the teams they play regularly. They were 11.24 RP ahead of the 2nd TRC team, so even winning by 15+ away from home would only earn them 0.26 additional RP. (and no gains at home or neutral venues). No matter how far ahead you are in reality, you need somewhat competitive games in order to prove it.

Yes, NH has been rising and SH falling since RWC 2015. And yes that flows through to the points Wales and New Zealand can earn/lose for a given match outcome.

But they also earned it too. Wales won the 6N GS *despite* Ireland and England being as strong as they were, and that's impressive. New Zealand came 3rd in the Tri-Nations *despite* South Africa and Australia being where they are.
It's perfectly appropriate that you gain more for achieving something more impressive.

If Wales had lost to Ireland in the 6N this year, it would be Ireland in the #1 spot right now
And quite right, if New Zealand had had a better season, they would have been ranked higher. And yes, the fact it happened like this *now* when 2 other countries were snapping at their heels in the rankings is a big element of luck. If it had happened in 2016 instead they would have gotten away with it. And people might still not have noticed that the All Blacks dropped a whole 5 RP since the heyday back then. (and that's not counting the 2019 loss)

The rank weighting's based on relative position is I think flawed more so now than perhaps in the past. In the past the difference between 1 and 6, was a gulf, now, any top 6-7team could arguably win against another top team. The relative gap is smaller now but the weighting for a win or loss is the same. I think that is not reflective on the level-ness of the top teams.

I wonder if you're familiar with the nuances of how the current ranking system works... I'll clarify this point anyway:

Essentially you get 1 point for winning (and -1 for losing), on top of 10% of the current *rankings points* difference for playing a higher team.
The formulas don't care what ranks teams are in on the table, only how big the relative gap is between them. This is all before any weighting is applied.

Think about it this way - Wales gains 0.64 RP in that chart. That's made up of 1.00 gained for winning, and 0.36 lost for playing against Scotland who is 3.56 rankings points below them (after factoring in home advantage).
That 3.56 rankings points might translate to 1 rank in the table, or 6 ranks if there are lots of teams clustered in between. 10% of 3.56 is still 0.36.
[the rest of the explanation here]

 

[Paulo]

That's an important part of it yes. New Zealand's rise up until 31 Oct 2016 was limited by the weakness of the teams they play regularly. They were 11.24 RP ahead of the 2nd TRC team, so even winning by 15+ away from home would only earn them 0.26 additional RP. (and no gains at home or neutral venues). No matter how far ahead you are in reality, you need somewhat competitive games in order to prove it.

Yes, NH has been rising and SH falling since RWC 2015. And yes that flows through to the points Wales and New Zealand can earn/lose for a given match outcome.

But they also earned it too. Wales won the 6N GS *despite* Ireland and England being as strong as they were, and that's impressive. New Zealand came 3rd in the Tri-Nations *despite* South Africa and Australia being where they are.
It's perfectly appropriate that you gain more for achieving something more impressive.

If Wales had lost to Ireland in the 6N this year, it would be Ireland in the #1 spot right now
And quite right, if New Zealand had had a better season, they would have been ranked higher. And yes, the fact it happened like this *now* when 2 other countries were snapping at their heels in the rankings is a big element of luck. If it had happened in 2016 instead they would have gotten away with it. And people might still not have noticed that the All Blacks dropped a whole 5 RP since the heyday back then. (and that's not counting the 2019 loss)


I wonder if you're familiar with the nuances of how the current ranking system works... I'll clarify this point anyway:

Essentially you get 1 point for winning (and -1 for losing), on top of 10% of the current *rankings points* difference for playing a higher team.
The formulas don't care what ranks teams are in on the table, only how big the relative gap is between them. This is all before any weighting is applied.

Think about it this way - Wales gains 0.64 RP in that chart. That's made up of 1.00 gained for winning, and 0.36 lost for playing against Scotland who is 3.56 rankings points below them (after factoring in home advantage).
That 3.56 rankings points might translate to 1 rank in the table, or 6 ranks if there are lots of teams clustered in between. 10% of 3.56 is still 0.36.
[the rest of the explanation here]

Sorry, I was writing fast in the morning when I should have been going to work. Replace 'relative rank positions', with 'relative rank points'.

And yea, I take nothing away from Wales, they had to win games to get to the top.

