RLIF World Rankings

[mattystans000]

Just on the "fairy land nonsense that any nation would show these rankings to aquire funding", well for one, they would not be taken in isolation obviously, other factors including playing numbers would come into account. But to give a relevant metaphor:

The AIS was created by the government as a direct result of Australia's woeful performance at the Olympics. Such a staggering decline in their Olympic standings (likened to rankings) instigated a flood of funding into the olympic sporting sector. Obvious improvement since then has shown the govt. that this funding was well spent and should continue to be spent. Of course an Olympic performance is more like where a nation finishes in a World Cup, but all those athletes have various individual and team rankings with various affiliated sporting organisations and leagues, like IAAF Diamond League, etc. Which can be used to measure success or failure and determine where funding is required most. To say that sports funding institutions in any nation would never even look upon their own nations world ranking given by the world governing body is stupid and blatantly ignorant.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

There are definitely countries out there that would be gullible enough to allocate spending to league based on rankings, mostly 2nd world countries looking for a bit of significance in something - that's probably not a great thing though for their citizens although they may claim it is good for national moral. Morocco and Lebanon spring to mind, it's definitely the sort of thing Iran would do if they had a bit of league going on.

Note that it has been suggested that soccer is used in many countries to distract the masses from more important issues.

 

[mattystans000]

There are definitely countries out there that would be gullible enough to allocate spending to league based on rankings, mostly 2nd world countries looking for a bit of significance in something - that's probably not a great thing though for their citizens although they may claim it is good for national moral. Morocco and Lebanon spring to mind, it's definitely the sort of thing Iran would do if they had a bit of league going on.

Note that it has been suggested that soccer is used in many countries to distract the masses from more important issues.

I would hardly use the term gullible... It would be irresponsiblle of sports funders to not want some form of measurable success as a return for their investments. Of which, a RL nation's official RLIF World Ranking is one such measure.

Questions of whether such a use of public funds is in the best interests of a nation's people, stem from different issues to the intended purposes of a world rankings system.

A recent example of monetary reward or investment for increased world rankings comes from Swimming Australia, which can be found here: link The Crawford Report also makes numerous references to a need to refocus govt. sport funding with one such focus placed on achieving top 8 standings in select olympic sports and maintaining or increasing current elite team sport world rankings, thus another example of money allocated (by a non-2nd world country - australia) to sports based on rankings. See the report here: link (read thru pages 7-9 of the exec. overview).

 

[Evil Homer]

Just to point out, there are 28 nations on the rankings list, and all of the top half (thus "higher ranked nations" HAVE played regularly over the last number of years. So dont know just what you're making reference to there apparently? And in fact we all know and could easily look up the fact that all but South Africa & Latvia have been playing internationals quite regularly over the last few years. Even then Sth Africa played in the 2011 qualifying comp for RLWC2013! So that comment does smack of complaining for the sake of complaining cos League = Always run by idiots no matter what.

Really? When's the last time Samoa, Fiji or the Cooks Islands played? How many matches have PNG played against other nations in the past year compared to the likes of Serbia or Italy? Outside of the World Cup, there is no standardized international schedule for the vast majority of RL nations which means attempting to rank them in some way based on the occasional fixtures that they might happen to play is just stupid. For world rankings to be accurate in any way, a standardized international schedule and level international playing field is needed, neither of which exist in RL.

Yes the second point you make is of great value to minnow nations, and these ranking have gotten coverage in some nations like Malta with a few sports papers publishing the article.

If you want to prove that RL is played outside of the big 3, well say to whoever's asking , hey look at these official rankings published on the RLIF's official site with all these match reports from actual internaitonals being played by and in those countries! Wow, a bit of a positive light looking at this kind of stuff would take league a lot further than the constant self hating, in fighting, always negative, go nowhere attitude many league fans seem to have without any apparent reason.

There's no 'self-hating', the fact is that centrally-administrated international RL is a joke and these rankings are symptomatic of that. Nobody needs to 'prove that RL is played in other nations', that isn't what world rankings are for. In fact, I think if anything these world rankings probably give ammunition to RL's detractors. And if some journalist in a minor nation wants to write about moving up in the rankings then great, but it's meaningless because they wouldn't stand up under any sort of scrutiny.

And if you're going to be critical in the sense that rankings are inherently farcical, then please do put forward an alternative system that does not simply read "these are shit! I know everything about how good league nations are without this crap, scrap it and screw anything else".

