Planet Rugby Forum

POSITION TEAMS POINTS
1
(1)
NEW ZEALAND 90.98
2
(2)
WALES 88.87
3
(3)
ENGLAND 88.13
4
(4)
IRELAND 85.93
5
(5)
SOUTH AFRICA 85.75
6
(6)
AUSTRALIA 83.52
7
(8)
JAPAN 82.08
8
(7)
FRANCE 81.38
9
(9)
SCOTLAND 79.23
10
(10)
ARGENTINA 78.31

They're still going to get hammered by SA

Japan are nearly high enough for them to be favorites on the normal scale WR uses for home advantage.

If the other QFs go as expected and they win, I think they'll go 4th.

Well deserved Japan

That win againt Ireland to start with.

Amazing stuff. It's genuinely exciting to see a new nation break into the big boys club. Well done Japan

Wibble

Well deserved, Japan, but how can they keep the ranking if they cant get to play in the big leagues?

Above half the six nations teams...HALF!! for shame.

lets face it Japan is strong enough to beat NH teams but they pose no danger to NZ or south africa..

comets wrote:lets face it Japan is strong enough to beat NH teams but they pose no danger to NZ or south africa..

Did you see Japan v SA in the last World Cup? I won’t spoil it for you.

With Barnes as ref SA are going to win by about 30

comets wrote:lets face it Japan is strong enough to beat NH teams but they pose no danger to NZ or south africa..

They beat South Africa

comets wrote:lets face it Japan is strong enough to beat NH teams but they pose no danger to NZ or south africa..

This is why you should never post on the bored. Just utter utter stupidity. You give all atheists a bad name.

The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

trapper wrote:The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

One week difference between Perth and Eden Park for the All Blacks and wobs. Both games a good hiding.

trapper wrote:The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

this

the other morons are living in the past like those fijians living in 2007..

sonic_attack wrote:

trapper wrote:The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

One week difference between Perth and Eden Park for the All Blacks and wobs. Both games a good hiding.

SA spanked England by close to 50 in the pool stages of 2007 but barely got past them 6 weeks later in the final.

comets wrote:

trapper wrote:The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

this

the other morons are living in the past like those fijians living in 2007..

Yeah, it's probably not a game the Japanese were really targeting.

Farva wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:

trapper wrote:The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

One week difference between Perth and Eden Park for the All Blacks and wobs. Both games a good hiding.

SA spanked England by close to 50 in the pool stages of 2007 but barely got past them 6 weeks later in the final.

Wilkinson coming back into the team made a huge difference.

comets wrote:

trapper wrote:The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

this

the other morons are living in the past like those fijians living in 2007..

Warmup games are virtually meaningless. The Japs also regularly got around the SA defence in that game, they're handling was a long way off what we've seen during this tournament, with last passes going to ground rather than to hand.

Mr Mike wrote:

Farva wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:

trapper wrote:The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

One week difference between Perth and Eden Park for the All Blacks and wobs. Both games a good hiding.

SA spanked England by close to 50 in the pool stages of 2007 but barely got past them 6 weeks later in the final.

Wilkinson coming back into the team made a huge difference.

also, not actually being 'close to 50' in the pool game helped reduce that gap further still

Balls Out! wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Farva wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:

trapper wrote:The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

One week difference between Perth and Eden Park for the All Blacks and wobs. Both games a good hiding.

SA spanked England by close to 50 in the pool stages of 2007 but barely got past them 6 weeks later in the final.

Wilkinson coming back into the team made a huge difference.

also, not actually being 'close to 50' in the pool game helped reduce that gap further still

That too.

Balls Out! wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Farva wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:

trapper wrote:The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

One week difference between Perth and Eden Park for the All Blacks and wobs. Both games a good hiding.

SA spanked England by close to 50 in the pool stages of 2007 but barely got past them 6 weeks later in the final.

Wilkinson coming back into the team made a huge difference.

also, not actually being 'close to 50' in the pool game helped reduce that gap further still

Yep, 36 -0, while stilll horrendous, isn't anywhere near as bad as 50.

This is all fun and games but when Japan become a regular top 3 nation we’ll all stop laughing. This tournament is the rugby equivalent of the Russo-Japanese war...

Mr Mike wrote:

Farva wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:

trapper wrote:The Boks gave Japan a hiding two weeks before the World Cup started.

One week difference between Perth and Eden Park for the All Blacks and wobs. Both games a good hiding.

SA spanked England by close to 50 in the pool stages of 2007 but barely got past them 6 weeks later in the final.

Wilkinson coming back into the team made a huge difference.

Also everyone shits themselves in the final

comets wrote:lets face it Japan is strong enough to beat NH teams but they pose no danger to NZ or south africa..

sockwithaticket wrote:

Balls Out! wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

Farva wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:
One week difference between Perth and Eden Park for the All Blacks and wobs. Both games a good hiding.

