World Rankings

[mikkolos]

I have tried to come up with a successful ranking system, going by results over past 2 years, results against big guns, local structure and a host of other things, this is what the top 10 looks like. What do you think?
Australia 132
England 96
NZ 72
France 26
Lebanon 16
Ireland 16
Cook Islands 14
Tonga 10
Samoa 8
PNG 8

 

[League Freak™]

I think a team that hasnt lost a series of any kind in well over a quater of a century should be further ahead of an England side that hasnt played a game in the last few years.

 

[roopy]

mikkolos,
That is a big job you have there.
You might want to contact Razor, who has the best list of International results I know of (he used to have it on a website, but it seems to have lapsed).

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/member.php?u=5774

 

[Big Bunny]

I think a team that hasnt lost a series of any kind in well over a quater of a century should be further ahead of an England side that hasnt played a game in the last few years.

:lol:

Did you even bother to try and understand what was written? The table is based on the last 2 years records, not the last 25. It's pretty obvious that a 25 year record would be different.

Why does everything always have to be explained to you in great detail before you can even begin to comprehend?

 

[Sun_Down]

What was the method applied for determining English matches?

 

[carlnz]

has Samoa played matches in the last 2 years??

 

[griff]

Looks interesting, I'd be interested to know what your methodology was.

 

[League Freak™]

Oh man... :roll:


My point was that is some dope is going to come here with a ranking system (1 NSW 2 QLD 3 The Rest) then you know....the fact Australia hasnt lost a series in nearly 30 years MIGHT be a factor you would want to consider.

 

[Misanthrope]

How'd France manage to finish about Lebanon? Don't the Cedars beat them on an annual basis?

 

[mikkolos]

How'd France manage to finish about Lebanon? Don't the Cedars beat them on an annual basis?

Yeah, but that isn't France's full strength team. They send some of their players to med cup and some to euro nations cup. Plus the fact that France came so close to beating New Zealand, they also have a better domestic competition. Also the fact that Lebanon play no international matches apart from med cup counted against them.
Samoa played in the Pacific Rim last year, and they played a friendly the year before. Teams get points deducted for not playing any tests in a year.

 

[mikkolos]

This is basically the sytem i'm using. Any help or advice is most appreciated.

Wins over australia, england, new zealand = 15 points
over france, png, lebanon & others = 3-7 points
over weaker countries = 2points
If you lose by less than 30 points to aus, england or nz, you are rewarded with a few points, unless you are one of those 3 countries.
If you lose by more than 30 points, depending against who you will lose points.
4 consecutive wins = 5points
5 matches played in a year = 3points
0 matches played in a year = -3points

Tri Nations winner = 50points
Runner Up = 40points
3rd place = 30points
Other smaller competitions are awarded points for 1st, 2nd, 3rd as well but in a much lower scale.
Also, you get a point for every team in your domestic comp.

 

[Big Bunny]

This is basically the sytem i'm using. Any help or advice is most appreciated.

Wins over australia, england, new zealand = 15 points
over france, png, lebanon & others = 3-7 points
over weaker countries = 2points
If you lose by less than 30 points to aus, england or nz, you are rewarded with a few points, unless you are one of those 3 countries.
If you lose by more than 30 points, depending against who you will lose points.
4 consecutive wins = 5points
5 matches played in a year = 3points
0 matches played in a year = -3points

Tri Nations winner = 50points
Runner Up = 40points
3rd place = 30points
Other smaller competitions are awarded points for 1st, 2nd, 3rd as well but in a much lower scale.
Also, you get a point for every team in your domestic comp.

The varying scale for wins over teams depending on their level is a good idea but it would work better and more fairly if it was tied to their rank rather than who they are. An example is to say that a win over the top 3 nations would be worth 15 points, regardless of who those 3 are. Because at the moment it looks like you'd get 15 points even if NZ slipped to 5th (however unlikely).

 

[Sun_Down]

Did you award GB/England any extra points for finishing first on the Tri-Nations table, not just being the runner-up?