Rankings of the teams

[Goleel]

Ratings take into account how a teams gone for 2003 along with their past results. You don't say Ryan Girdler is a shit player because he's had an average year this year, do you? He's still a damn good centre. And since teams are the sum of their players, the team ratings don't go by 'who is best in 2003' but 'who has the best individual players'. So it'd go like this:

The Roosters and Bulldogs would be a level above every other team. Then you'd have Newcastle and Brisbane, then Parramatta, Canberra, the Warriors and Penrith (in that order), to make up the eight. Then the Dragons, Storm, Cowboys, Sharks, Eagles, Tigers, Souths, making up the rest.

I'd also be tempted to put the Dragons above Penrith in the eight, but don't want to risk a riot from the many penrith fans here. Stop looking at this as a blind supporter of your team, and try and judge fairly.

 

[Kasper]

Ratings take into account how a teams gone for 2003 along with their past results. You don't say Ryan Girdler is a shit player because he's had an average year this year, do you? He's still a damn good centre. And since teams are the sum of their players, the team ratings don't go by 'who is best in 2003' but 'who has the best individual players'. So it'd go like this:

The Roosters and Bulldogs would be a level above every other team. Then you'd have Newcastle and Brisbane, then Parramatta, Canberra, the Warriors and Penrith (in that order), to make up the eight. Then the Dragons, Storm, Cowboys, Sharks, Eagles, Tigers, Souths, making up the rest.

I'd also be tempted to put the Dragons above Penrith in the eight, but don't want to risk a riot from the many penrith fans here. Stop looking at this as a blind supporter of your team, and try and judge fairly.

I find this post rather hypocritical with you put Parramatta 5th when they have jackall indivdual talent compared to the teams you put below them.

 

[Parra_Boy]

In my opinion it's impossible to rank any team besides the way they stand on the premiership table.

So rank player individualy instead of team based.

The game is about the 2003 season anyway so rank the player according to the 2003 season he has been in. If they have a better year in 2004, well then they get better stats in the next game.

It will work out to be a tougher and more entertaining game this way.

If you did it the way some people are trying to make it work you'd get a player like Fletch from Souths playing shit just because he is in the Souths team which is very unfair as I think he is one of the most in form Second Rowers this year.

Ahh well there's my rant feel free to disagree.

 

[angelus]

So what happens if Andrew Johns gets injured in the first round of the competition and Newcastle struggle, whereas if he had been in the team they would have done a lot better? Past years HAS to be taken into account. I'm not saying go back 5 years, but maybe since around 2000/1 would be appropriate. Afterall, Mario has said some of the stats are based on career averages, so it's a bit hypocritical if they have player stats based on previous years, but not team stats. That Johns scenario was hypothetical of course, but you had to have some lenience. Penrith/Canberra have had a decent run with injuries this year and their positions on the table reflect a consistent team playing good football. I stand by my rankings based on who's beaten who and the reputation and skill of the last 2-3 years.

 

[Tupac Shakur]

Haha pauly_boy you idiot.

 

[The_Savage_1]

The Roosters and Bulldogs would be a level above every other team. Then you'd have Newcastle and Brisbane, then Parramatta, Canberra, the Warriors and Penrith (in that order), to make up the eight. Then the Dragons, Storm, Cowboys, Sharks, Eagles, Tigers, Souths, making up the rest.

how can you put the storm grouped with all the bottom teams! :evil: we finished 5th FFS and had arguably the most crippling injury toll this year. you're a joke!

 

[angelus]

I'd place the Storm in the 6-9 range.

 

[sheep]

I'd place the Storm in the 6-9 range.

Yeah me to. I dont know why the Eagles ever let him go for stupid Kimmorley! :x

 

[sheep]

Yeah me to. I dont know why the Eagles ever let him go for stupid Kimmorley! :x

That would be orford im talking about

 

[Jimmyson/Mullins]

The raiders should be in the top 4 and could be as high as 2nd or 3rd in the game they have never droped out of the top 4 all year

 

[Kasper]

Yeah me to. I dont know why the Eagles ever let him go for stupid Kimmorley! :x

That would be orford im talking about

It's called the edit button. :roll: :shock:

 

[angelus]

I'm sure all the top teams will be fairly even. Canberra finished 3rd, and Brisbane 8th, but they beat the Raiders. I'm sure it won't affect the top teams as much as if you were playing with Roosters v Souths for instance.

