Team ratings?

[laughtonscottp]

What would everyone's ratings for club teams be? For me:

Aviva Premiership:

Bath: 75
Exeter: 70
Gloucester: 77
Harlequins: 76
Leeds: 52
Leicester: 82
London Irish: 78
London Wasps: 74
Newcastle: 54
Northampton: 82
Sale: 62
Saracens: 80

Super 15:

Blues: 79
Bulls: 85
Brumbies: 76
Cheetahs: 65
Chiefs: 70
Crusaders: 84
Highlanders: 72
Hurricanes: 75
Lions: 59
Sharks:69
Stomers:83
Rebels:60
Reds:79
Waratahs:81
Western Force:71

 

[Conal]

tigers and saints better than saders???
sorry but a team that has the whitelocks, carter sbw furean dagg mc caw etc is far better than tigers and saints

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Magners

Aironi 40
B Treviso 48
Cardiff Blues 72
Connacht 50
Edinburgh 70
Glasgow 64
Leinster 84
Munster 80
Newport Gwent Dragons 52
Ospreys 82
Scarlets 76
Ulster 76

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

You're basically on the right track I guess. With a view to next season Bath will be better than 75, probably 78 ish. Crusaders more like 86. Chiefs bit better than that to be fair. cardiff bit better.

 

[Teh Mite]

http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?20801-*Team*-ratings

As in that thread:
In a computer game, Star ratings > Numerical ratings:

5*
New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, England, France, Ireland, Wales, Leicester, Northampton, Saracens, Munster, Leinster, Cardiff, Tolouse, Racing Metro, Clermont, Toulon, USAP, Crusaders, Tahs, Bulls, Sharks, Hurricanes. B&I Lions, Barbarians.

4*
Scotland, Wales, Fiji, Samoa, London Irish, Gloucester, Wasps, Harlequins, Bath, Ulster, Ospreys, Scarlets, Edinburgh, Montpellier, Biarritz, Castres, Stade, Cheifs, Blues, Cheetahs, Stormers, Brumbies. PI's.

3*
All remaining international sides, Sale, Exeter, Newport, Glasgow, Airioni, Benetton, Brive, Bayonne, Reds.

2*
Leeds, Agen, La Rochelle, (SA) Lions, Highlanders, Force

1*
Newcastle, Connaught, Bourgoin, Rebels

Then remember for the sake of gameplay that a 3* team should be competitive against a 5* team, 2* vs 4* and 1* vs 3* etc, however a 2* side will really struggle against 5* unless the skill difference of the players (as in the people holding the controllers) is massive.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Unfair to call Connacht a 1 star team if Aironi are a 3 star team and rebels have only played 1 competitive match based on it they are a 1star team ye but is a bit early calling them one the rest is pretty accurate except international sides like Namibia Russia etc... are probably closer to 2 stars

 

[gingergenius]

same system as FIFA. You can't rate teams out of 100 anyway. Stars and half stars are the way forward - Only the very best int. sides make 5*; the best club sides make 41/2 and so on.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?20801-*Team*-ratings

As in that thread:
In a computer game, Star ratings > Numerical ratings:

5*
New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, England, France, Ireland, Wales, Leicester, Northampton, Saracens, Munster, Leinster, Cardiff, Tolouse, Racing Metro, Clermont, Toulon, USAP, Crusaders, Tahs, Bulls, Sharks, Hurricanes. B&I Lions, Barbarians.

4*
Scotland, Wales, Fiji, Samoa, London Irish, Gloucester, Wasps, Harlequins, Bath, Ulster, Ospreys, Scarlets, Edinburgh, Montpellier, Biarritz, Castres, Stade, Cheifs, Blues, Cheetahs, Stormers, Brumbies. PI's.

3*
All remaining international sides, Sale, Exeter, Newport, Glasgow, Airioni, Benetton, Brive, Bayonne, Reds.

2*
Leeds, Agen, La Rochelle, (SA) Lions, Highlanders, Force

1*
Newcastle, Connaught, Bourgoin, Rebels

Then remember for the sake of gameplay that a 3* team should be competitive against a 5* team, 2* vs 4* and 1* vs 3* etc, however a 2* side will really struggle against 5* unless the skill difference of the players (as in the people holding the controllers) is massive.

Stormers beat these teams last year and destroyed the 'Tahs twice (25-6 / 27-6). Were finalists in the competitions they were involved with. Also won against the Sharks in a preseason but I'll admit that one is clutching at straws. In fact I should stand by my first sentence.

same system as FIFA. You can't rate teams out of 100 anyway. Stars and half stars are the way forward - Only the very best int. sides make 5*; the best club sides make 41/2 and so on.