I'm not being critical of the system of calculation, I don't even know what it is. I'm being critical about the fact that the rankings are a complete joke. As I said, the purpose of world rankings is to determine seedings for international tournaments. Since international RL completely ignores the concept of seeded nations and a level playing field, then there isn't any reason for them to exist. And given the extreme disparity in the nature of the matches involved then it just seems like a complete waste of time to even attempt to publish world rankings.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Yep.

 

[mikail-eagle]

Really? When's the last time Samoa, Fiji or the Cooks Islands played? How many matches have PNG played against other nations in the past year compared to the likes of Serbia or Italy?

PNG and Fiji played 2 Tests against each other last year......But I do agree with all you've just said.

 

[mattystans000]

Really? When's the last time Samoa, Fiji or the Cooks Islands played? How many matches have PNG played against other nations in the past year compared to the likes of Serbia or Italy?

Samoa:
http://nospam18.com/rugby-league-rlp/rlp-nations/samoa
2012 Results
Jul 13th Samoa Residents 18 - NSWCRL 22
Jul 9th Samoa PMXIII 22 - NSWCRL 36

Fiji & PNG:
http://nospam18.com/rugby-league-rlp/rlp-nations/fiji
2011 Results
Nov 6th Papua New Guinea 26 - Fiji 0 (Test Match)
Oct 30th Papua New Guinea 12 - Fiji 26 (Test Match)

Cook Islands:
Unable to find any news of planned matches for 2012 (in a 1 minute google search, not hard for anyone to do).
However, we all (should) know of their now cancelled 2011 Kiwis Test they would have played: Link

No, these nations do not have planned international competitions like the Euro nations do under the guidance of the RLEF. But yes, in FACT, they are playing international matches as I said, and have been able to provide substantiated proof thereof, as opposed to making unsubstantiated baseless claims to try and support my arguments.

FIFA World Rankings
The rankings are used by FIFA to rank the progression and current ability of the national football teams of its member nations, and claims that they create "a reliable measure for comparing national A-teams".[2] They are used as part of the calculation, or the entire grounds to seed competitions.

IRB World Rankings
The rankings are used by the IRB to rank the progression and current ability of the national rugby union teams of its member nations, but the data was historically used by the IRB for very few things. Until 2007 the rankings were not used to seed competitions.

IIHF (Ice Hockey) World Ranking
The system was designed to be simple to understand and "reflect the long-term quality of all national hockey programs and their commitment to international hockey.The ranking is used to determine the seeding of the teams for the next World Championship and to select the teams which can participate in Winter Olympics without playing in the qualifying round.

So yes, as EVIDENCED here, your point regarding ONE use of any WGO's World Rankings is as a basis to seed teams in various competitions. Of course, as I am putting forward, again based on a weight of evidence as opposed to opinion, there are more uses beyond a singular functional seedings application.

Your problem lies with the adminsitration of the RLIF itself. These rankings do serve numerous purposes beyond seedings, and do not need to exist solely for that purpose. I agree there needs to be FAR more organised international competition, practically everywhere outside of the Big 3 and Europe, but to blame or denigrate these rankings because of an unrelated failure of the RLIF is making mountains out of ant hills I think.

 

[Bluebags1908]

I think the rankings do serve a purpose and is an essential tool for the development of international rugby league - BUT - there are also flaws: not in the actual rankings themselves but the lack of matches played by some countries and also the discrepancy with teams like Italy fielding domestic amateur teams one minute and NRL stacked teams the next (example: Italy lost to Scotland 104-0 and to Lebanon 86-0 in 2009, but qualified for the 2013 RLWC in 2011 by beating Russia 92-6 and beat Lebanon to a place in the 2013 RLWC). ​

And the biggest mistake as I see it, is that none of the Pacific countries should have been automatic World Cup qualifiers. Because of this they are left with a yawning gap of not having any meaningful matches to play in the years in between World Cups. Tonga residential team have played USA this year and PNG played Fiji in 2 matches last year minus many NRL stars - but qualifiers would have resulted in heritage players committing to their heritage countries for 3 years out of a 4 year cycle (mattysands000 - Samoa Resident team and Samoan PMX111 vs NSW Country counts for zero towards the rankings - it must be a full international between two national sides).

The only teams that should be automatic qualifiers are: Australia, New Zealand, England, France as these countries have at least one fully professional team, plus Wales as co-hosts. The rest should have been told to qualify - Ireland, Scotland, PNG, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, and Cook Islands... and thus the 2-year home and away qualifiers would have provided these countries with meaningful and very important matches over this period. I know this would have costed $$$, but it is money the RLIF should look at as well worth spending for the credibility and development of international Rugby League. So 9 of the 14 spots should have been opened up for qualifiers instead of 2.