 

[Goleel]

I'm just going on international and SOO experience King, and despite the Eels performance this year they've still got a better side, on paper, than Penrith and the Storm. Penrith work better as a team than Parra do, and their teamwork ratings will reflect that I'd say, but as individuals, that's the way I see things. I'm not so stupid that I would tell people to be unbiased then be obviously biased myself, those rankings are what I believe the teams should be rated.

I'd put the Dragons into the eight, except they have terrible depth, and too many 'nothing' players. Penrith have a heap of good players, but very few with international or Origin experience, that stand out on their individual talent, same with the Cowboys. The Storm just don't have many big names, either.

I also say there is very little difference between Parramatta and the Storm on that list, thats 6 teams that I'd say, out of 100, would be withing 6-8 points of each other, and over the whole competition, except for the bottom three sides, there will be little difference at all.

I hope Rugby League will come down to playing to a teams strengths. The Bulldogs, Canberra and Broncos will win games by dominating the ruck with their big forwards then spreading wide with their quicker players on the edges, taking advantage of the fatigue system, while Penrith and the Storm will rely on their outside men and pace. In that sense, teams 'rankings' wont matter a whole lot, alot like Madden, where if you're good enough and play to a teams strengths and defend against your opponents strengths, you can beat any team with any team. Sure, Souths and Manly don't have many strengths, but if you can work to them, then you can win.

I'm looking forward to taking the Cowboys to a premiership actually, with their fast outside men and offloading forwards, they play a style of game that I reckon will work wonders in Rugby League.

 

[kaon]

It's obvious your anti-Brisbane, so I won't respond.

Read fool.

You go from telling me you loved me to not speaking to me at all; I'm really getting sick of these Gay relationships.

 

[sheep]

Sure, Souths and Manly don't have many strengths, but if you can work to them, then you can win.

Hey don't get Manly wrong they have lots of strenghts! They can beat any team for up to 40-50minutes its just after that well eh........... Oh well next year boys!

 

[devonuto]

I think the teams should be ranked how they are after round 26...

Panthers, Minor Premiers 2003... now for the big one!

 

[sheep]

I think the teams should be ranked how they are after round 26...

Yeah you would :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[hrundi99]

Teams should be ranked by players abilities therefore the more skilled players in your team the higher your team will be placed, so that means teams like Parramatta...

That's funny.

:lol:

 

[devonuto]

The Bulldogs, Canberra and Broncos will win games by dominating the ruck with their big forwards then spreading wide with their quicker players on the edges, taking advantage of the fatigue system, while Penrith and the Storm will rely on their outside men and pace.

Are you serious, the Panthers have one of the best forward packs in the comp... they hardly rely on their backs when they have players like Joel Clinton, Ben Ross, Joe Galuvao, and Big T... with the final 2 rated this year as probably the best 2nd row line-in the comp, and we've also got Priddis at hooker who came second this year for most number of tackles, and was also up there in the line breaks and metres gained... doesn't sound like a team that relies heavily on their back line to me... they're the real deal... and the best part is, most of them are young, and will be around for a long time to come.

 

[Goleel]

I'm not criticising the Panthers in any way, so no need to get all defensive about it. I just think they rely on their speed men, Campbell, Lewis, Wesser, Gower, to score their tries, rather than their pack, who make a lot of ground up the middle, but don't really 'set up' a whole lot of tries for the team, they just make huge yardage, the most out of the NRL, if I remember right. I'm not saying Puletua, Clinton, Ross, Lang, etc... aren't good players, they are.

It doesn't matter anyway, I believe the way the game is balanced if you are good enough, you can take any good side all the way if you play the game the right way, Penrith ranked number one or Penrith ranked number nine, they'll still be a strong enough side to win a comp. Jeez you Panthers fans get defensive of your side.