Australia v Argentina 7 Oct 2017 in Mendoza

[Derpus]

Well we certainly shouldn’t be losing at home against Scotland for starters.. Nor should they be losing a 3 matches in a row against England on home soil. Should have won in Perth against South Africa and against Ireland last November.

And the manner which we won against Fiji and Italy in the June series was hardly compelling stuff.

Why 'should we have won'? I don't really understand the idea that we should have won something. South Africa completely outplayed us at the breakdown and it was reflected in the scoreline. We currently have a very shallow stock of backrowers and they targetted that weakness expertly.

Frankly, Scotland are a vastly improved side to the historical one, as are England. These European countries are now producing swathes of talent we can only dream of.

 

[Derpus]

But as I understand the WR (World Rugby) rankings system, who you play makes no difference to the ranking as opponents strength is weighted in the calculations. (Not that I have particular confidence in the rankings by the way)

er what? if opponent strength is factored into the calculation then doesn't that mean who you play does make a difference?

 

[Quick Hands]

er what? if opponent strength is factored into the calculation then doesn't that mean who you play does make a difference?

It means that you aren't disadvantaged rankings-wise by playing stronger teams (i.e. the All Blacks), which was your point wasn't it?

Nor are you advantaged by consistently playing weaker teams.

So, playing the All Blacks regularly makes no difference to rankings. Which I assumed was your argument?

 

[Quick Hands]

Well we certainly shouldn’t be losing at home against Scotland for starters.. Nor should they be losing a 3 matches in a row against England on home soil. Should have won in Perth against South Africa and against Ireland last November.

And the manner which we won against Fiji and Italy in the June series was hardly compelling stuff.

England are the only team IMO who can threaten the ABs at the moment. I can't see us beating either of them on a regular basis for some time.

 

[Derpus]

It means that you aren't disadvantaged rankings-wise by playing stronger teams (i.e. the All Blacks), which was your point wasn't it?

Nor are you advantaged by consistently playing weaker teams.

So, playing the All Blacks regularly makes no difference to rankings. Which I assumed was your argument?

Where can you find the formula?

Yeah my point is that if you win a lot against weak teams or lose a lot against strong teams, your rank would be consistent. I have no actual idea about that though, just assumed.

 

[Quick Hands]

Where can you find the formula?

Yeah my point is that if you win a lot against weak teams or lose a lot against strong teams, your rank would be consistent. I have no actual idea about that though, just assumed.

I posted the link in post #9 of this thread. I'm not defending the system by the way, but it seems designed to account for the strength of the team that you play.

 

[Braveheart81]

It means that you aren't disadvantaged rankings-wise by playing stronger teams (i.e. the All Blacks), which was your point wasn't it?

Nor are you advantaged by consistently playing weaker teams.

So, playing the All Blacks regularly makes no difference to rankings. Which I assumed was your argument?

We're disadvantaged from the point of view of win % in that we play the All Blacks 3 times each year and it is very hard to ever beat them. The rankings are now at the point though where the All Blacks ranking is so high, that when we play NZ in NZ, they can't gain points by beating us and we can't lose points by losing to them.

At home we still lose a small amount of points if NZ beats us.

The World Rugby Rankings work on a points exchange system. The winners gains the same amount that their opponent loses for the match based on the ranking points going into the game.

The current rankings are:

1 NZ - 95.21
2 Eng - 90.14
3 Ire - 85.39
4 SA - 85.35
5 Aus - 84.66
6 Sco - 82.47

SA fell below Ireland in the rankings over the weekend due to drawing with us at home. Comparably, we lost ranking points at home by drawing with SA even though they were ranked slightly higher than us at the time.

We can go up to third place this weekend if we beat Argentina by more than 15 points and South Africa lose. We go up to fourth if we win and South Africa lose.

I think the rankings system is pretty accurate in terms of a purely mathematical system. There is currently very little separating Ireland, South Africa and Australia.

 

[Derpus]

Yeah that reflects what i suspected. Our win % will be low but we aren't ranked that badly, and it would be the opposite if we won and beat shitter teams regularly.

 

[Jagman]

I could be wrong but isn't a win percentage meant to express a win:loss ratio? Not a win:loss+draw ratio? Our win loss ratio for this year 3:3, i.e 50% not 3:5 (37.5%)

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

The ESPNscrum stats credits a draw as half a win in their success percentage stat.

So the Wallabies have a 50% record this year.

 

[jimmydubs]

50% out of this is pretty shit.
Italy
Scotland
Fiji
Argentina
NZ x 2
SA x 2
I mean we can spin it anyway we want but we should be 5/8 wins out of that Min.