LOL. TBH I would say the Stormers/Bulls/Sharks would beat the Springboks if both could field their players (cloned); they actually have a gameplan worth discussing.





The star rating is def the way to go as you would just get pedantic rating one team 85 and anothr 86 and the result could go either way unless you work with a system where teams take points off of each other.

 

[Teh Mite]

So? Quins and Bath beat Saints this year. Doesn't make them a better team.

 

[TrueSlawter]

http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?20801-*Team*-ratings

As in that thread:
In a computer game, Star ratings > Numerical ratings:

5*
New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, England, France, Ireland, Wales, Leicester, Northampton, Saracens, Munster, Leinster, Cardiff, Tolouse, Racing Metro, Clermont, Toulon, USAP, Crusaders, Tahs, Bulls, Sharks, Hurricanes. B&I Lions, Barbarians.

4*
Scotland, Wales, Fiji, Samoa, London Irish, Gloucester, Wasps, Harlequins, Bath, Ulster, Ospreys, Scarlets, Edinburgh, Montpellier, Biarritz, Castres, Stade, Cheifs, Blues, Cheetahs, Stormers, Brumbies. PI's.

3*
All remaining international sides, Sale, Exeter, Newport, Glasgow, Airioni, Benetton, Brive, Bayonne, Reds.

2*
Leeds, Agen, La Rochelle, (SA) Lions, Highlanders, Force

1*
Newcastle, Connaught, Bourgoin, Rebels

Then remember for the sake of gameplay that a 3* team should be competitive against a 5* team, 2* vs 4* and 1* vs 3* etc, however a 2* side will really struggle against 5* unless the skill difference of the players (as in the people holding the controllers) is massive.

You've got Wales in both 5 and 4*. As for Cardiff being the best welsh squad im not too sure tbh Scarlets and Ospreys imo are the best 2

 

[KingsHolmKid]

None of your four star teams are significantly better than Argentina, who you have left out completely.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Anyway, I won't just criticize and will attempt to help for what my opinion is worth (current fantasy rugby results say its worth pretty much nothing unless which way not to go LOL);

*****
New Zealand
Crusaders / Bulls / Waratahs
Tolousse


****1/2
South Africa / Australia / England / France
Stormers / Blues / Sharks / Hurricanes
Leicester / Leinster / Munster / Northampton / Toulon


****
Ireland / Wales / Scotland
Chiefs / Brumbies / Reds
Clermont / Racing / Biarritz / Ospreys / Blues (Cardiff) / Castres / Perpinagn


***
Italy / Samoa / Argentina / Fiji
Highlanders / Force / Lions
Ulster / Leeds / Edinburgh / Sale / Bath / Montpelier / London Irish / London Wasps


**
Georgia / Canada / Tonga / Japan / USA
Cheetahs / Rebels
Connacht / Aironi / Newcastle
*
Other international sides
Treviso



At least that's the way I see it personally. I'd list international and club sides seperately. I'm sure I forgot a few but my knowledge of NH club rugby is dodgy I guess; especially towards the 'lesser' end of the teams involved a I don't watch those games.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

So? Quins and Bath beat Saints this year. Doesn't make them a better team.

Guess it depends if this is current form or last 5 years / decade tec. Did these teams beat the Saints at full strength and was it close? The Stormers beat a full strength Waratahs side twice and thoroughly; they were never in the game. Same with the Crusaders. Just saying that's why I would rate them in the SAME league; not saying they are better (even though they are LOL).

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I did some calculations and came up with these figures for respectively the last 5 years and the last 3 years which cancels out flash-in-the-pan performances IMO and makes foran interesting read.

This is for S14 and I think it is pretty reliable as all these teams faced each other each year once. The new format makes it infinately more difficult but;

Last 5 years
Crusaders 87
Bulls 82
Sharks 76
Hurricanes 75
Waratahs 74
Chiefs 68
Brumbies 67
Blues 66
Stormers 62
Force 50
Highlanders 48
Reds 44
Cheetahs 41
Lions 35

Last 3 years
Crusaders 85
Waratahs 84
Bulls 82
Hurrricanes 79
Stormers 75
Sharks 73
Chiefs 70
Brumbies 65
Blues 64
Force 53
Reds 51
Highlanders 42
Cheetahs 38
Lions 34

These figues reflect for the most part games won with a little room made for bonus points as well. What i found most interesting was the dip for the Bulls from 5 years to 3 years but they did have a horrible year in 2008 even if they won both 2009 and 2010 seasons. The other notable factor is the Stormers' & Waratahs' steady improvement over 3 years.