I think the rank system does an alright job given the dynamics of global rugby. I think it needs to keep getting refined, especially with the closeness of the top ranked teams. Rankings going up and down every week is not ideal, at least not to the degree they can do right now.

 

[bushytop]

Wales and and New Zealand have the relative rise and fall of NH and SH rugby respectively to thank for the current positions. With the rise of Ireland and England, Wales has gotten more rank points for beating them. With the decline of Aus and SA down the rankings comparatively, a loss or a draw to these teams really hurts NZ in ranking points. Without the hiding Aus have NZ in Perth, they would still be No1. Inspite of all of Wales rightful success.

The rankings are objective, as has been pointed out, as they do treat all teams equally and apply weighting's as per home/away, points differential, and rank position as standard. There is perhaps an arbitrary-ness element to what those weighting's are.

They do also make assumptions in a flat manner. Home advantage is home advantage, but not all home games are equal. 15pts in front is the same as 30pts or 40pts. As an example, is 47-26 more difficult than 37-0? Each are treated the same but one is much harder than the other to achieve.

The rank weighting's based on relative position is I think flawed more so now than perhaps in the past. In the past the difference between 1 and 6, was a gulf, now, any top 6-7team could arguably win against another top team. The relative gap is smaller now but the weighting for a win or loss is the same. I think that is not reflective on the level-ness of the top teams.

A solution could be potentially 2 tables for the NH and SH sides, to remove the lack of games elements between teams. This is simple but a bit clunky.

I more sophisticated solution is to add an element of head to head into the algorithm. If a team earns enough points to overtake another team, a head to head check is done, if they played in the last 2 yrs, the ascending team won, then they take the position outright. If they lost, or haven't played in 2yrs, they share the position until either team earns enough points to ascend or descend to another position. In which the head to head check is done again.

In that scenario, Wales and NZ would be first equal, as they haven't played in a while. England would be 3rd. If England earned enough points to over take NZ, Wales takes too spot on their own, and the head to head check is done, Eng and NZ become 2nd equal.

Just my 2cents anyway. Just glad Wales goes into the World Cup as Favourites this time around.

I personally have never argued that the rankings are anywhere near perfect, nor danced in the streets that Wales ate currently number 1... but I think splitting them via hemisphere would only confuse the issue and the head to head thing... someone on a podcast made a great observation about this: the rankings are as close to a league table for test rugby as we could get without actually instigating a nations league (sore subject,) so as an analogy say Man City finished on top of the Premier league table but never actually beat Liverpool... they'd still win the league right?

It really doesn't matter though as rugby is decided via the world cup, it really doesn't matter who is top atm... but it is a 'nice' feather in the cap for Warren, his coaching staff and his players.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Thanks Blindside. Can't bear to watch this, it really was the one that got away.

I went to the QF and SF. The QF against France at the Parc des Princes is my favourite rugby memory. Full on all the way through, selected highlights:

The pup Leonard delicately rucking Blanco who then completely lost it and belted Heslop who it's fair to say wouldn't have passed a HIA.

The French crowd turning on their team to the obvious joy of a pumped Pitbull.

Skinner smashing Cecillon who at that stage wasn't a convicted murderer.

Tries from Underwood (classic) and Carling driven over late on.

Dubrocca the French coach manhandling the ref in the tunnel afterwards.

Different times.

 

[General Melchett]

My gut tells me that England go the furthest of the home nations. Ireland have the QF of death and would need a sublime performance unless SA/NZ have a bad day at the office. I have a sneaky feeling that Australia will beat Wales to top the group.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Thanks Blindside. Can't bear to watch this, it really was the one that got away.

I went to the QF and SF. The QF against France at the Parc des Princes is my favourite rugby memory. Full on all the way through, selected highlights:

The pup Leonard delicately rucking Blanco who then completely lost it and belted Heslop who it's fair to say wouldn't have passed a HIA.

The French crowd turning on their team to the obvious joy of a pumped Pitbull.

Skinner smashing Cecillon who at that stage wasn't a convicted murderer.

Tries from Underwood (classic) and Carling driven over late on.

Dubrocca the French coach manhandling the ref in the tunnel afterwards.

Different times.

Sad to say I am old enough to remember this World Cup as well and how it ended. It is the first one I can remember, as it was a year after I joined a school which played rugger. This was from a primary school which played exclusively Wendy ball.