Our issue under Cheika is not that we play NZ too much - because we lose more than we should against a number of teams as well.
12.5% against NZ
16.7% apiarist England
0% against Ireland
50% against France
67% against Scotland

We tinkle on our calculators as much as we want but I don't think we can be proud of those results.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think anyone is happy with the results we have had since the RWC. They have been poor in every respect.

Arguably our best performance in that time was the one last weekend in Bloemfontein so hopefully we are improving.

 

[Strewthcobber]

We're disadvantaged from the point of view of win % in that we play the All Blacks 3 times each year and it is very hard to ever beat them. The rankings are now at the point though where the All Blacks ranking is so high, that when we play NZ in NZ, they can't gain points by beating us and we can't lose points by losing to them.

At home we still lose a small amount of points if NZ beats us.



The current rankings are:

1 NZ - 95.21
2 Eng - 90.14
3 Ire - 85.39
4 SA - 85.35
5 Aus - 84.66
6 Sco - 82.47



I think the rankings system is pretty accurate in terms of a purely mathematical system. There is currently very little separating Ireland, South Africa and Australia.

I think they should run the calcs as they do now but only publish rounded whole numbers. It would give a much better indication of how even teams are.

Ie
Nz 95
England 90
Ire, SA, Aus 85
Sco 82


Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

I think they should run the calcs as they do now but only publish rounded whole numbers. It would give a much better indication of how even teams are.

Ie
Nz 95
England 90
Ire, SA, Aus 85
Sco 82


Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

There should also be a more account taken of the margin. Currently it's 1-14 or 15 plus. It really should be able to be calculated on each individual point of the margin.

 

[KAOPointman]

Perhaps experimenting is the wrong word maybe tinkering would be more apt. But I do think that there has been an experimental element to the extent that he has been willing to roll the dice on a few rookies who have shown great potential over players who haven't quite been at there best but at least you know what you're getting.

Case in point is probably Koroibete over Speight. Koroibete offers more than Speight in attack right now and his defence is tremendous but how he was going to perform at test level was still relatively unknown whereas you knew what Speight would give you.

So I'm not so much suggesting that he's experimenting by picking players that he doesn't think are the best but could be in a couple of years time but more because he's taking a gamble on relative unknowns at test level. And this is the sort of national coach I'd prefer to have. Someone who is willing to take a gamble on his rookies. Hansen dropped Savea for Ioane and now Ioane's shaping up to be one of the finest damn wingers in the world. I'd like to think we can do the same by showing some faith in the up and comers.

Certainly was an experiment with Koroibeti as his Super form was actually not any better then Speigs at all. They were actually remarkably close....but Speight being the incumbent, there's no real reason there to search for knew players! Not forgetting the massive line up of wingers we allready have....
With Ioane...I called he'd be a run on AB this year with his 7s form last year! He was and is a freak. And was again excellent for the Blues! He's faster then the Bus and bucket loads more skill...so given those facts, it was kinda a no brainer he'd get a run for the ABs!

 

[Derpus]

Certainly was an experiment with Koroibeti as his Super form was actually not any better then Speigs at all. They were actually remarkably close..but Speight being the incumbent, there's no real reason there to search for knew players! Not forgetting the massive line up of wingers we allready have..
With Ioane.I called he'd be a run on AB this year with his 7s form last year! He was and is a freak. And was again excellent for the Blues! He's faster then the Bus and bucket loads more skill.so given those facts, it was kinda a no brainer he'd get a run for the ABs!

I'd say this is the first time Speight has been the incumbent and is only so because Naivalu is injured. He hasn't really grabbed it with both hands. Koroibete showed what a hard hitting, hard running specialist winger can bring to the team. Speight should be worried about this incumbency long term.

 

[Braveheart81]

Certainly was an experiment with Koroibeti as his Super form was actually not any better then Speigs at all.

He has also been in the Wallabies squad on the EOYT, in June and through the Rugby Championship.

After that amount of time it is far less of an experimental selection. They have had a lot of time to work on all the areas they thought needed it and pick him when they thought he was ready. I think that showed in his performance on debut.

 

[fatprop]

I am just happy they are playing better rugby and showing improvement, long way to go but they are improving

From last weeks game, there was more work to be available on counter and improved skills shown

Slowly but surely

 

[Grandmaster Flash]

Soo... Back to the game this weekend.

Anyone envision any changes to the XV? Was TPN really that much better last weekend than Moore has been? Thought Squeak looked good (bar the missed cleanout) when he came on. Still has got great hands/can offload.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm tipping a return to a 5:3 bench, Tui to be selected again (possibly starting instead of Rodda) and Meakes to debut off the bench.