 

[No Soft Centres]

Good work, makes interesting analysis. Goes to show how teams are improving. Think this years S15 is going to be the best. How did you come up with these figures ?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk - get it it's good

 

[gingergenius]

International teams are better than club sides. Fact. Rugby hasn't got to the stage football's at where the top club sides are as good as it gets. For starters, southern hemisphere players only remember how to tackle when they're playing internationally.

So no way are Toulouse better than France and no way are the Bulls etc. better than South Africa.

 

[Lupini111]

I did some calculations and came up with these figures for respectively the last 5 years and the last 3 years which cancels out flash-in-the-pan performances IMO and makes foran interesting read.

This is for S14 and I think it is pretty reliable as all these teams faced each other each year once. The new format makes it infinately more difficult but;

Last 5 years
Crusaders 87
Bulls 82
Sharks 76
Hurricanes 75
Waratahs 74
Chiefs 68
Brumbies 67
Blues 66
Stormers 62
Force 50
Highlanders 48
Reds 44
Cheetahs 41
Lions 35

Last 3 years
Crusaders 85
Waratahs 84
Bulls 82
Hurrricanes 79
Stormers 75
Sharks 73
Chiefs 70
Brumbies 65
Blues 64
Force 53
Reds 51
Highlanders 42
Cheetahs 38
Lions 34

These figues reflect for the most part games won with a little room made for bonus points as well. What i found most interesting was the dip for the Bulls from 5 years to 3 years but they did have a horrible year in 2008 even if they won both 2009 and 2010 seasons. The other notable factor is the Stormers' & Waratahs' steady improvement over 3 years.

I actually do not understand the reasoning behind the Bulls 82 rating and the Crusaders 87 rating. Over the last 5 years the bulls won the super rugby competition 3 times (2007, 2009, 2010) and the Crusaders only 2 times (2006, 2008). Not to mention that the bulls won away from home in 2007 and in 2009 absolutely thrashed the chiefs and then last year beat the stormers quite convincingly in soweto not loftus. For the other teams I would only improve the Stormers, Blues and Brumbies ratings. The rest i think is quite right.

 

[arwales]

In terms of the star rating I suppose it depends on the number of teams involved, it will affect the star 'borders' e.g. With the international teams if there are say, 16 teams (I'm sure there'll be more as it's coming out before the world cup) using the 16 top ranked teams you'd have something like:

***** - New Zealand
**** - Australia, South Africa, France, England
*** - Ireland, Argentina, Wales, Scotland
** - Fiji, Samoa, Italy, Japan
* - Canada, Georgia, USA

Whereas if you were to have a bigger number like say, 24 teams (using the 24 top ranked teams in this instance) it would more likely alter the star ratings to something like this:

***** - New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, France
**** - England, Ireland, Argentina, Wales, Scotland
*** - Fiji, Samoa, Italy, Japan, Canada
** - Georgia, USA, Tonga, Russia, Romania
* - Portugal, Uruguay, Namibia, Spain, Belgium

 

[dan the man]

This is my list of International and Super 15 teams.

***** - New Zealand, Australia.
****1/2 - South Africa, England, France. (Although, whoever wins 6 Nations could be 5 stars.)
**** - Ireland, Wales, Argentina, Scotland.
Bulls, Crusaders, Stormers, Waratahs.
***1/2 - Italy, Fiji, Samoa.
Hurricanes, Sharks.
*** - Tonga.
Brumbies, Reds, Blues, Chiefs.
**1/2 - Japan, USA, Canada.
Force, Highlanders.
** - Georgia, Russia, Romania, Portugal, Uruguay, Spain, Namibia.
Cheetahs, Lions.

note: I was going to attempt the Heineken Cup Teams, but decided not to since i'm not as clued up as alot of other posters i didn't wanna look like a tool

 

[Teh Mite]

International teams are better than club sides. Fact. Rugby hasn't got to the stage football's at where the top club sides are as good as it gets. For starters, southern hemisphere players only remember how to tackle when they're playing internationally.

So no way are Toulouse better than France and no way are the Bulls etc. better than South Africa.

Why in that case is Ireland nowhere near equal to the sum of its parts?