I remember the France v England QF vaguely. But one moment I do remember that tackle by Skinner on the French number 8. It was such a thing of ferocious beauty:




and then of course this in the semi. Sorry Scottish fans:



and then the final. What may have been had England chose to carry on playing the style that got them to the final and not change it, perhaps due to Aussie sledging. Still, we made up for it in 2003.

 

[ncurd]

1999 was the first world cup I remember watching religiously, its not one I particularly have fond memories of in how England dropped out...

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

1999 was the first world cup I remember watching religiously, its not one I particularly have fond memories of in how England dropped out...

You could do worse, the first rugby match I remember watching was Ireland v Argentina in Lens at that same tournament... It prepared me well for future world cups in fairness.

 

[Johnny Storm]

Thanks Blindside. Can't bear to watch this, it really was the one that got away.

I went to the QF and SF. The QF against France at the Parc des Princes is my favourite rugby memory. Full on all the way through, selected highlights:

The pup Leonard delicately rucking Blanco who then completely lost it and belted Heslop who it's fair to say wouldn't have passed a HIA.

The French crowd turning on their team to the obvious joy of a pumped Pitbull.

Skinner smashing Cecillon who at that stage wasn't a convicted murderer.

Tries from Underwood (classic) and Carling driven over late on.

Dubrocca the French coach manhandling the ref in the tunnel afterwards.

Different times.

This was one of the best world cups if you ask me. Michael Jones scored the first try in the opener against England at Twickenham. He had also previously scored the first try in the 1987 world cup before that. I later met him a few years later on the tube in London and he vaguely remembered the game. The England pack of Dooley and co was huge, probably bigger than the England forwards today considering they were amateurs back then.

A try then was still only worth 4 points - (it change to 5 points the following year in '92). The Scottish team of Hastings and co was humming and almost threw England out at the SF clash at Murrayfield - think it finished something like 9-6 and England went on to play Aus in the final. Campese was the hero of the tournament, he scored in the first 5 minutes against NZ in the Semis. It was definitely a different era - Rugby was fun back then.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

A try then was still only worth 4 points - (it change to 5 points the following year in '92). The Scottish team of Hastings and co was humming and almost threw England out at the SF clash at Murrayfield - think it finished something like 9-6 and England went on to play Aus in the final. Campese was the hero of the tournament, he scored in the first 5 minutes against NZ in the Semis. It was definitely a different era - Rugby was fun back then.

Haha. Hastings missing an absolute sitter in front of the posts was hilarious.

Oh yes!

 

[FrenchFan]

Thanks Blindside. Can't bear to watch this, it really was the one that got away.

I went to the QF and SF. The QF against France at the Parc des Princes is my favourite rugby memory. Full on all the way through, selected highlights:

The pup Leonard delicately rucking Blanco who then completely lost it and belted Heslop who it's fair to say wouldn't have passed a HIA.

The French crowd turning on their team to the obvious joy of a pumped Pitbull.

Skinner smashing Cecillon who at that stage wasn't a convicted murderer.

Tries from Underwood (classic) and Carling driven over late on.

Dubrocca the French coach manhandling the ref in the tunnel afterwards.

Different times.

Different times all right. The French team were a team - which they no longer are. Leaders like Eric Champ, Marc Cecillon, Thierry Lacroix, Philippe Saint-André (the player and captain not the coach) the basque prop Jean Michel Gonzales - men and leaders not the pampered pups of today.

The union are on a loser with the current generation. Plenty of individual talent. No collective whatsoever. Rules have changed since 1991 but it still is very much a team game.

If the union had a sprinkle of that Dubroca team they'd have a team.

 

[Chistera]

Different times all right. The French team were a team - which they no longer are. Leaders like Eric Champ, Marc Cecillon, Thierry Lacroix, Philippe Saint-André (the player and captain not the coach) the basque prop Jean Michel Gonzales - men and leaders not the pampered pups of today.

The union are on a loser with the current generation. Plenty of individual talent. No collective whatsoever. Rules have changed since 1991 but it still is very much a team game.

If the union had a sprinkle of that Dubroca team they'd have a team.

The only reason why their intimidation methods were successfull is the absence of a TMO. I agree that today's team lacks unity, they don't have that "edge" that makes a good team, but that's down to the coaching staff more than the players in my opinion. However, Dubroca's antics would not be tolerated and would not go unpunished today, and rightly so.