When the RLWC is held in the Southern hemisphere perhaps Wales could be substituted for PNG as an automatic qualifier in addition to Aus, NZ, Eng, Fra.​

Also for reference, this is on the RLIF website: http://www.rlif.com/rankings​

Rankings​

The Official Rugby League International Federation (RLIF) World Rankings are calculated on each nation’s performance over the current season and the four preceding seasons. Points are awarded to each team for each match based on:​

· The result of the match i.e. win, lose or draw
· The margin of victory (or defeat)
· The relative strength of opposition faced
· The date of the match – more recent matches are weighted more heavily
· The importance of the match e.g. a World Cup match is given greater weighting than a standalone international.​

The points are then used to create the Official World Rankings by ordering the teams by virtue of the points gained over the five season period.​

Only matches played at senior level between two approved members are considered as part of the rankings. ​

The World Rankings are automatically updated on the first day of every month. If that falls in the middle of an international series, the update will occur immediately following the series.​

The bit in red - I would reduce this to 3 years. Latvia hasn't played a international match since 18th September 2010 and the longer they don't play the lower they will go down in the rankings until they are removed from the list altogether.​

 

[mattystans000]

Nice reply Bluebags, rational argument that puts forward good points for improvements to the current rankings system. Unlike other replies put forward... Just want to say as well I was aware the Samoa/Country match isn't a full international but was in reply to pointing out these nations are indeed active in playing international matches.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So you're pointing out that they play internationals by posting games that are NOT internationals. Brilliant.

 

[mattystans000]

So you're pointing out that they play internationals by posting games that are NOT internationals. Brilliant.

I see you've ignored all of the other points that i've called you up on and backed up with evidence... And now you want to redefine the meaning of international? Ha! If test match is the phrase you're looking for then you are way off, if Full International is the term you want (as Bluebags pointed out that it wasn't, and i agreed) then you are still off, but if you actually mean international, well by any definition, a match played by two representative teams from two seperate countries is, was, and shall always be an international. I'm really getting tired of your dribble, so if you'd care to do a little work and back up the stuff you'd say i'd probably be slightly more inclined to give a rats, but since you've now resorted to arguing on the basis of a simple definition, i think i've made my points quite well and you can't think of anything else to say that i haven't already proved you wrong or misguided on, please do yourself and everybody here a favour and stop embarassing yourself in this part of the forums.

 

[Steve Davy]

ECT makes an interesting point that keeping facts and figures on international progress might be considered a waste of time. I would disagree, I think monitoring is important, not only to know the situation, but also to learn from mistakes.

These rankings are no more than an informed rough estimate. However, I think people will accept this. As long as they are based on reality, games played and results, they are of value. If someone were to declare that they were an absolutely authoritative guide, then they would be speaking nonsense - but I am not sure anyone is suggesting that. It can be asserted that we all know what the order should be, but I suspect that very few people would write a similar list of the top of their heads and they might generally over-estimate the internet active over the paddock active.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I see you've ignored all of the other points that i've called you up on and backed up with evidence... And now you want to redefine the meaning of international? Ha! If test match is the phrase you're looking for then you are way off, if Full International is the term you want (as Bluebags pointed out that it wasn't, and i agreed) then you are still off, but if you actually mean international, well by any definition, a match played by two representative teams from two seperate countries is, was, and shall always be an international. I'm really getting tired of your dribble, so if you'd care to do a little work and back up the stuff you'd say i'd probably be slightly more inclined to give a rats, but since you've now resorted to arguing on the basis of a simple definition, i think i've made my points quite well and you can't think of anything else to say that i haven't already proved you wrong or misguided on, please do yourself and everybody here a favour and stop embarassing yourself in this part of the forums.

You haven't backed up anything you fool.

You've made a ridiculous claim that rankings help nations get government funding which you have NOT proved at all. And you have made absolutely NO other relevant point to back up rankings at all.

And on top of that you try and suggest that other people are agreeing with you when they are NOT. You're the one ignoring what others are saying you clown. All you have done is make a f**king idiot of yourself by trying to suggest a game between a Samoan Residents team and a Country Rugby League team has some kind of relevance to the rankings. Considering how farcical these rankings are it wouldn't surprise me if it did, but even by the pathetic standards of the RLIF this isn't the case. And after all that you think you've "made your points well". Your opinion of yourself is clearly as inflated as some of the pointless rankings on that list.

