Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Welcome to World Footy News Tuesday, July 15 2025 @ 05:02 pm ACST

Final World Rankings prior to IC11 | 24 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Comments are closed and no new posts are allowed.

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Authored by: Cam Homes
on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 11:59 am ACST

Howdy Guys.

Jules, I'm surprised to see you mark SA so far down, I think if the development has progressed since IC08 as much as it did between IC05 and IC08 South Africa could go one better than last time and play in the Grand Final.

Brett, I have to agree with you Ireland will be stronger this year and it seems development hasn't progressed much in Samoa and Japan and you suggest Fiji could well surprise(fair amount of effort and money been outlaid in Fiji over last couple of years by all accounts).

If they do have a 'lightning carnival' to start the shebang off, the most we can do if we include those matches in the ranking scheme is give them 1 loading. If the matches are too short then I reckon they shouldn't be counted at all. Keeps the integrity we have tried to build into the scheme in tack.

Cam

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 12:59 pm ACST

South Africa set up an academy to really focus on their best 40 or so players. But I'm not sure how often they train or play together - if it was a full on academy I would expect a very polished side at IC11, but if it's more like a 3 times a year camp, then I suspect South Africa will be of similar relative strength to 2008.

OK so how long do people reckon games need to be to be worthy of inclusion? Standard IC matches have generally been between 14 and 17 minute x 2 halves as I recall. So even they are shorter than most "Tests" we include, which perhaps questions why we go so far as a double weighting for IC matches (too late to turn back now!)

If they are 10 mins x 2 halves would that count, with the weighting of 1 instead of 2? I'd like to think so, because it will be the only chance we get to have data for higher teams playing lower teams, and it will fast track some nations moving from provisional to fully ranked. I think clearly a team like NZ will beat a team like Switzerland, and that is good data, It's only if very similar teams play off that you could argue the "wrong" result might emerge, if one teams is unlucky or plays below their best or are surprised and don't get a chance to respond.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Authored by: Cam Homes
on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 01:48 pm ACST

Brett.

I think we have the weighting of 2 for the IC's cause it's the closest thing to "World Cup" that Australian Rules Football has, and in time that is what it would become I hope. All the nations that have taken part in the previous IC's I reckon have considered it to be the pinnacle of International Footy. I think that the international community have even more regard for it now than ever before. I think it is no longer seen as just a footy trip to Australia by anybody, anymore. To a man(and woman:-)) the combatants now all see themselves as the National Team playing for the highest prize in International Aussie Rules Footy I reckon.

As to the inclusion of the 'lightning carnival' matches it depends on how credible we think the Ranking scheme is and If we truly want it to be the arbiter of world footy at the "gold standard" as you put it, or not. My opinion is, to be as '18 carat or close to as possible. Hopefully that will be an incentive for those nations that are not yet in the ranks to inspire to. But to dilute it just to get them on board would be an insult to those that are on it now.

A dilema!!!!!!!!

Cam

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Authored by: Cam Homes
on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 02:12 pm ACST

Hey Brett, remember that teams that are too far apart don't actually make an impact on the Ranks(rating gap > 10.00) anyway, all those games do isgive the lower ranked(or debutants)teams a chance to measure(or see how big a flogging they get) themselves against the power nations, and a few extra matches so they can become fully ranked quicker.

New Zealand v Tonga 3 test series last year didn't tell the ranking scheme any thing about Tonga. They are still on 40.00 rating points, have no real idea of where their standard sits but are three games closer to being fully ranked.

By the way I'm not critising or denigrating those matches. As they say "s--t happens and the matches happened and were a real booster for both teams but did nothing for the ranking scheme:-) I think 3 test series' are probably better(financially at least)( only half the number of teams travelling) than a Oceanic/Pacific Championships each year or so. Just get the teams that are within 10.00 rating gap points to play each other:-).

Cam

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 03:47 pm ACST

Ah but those matches DID tell us something, they told us that Tonga are well short of NZ. So the ranking scheme got data into it, in terms of Tonga moving closer to full ranking, and didn't go up in the ranks, i.e. the system is establishing they are down the lower end to start with. I've often thought that teams should start at the very bottom and slowly move up, however the system is a neutral system in that points that are gained by someone are lost by someone else. So starting teams lower would slower drag the average down. Instead we require teams to be provisionally ranked, i.e. must play enough games for their ranking to make sense before they jump onto the full table.

Re watering down the system by including shortened games... they are still full field, best players available IC matches. Taking a few minutes off the clock doesn't invalidate them in my view, not any more than the fact that regular IC matches are already shortened as well. Is 4 x 25 mins plus time on okay? Yes. 2 x 17 mins? Historicaly we've said yes. 2 x 14 okay? Historically we've said yes (I think IC05 was that length). 2 x 10 okay? I'm arguing yes, but half the weighting of the others.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Authored by: sverik25
on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 04:38 pm ACST

Personally, I don't think matches which are 2X10 mins in length should actually count towards the rankings, I think it is too short a game for anything significant to be taken out of it. Thats just my opinion. :)

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Authored by: Rog
on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 06:18 pm ACST

I think "lightning" games if played should still count towards the world raknings (maybe at a reduced weighting). The higher ranked ie. better teams should still beat worse teams no matter how long the game is. Shorter games are still a indicator of teams relative strengths and seeing that it is at the IC11, these lightning games are much more important than any friendly played over a longer period.

Even though i disagree with some aspects of the ranking system based on the IRB system, i still think it is fairly accurate for the data (results) so far. I developed my own ranking system based on the Elo ranking system addressing some of my issues with the Worldfootynews rankings and the positions of the countries are still fairly similar.

Rankings from my Elo system for interest. I excluded Australia and have included teams given a provisional rating by WFN. I agree Canada, Japan and maybe even Finland are actually stronger then their rank suggests, but the havn't really ever won many games.

Rank Country Points (1 PNG 1277.7 (2 New Zealand 1239.6 (3 Ireland 1164 (4 USA 1086.4 (5 Nauru 1033 (6 South Africa 1027.7 (7 Denmark 995 (8 Samoa 983.4 (9 Great Britain 931.9 (10 Croatia 928 (11 Germany 924.3 (12 Canada 920.8 (13 Peace Team 911.2 (14 Sweden 908.2 (15 Tonga 892.2 (16 Iceland 872.5 (17 Japan 852.2 (18 Spain 847.3 (19 China 840.3 (20 India 787.4 (21 France 784.9 (22 Finland 775.2

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Authored by: Troy Thompson
on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 10:05 pm ACST

Brett, would have to look back to 02 and 05 records, but IC08 matches were definitely all 4 quarter matches - probably 4X17 I beleive. And as far as I remember so was 05.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 10:30 pm ACST

Bugger. Yeah you're probably right. 4 x 17 for IC08 and 4 x 14 or 15 for IC05. I need to get more sleep.

OK, so we're perhaps comparing matches in the past that have counted as weighting 2 that were 4 x 15 = 60 mins, versus (my speculation) 2 x 10 mins = 20 mins. Or maybe 2 x 15 mins = 30 mins.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Authored by: Cam Homes
on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 01:05 pm ACST

Woops.

That should be, "keep the integrity and credibilty intact".

Cam

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

RSS news	RSS events
Twitter	Facebook

World Footy News

Search

Translate

User Functions

Events

Featured Sites

Older Stories

Friday 11-Apr

Sunday 30-Mar

Thursday 27-Mar

Friday 21-Mar

Thursday 06-Mar

Wednesday 05-Feb

Tuesday 04-Feb

Socials

Who's Online

What's New

Articles last 2 weeks

Comments last 2 weeks

Links last 2 weeks