 

[Johnny Storm]

Haha. Hastings missing an absolute sitter in front of the posts was hilarious.

Oh yes!

Actually that SF game between England and Scotland has to have been one of the best rugby matches ever. A total match-up. You were very lucky to have been there in person. The players literally couldn't walk off the field at the end they were so exhausted.

The only other game that comes close is the 1995 final between Sa and NZ, but a lot of thing in rugby had already started to change by then.

 

[FrenchFan]

The only reason why their intimidation methods were successfull is the absence of a TMO. I agree that today's team lacks unity, they don't have that "edge" that makes a good team, but that's down to the coaching staff more than the players in my opinion.

Completely agree. Coaching at the union has dropped to Monty Python levels. The English are spying on us as we're in their pool. They got John Cleese to grow a moustache and dress as Brunel. Now we know.
I don't want to lay into Brunel though. He's a venerable old man with a great club career. But his stint with Italy showed a test coach he ain't. But everyone knows that. Problem with coaching at the union is that it has regressed at every new appointment since 2011 (save for Noves who did bring a change of style but was out after 18 mths).

However, Dubroca's antics would not be tolerated and would not go unpunished today, and rightly so.

Unacceptable but understandable with the one-eyed ref. I'll take a good barney and players/coach with a personality over the current generation of self-centred sheep

 

[Rich Taff]

I have the feeling this world cup could come down to a war of attrition.
I think England may be marginal favourites, as they don't have the best first XV, but they can absorb injuries like no other nation.
They can field 4 teams of relatively similar strength, whilst we (Wales), and most others, have 19-22 players of real first XV quality, then we're down to asking 'has anyone else brought their boots?'.

 

[Brigantine]

For comparison: Before

Potential World Champions:

Wales - 28% +3 Chance (runner-up 22% +2)
New Zealand - 27% -1 Chance (and for runner-up 20% +1)
England - 17% +3 Chance (runner-up 17% +1)
South Africa - 12% NC Chance (runner-up 16% -1)
Ireland - 10% -8 Chance (runner-up 12% -2)
Australia - 4.0% -1.0 Chance (runner-up 8.5% -1.5)

France - 0.3% +0.1 Chance (runner-up 1.4% +0.2)
Japan - 0.3% +0.1 Chance (runner-up 1.2% NC)
Scotland - 0.2% -0.1 Chance (runner-up 1.2% -0.4)

Fiji - <0.1% NC Chance (runner-up <0.1% -0.1)

And a 0.1% NC Chance the runner-up will be Argentina


I was waiting for someone to update this... and there it is:

World Rugby Ranking Leaders

 

[bushytop]

View attachment 7331
For comparison: Before

Potential World Champions:

Wales - 28% +3 Chance (runner-up 22% +2)
New Zealand - 27% -1 Chance (and for runner-up 20% +1)
England - 17% +3 Chance (runner-up 17% +1)
South Africa - 12% NC Chance (runner-up 16% -1)
Ireland - 10% -8 Chance (runner-up 12% -2)
Australia - 4.0% -1.0 Chance (runner-up 8.5% -1.5)

France - 0.3% +0.1 Chance (runner-up 1.4% +0.2)
Japan - 0.3% +0.1 Chance (runner-up 1.2% NC)
Scotland - 0.2% -0.1 Chance (runner-up 1.2% -0.4)

Fiji - <0.1% NC Chance (runner-up <0.1% -0.1)

And a 0.1% NC Chance the runner-up will be Argentina


I was waiting for someone to update this... and there it is:

World Rugby Ranking Leaders

That's a lot of Black in the ledger! If this was the MCU Scarlett Johansson would be playing Red Widow.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Actually that SF game between England and Scotland has to have been one of the best rugby matches ever. A total match-up. You were very lucky to have been there in person. The players literally couldn't walk off the field at the end they were so exhausted.

The only other game that comes close is the 1995 final between Sa and NZ, but a lot of thing in rugby had already started to change by then.

Well if not being able to walk off the field due to exhaustion is the measure, then surely the 95 final wins hands down, since the all blacks could barely walk onto the field in the first place, though did manage to walk off a few times during the game, to vomit on the sidelines. If you weren't talking about that game in terms of exhaustion, then yeah I guess it was pretty good.

The 2nd game in the 96 test series in South Africa was the greatest game I remember, in that respect at least.

 

[Bada-Bing!]