Is this the first step towards the Official World Rankings?

Welcome to World Footy News Tuesday, May 19 2026 @ 06:52 pm ACST

Is this the first step towards the Official World Rankings? | 74 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.

Is this the first step towards the Official World Rankings?

Authored by: 00Bock
on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 01:13 am ACDT

I don't get it: isn't it compulsory to exclude Australian players?
Of course rules differ from tournament to tournament / game to game but they all exclude aussie expats, or? e.g. Euro Championships allow only players who lived in the coutry they represent between their 10th and 16th birthdays. If not, that surely has to change because I can remember an incedent where a 16s game with 100% locals turned from a 70 point lead after the first half into a level game at the end after 2 aussies were included for the loosing team.

Is this the first step towards the Official World Rankings?

Authored by: Aaron Richard
on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 06:49 am ACDT

That's another important issue we need to discuss. Obviously going forward, we'd like ideally to just include games played under the "country of origin" rules.

I think Cam's reasoning behind having some tolerance on that was so that as many games and nations as possible could be included. For example, even at the IC there have been a few exceptions made so that teams can get a team onto the park, Spain wouldn't have been able to play at the 2005 IC without a few Spanish Australians, and Finland fielded a few Aussies in 2008 to fill the gaps as well.

Ideally, you wouldn't include that, but that's the reality of international footy at the moment.

Benno, on another topic do Germany have any further 16/18-a-side test matches scheduled for this year besides the Euro Champs in Denmark/Sweden?

Is this the first step towards the Official World Rankings?

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 10:25 am ACDT

So we could say "no games included that had Aussies" but then that would exclude quite a few IC games. Although the AFL tries to keep it to an absolute minimum, there are occasional exceptions made, such as those Aaron mentioned. I think there have been a few others too.

Although it isn't ideal, everyone acknowledges that at this youthful stage of international Aussie Rules, no hard and fast system can cover everything adequately. I guess we just make some rules, try to be consistent, and make occasional exceptions where there is reasonable agreement. In 15 years time we should have 30 ranked teams all playing a lot of 18s (or maybe 16s?). Of course the 9s issue may be a long term debating point.

Perhaps the best thing is for us to focus on 16-18s games, start releasing our data of what is and isn't included, and allow there to be debate on any "extra" inclusions. I'd suggest we start with the most recent matches and slowly move back from there. In the next few days I'll roll some of that info out and probably do it as a separate story / thread. But for now, keep the comments coming on here.

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

---
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

Random Image

What's New

Articles last 2 weeks

Comments last 2 weeks

Links last 2 weeks

Advertisements