 

[Evil Homer]

Cook Islands:
Unable to find any news of planned matches for 2012 (in a 1 minute google search, not hard for anyone to do).
However, we all (should) know of their now cancelled 2011 Kiwis Test they would have played: Link

No, these nations do not have planned international competitions like the Euro nations do under the guidance of the RLEF. But yes, in FACT, they are playing international matches as I said, and have been able to provide substantiated proof thereof, as opposed to making unsubstantiated baseless claims to try and support my arguments.

Samoa haven't played a match for years. AFAIK Cook Islands haven't played since 2009. Fiji have played two matches, both against the same opponent, in over 12 months. And yet all these nations are among the highest ranked. It's just totally illogical. The automatic qualification of Cook Islands to the World Cup ahead of higher ranked nations has ruined any credibility the rankings may have had, at the moment they seem to serve as nothing more than an arbitrary and fairly inaccurate list of RL playing nations.

So yes, as EVIDENCED here, your point regarding ONE use of any WGO's World Rankings is as a basis to seed teams in various competitions. Of course, as I am putting forward, again based on a weight of evidence as opposed to opinion, there are more uses beyond a singular functional seedings application.

What other practical uses are there? I'm not interested in looking at a list of nations, anyone could make such a list and if there isn't a practical application then the list is completely irrelevant and serves no purpose. In fact all three of the passages you've quoted imply that the sole application of world rankings is to seed nations for international competitions. I don't understand how anyone could think it would be acceptable for RL to publish world rankings and then proceed to ignore the one practical application that they could possibly have.

Your problem lies with the adminsitration of the RLIF itself. These rankings do serve numerous purposes beyond seedings, and do not need to exist solely for that purpose. I agree there needs to be FAR more organised international competition, practically everywhere outside of the Big 3 and Europe, but to blame or denigrate these rankings because of an unrelated failure of the RLIF is making mountains out of ant hills I think.

Yes, my issue is with the RLIF. But as I said, this is symptomatic of that. There's absolutely no point in producing world rankings until the major issues in the sport are rectified. At the moment it's just an inaccurate measure of nothing.

 

[Bluebags1908]

Latest RLIF rankings:
http://www.rlif.com/rankings

I spotted this when browsing the Canada Rugby League website:
http://www.canadarugbyleague.com/site/eng/news/article.php?id=10201


Canada rise to 18th in the RLIF World Rankings
(Toronto) The Rugby League International Federation (RLIF) have released the latest update to the World Rankings. Canada has risen three places from 21st to 18th. The three place hop was the largest by any nation in this ranking period. CRL President Cory Tukeli had this to say; "We are absolutely delighted and we couldn't be more pleased with our players' performances. We have won a small victory with the jump, and we are preparing for the battle that lies ahead in our quest to qualify for the 2017 World Cup. We are optimistic that we can reach the big show in 2017."

Canada had a strong 2012 as they defeated Jamaica and Lebanon and had a close fought Colonial Cup series with the USA. The USA also elevated their position in the world rankings by jumping one place to 10th. Other notables, are Lebanon who dropped two places to 16th, Russia who gained two places to 14th, and Ireland who jump two spots to enter the top ten at 9th. Canada also rose to 10th in the RLEF European rankings from 13th. "We are a force to be reckoned with," CRL Chairman Eric Perez explained. "Canada will continue to rise, and the best is yet to come." Canada will be unveiling the 2013 Wolverines schedule in the coming months, it already plans to be the toughest yet with 7 or more matches on the horizon next year.


To see the full RLIF World Rankings list click here

 

[roughyedspud]

so france and wales get stuffed....yet move up the ranking?.....ours are as bad as the FIFA rankings lol

 

[Bronco Rob]

"We are a force to be reckoned with," CRL Chairman Eric Perez explained. "Canada will continue to rise, and the best is yet to come." Canada will be unveiling the 2013 Wolverines schedule in the coming months, it already plans to be the toughest yet with 7 or more matches on the horizon next year.

I like this, can't wait to see how they develop over the next few years!

 

[deluded pom?]

A guy on the TRL forums involved with Norway reckons they will be playing the Canadians home and away in 2013!

 

[RHCP]

The Canadian side really excite me as a nation. They really seem to be focused and passionate.

I was very impressed by the near 5000 they got to their Jamaica match posted in another thread, but then I realised I know little of their crowd numbers. How does that sit in comparison to the US numbers and Canadian numbers as an average? Giant outlier, around the average for an international or something else?

 

[Bovrick]

so france and wales get stuffed....yet move up the ranking?.....ours are as bad as the FIFA rankings lol

I guess it's more PNG falling because they had nobody to play.