Eurorugby rankings: A joke?!

cooke-1 · Post by **cooke-1** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:20 am

1 Gloucester 100.00 1
2 Toulouse 98.76 1
3 Leicester 98.45
4 Clermont-Auvergne 95.07 1
5 Stade Francais 92.02 1
6 Wasps 91.49 2
7 Bath 84.00 1
8 Saracens 83.83 1
9 Ospreys 82.36 2
10 Munster 80.03 3
11 Biarritz 78.89 2
12 Leinster 78.67
13 Cardiff Blues 78.15 3
14 Glasgow Warriors 74.84 1
15 Perpignan 72.38 1
16 London Irish 70.37 1
17 Bristol 67.56 4
18 Sale 65.74 2
19 Llanelli Scarlets 65.36 3
20 Harlequins 62.82 2

Apparently it is based on the past 30 matches which is ridiculous
Bath at 7 and Munster at 10?
How do Gloucester come first ahead of premiership and edf winners and heinekan finalists!!!!!!!!

hohe · Post by **hohe** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:01 pm

haha!! sorry - it made me laugh inside!

Oadbywonder · Post by **Oadbywonder** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:25 pm

While we are on the subject can some one tell me what NZ have won ???????
http://www.irb.com/

Gibbo12 · Post by **Gibbo12** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:27 pm

They've got to be having a laugh. Total ****

Iain · Post by **Iain** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:34 pm

Oadbywonder wrote:While we are on the subject can some one tell me what NZ have won ???????
http://www.irb.com/

Whats wrong with those rankings? World Champions are number 1 in the world, number 2 have won all but one or two of their matches over the last couple of years... England's good run in the world cup dragged them up to fourth... I'm not sure what you're arguing!

As for the European Club rankings I would find it hard to comment without knowing how the points are calculated.

dailywaffle · Post by **dailywaffle** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:37 pm

I have followed these rankings for many months. The current list looks about right, when you remember that they:
1. cover the last 30 matches, but
2. are weighted in favour of the most recent.

Tigers were rated #1 for 11 consecutive months, from Dec 06 to Nov 07. Glaws and Toulouse form this season has been better than ours, therefore we are now in 3rd.

Munster are rubbish in the ML, hence their relatively lowly rating.

DorsetTiger · Post by **DorsetTiger** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:13 pm

I love the way Bath are ahead of Munster, Leinster and Biaritz. absolute joke.

dailywaffle · Post by **dailywaffle** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:33 pm

DorsetTiger wrote:I love the way Bath are ahead of Munster, Leinster and Biaritz. absolute joke.

Its not a joke when you consider how the calculation is done. The table is not a record of who is 'best' in the big games, it tries to quantity each team's performance over 30 matches; irrespective of the competition.

Munster have had some poor ML results, this effectively cancels out their much better HEC performances. Leinster had a poor time at the end of last season, hence they are having to climb from a low base. Biarritz are in the bottom half of the T-14 and have just lost to Glasgow, so I can't imagine why anyone would think their ranking should be particularly high.

Nells · Post by **Nells** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:33 pm

Biarritz are rubbish at the moment

stevetelcom2000 · Post by **stevetelcom2000** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:35 pm

dailywaffle wrote:IMunster are rubbish in the ML, hence their relatively lowly rating.

Munster are third in the ML. Tigers are 4th in the GP

dailywaffle · Post by **dailywaffle** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 pm

Oh come, Steve.

Munster 17 - Cardiff 19
Ospreys 16 - Munster 3
Glasgow 11 - Munster 11
Munster 19 - Edinburgh 16
Munster stuffed Dragons, but they're off the scale and wouldn't have garnered much in the way of points.
Munster 3 - Leinster 10

Those results, obviously, won't transfer well into a euro table.

Dave Angel · Post by **Dave Angel** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:47 pm

DW is right, if you understand how the table is calculated you will realise that the rankings are actually quite accurate.

Munster's lowly position stems from the fact that the ML is not seen as important a competition as the Premiership and the opposition within the ML are also rated poorly.

You get more points for beating a higher ranked side & Munster have both won & lost against lowly sides recently.

Gloucester deserve their high position as they top the Premiership & also top their HEC pool with 3 wins from 3.

BenWL · Post by **BenWL** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:56 pm

Surely if the ranking system is so complicated and everybody is scratching their head then it is completely pointless. A table that considers slightly less obscure forms of measurement would would make a little more sense.

dailywaffle · Post by **dailywaffle** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:22 pm

BenWL wrote:Surely if the ranking system is so complicated and everybody is scratching their head then it is completely pointless. A table that considers slightly less obscure forms of measurement would would make a little more sense.

Ben, I'm not sure what 'less obscure' would look like. How else would you wish to compare teams that compete across 4 x different league and 3 x different cup competitions? In one easy to access listing.

Its not as though the euro rankings are new, although I appreciate they are 'new' if you've only just discovered them.

Dave Angel · Post by **Dave Angel** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:32 pm

A system used to rank teams in 6 countries, across 4 leagues & 3 cup competitions is never going to be easy!

What syatem would you prefer that would be easier & less obscure?

Winner-stays-on?!?

This system is easy to understand (if not necessarily easy to calculate) and is generally a good guide to rankings. Individual views as to which team "should" or "should not" be where is of course subjective so if any ranking system is to be adopted it has to be one that has rules of some kind...such as this one.

It's never going to be perfect but it's the best system out there, unless you would like to construct another one that you feel would be simpler, less obscure & more accurate?