SA spanked England by close to 50 in the pool stages of 2007 but barely got past them 6 weeks later in the final.

Wilkinson coming back into the team made a huge difference.

also, not actually being 'close to 50' in the pool game helped reduce that gap further still

Yep, 36 -0, while stilll horrendous, isn't anywhere near as bad as 50.

Details.

Fact remains. England were gash until the pool stages finished. Then there was a massive tuen around in the knock out stage.

Fine.

We snuck past Tonga I think it was 9-3 in 1999 and still win the whole comp.

the current IRB ranking is quite accurate.
At least we finally moved away from US Samoa and Georgia, and we are right at the back of Fiji
Which reflects reality IMO

1(2) ENGLAND 92.29
2(4) SOUTH AFRICA 90.71
3(1) NEW ZEALAND 89.92
4(3) WALES 87.21
5(5) IRELAND 84.45
6(6) AUSTRALIA 81.90
7(7) FRANCE 80.88
8(8) JAPAN 79.28
9(9) SCOTLAND 79.23
10(10) ARGENTINA 78.31

Jensrsa wrote:1(2) ENGLAND 92.29
2(4) SOUTH AFRICA 90.71
3(1) NEW ZEALAND 89.92
4(3) WALES 87.21
5(5) IRELAND 84.45
6(6) AUSTRALIA 81.90
7(7) FRANCE 80.88
8(8) JAPAN 79.28
9(9) SCOTLAND 79.23
10(10) ARGENTINA 78.31

Teams 1 and 2 in the final and 3 and 4 playing for bronze, the rankings are quite accurate.

Ireland a bit high tho.

handyman wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:1(2) ENGLAND 92.29
2(4) SOUTH AFRICA 90.71
3(1) NEW ZEALAND 89.92
4(3) WALES 87.21
5(5) IRELAND 84.45
6(6) AUSTRALIA 81.90
7(7) FRANCE 80.88
8(8) JAPAN 79.28
9(9) SCOTLAND 79.23
10(10) ARGENTINA 78.31

Teams 1 and 2 in the final and 3 and 4 playing for bronze, the rankings are quite accurate.

Ireland a bit high tho.

Think Ireland are about right tbh.
We defeated both Fra and Oz last time we played them.

We pummeled scotland by 30 ish and lost to nz by about 30 ish

handyman wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:1(2) ENGLAND 92.29
2(4) SOUTH AFRICA 90.71
3(1) NEW ZEALAND 89.92
4(3) WALES 87.21
5(5) IRELAND 84.45
6(6) AUSTRALIA 81.90
7(7) FRANCE 80.88
8(8) JAPAN 79.28
9(9) SCOTLAND 79.23
10(10) ARGENTINA 78.31

Teams 1 and 2 in the final and 3 and 4 playing for bronze, the rankings are quite accurate.

Ireland a bit high tho.

5-8 are the Quarter Finalists, 3 of which were well beaten. The rankings represent how this tournament has gone reasonably well.

nardol wrote:

handyman wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:1(2) ENGLAND 92.29
2(4) SOUTH AFRICA 90.71
3(1) NEW ZEALAND 89.92
4(3) WALES 87.21
5(5) IRELAND 84.45
6(6) AUSTRALIA 81.90
7(7) FRANCE 80.88
8(8) JAPAN 79.28
9(9) SCOTLAND 79.23
10(10) ARGENTINA 78.31

Teams 1 and 2 in the final and 3 and 4 playing for bronze, the rankings are quite accurate.

Ireland a bit high tho.

Think Ireland are about right tbh.
We defeated both Fra and Oz last time we played them.

We pummeled scotland by 30 ish and lost to nz by about 30 ish

I stand corrected.

handyman wrote:

nardol wrote:

handyman wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:1(2) ENGLAND 92.29
2(4) SOUTH AFRICA 90.71
3(1) NEW ZEALAND 89.92
4(3) WALES 87.21
5(5) IRELAND 84.45
6(6) AUSTRALIA 81.90
7(7) FRANCE 80.88
8(8) JAPAN 79.28
9(9) SCOTLAND 79.23
10(10) ARGENTINA 78.31

Teams 1 and 2 in the final and 3 and 4 playing for bronze, the rankings are quite accurate.

Ireland a bit high tho.

Think Ireland are about right tbh.
We defeated both Fra and Oz last time we played them.

We pummeled scotland by 30 ish and lost to nz by about 30 ish

I stand corrected.

Meh, we beat France and Oz last time we played them so it doesnt mean that much. We are about right at 9th, Ireland is too high based on their RWC performances imho, they were the worst of the quaterfinalists.

handyman wrote:

nardol wrote:

handyman wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:1(2) ENGLAND 92.29
2(4) SOUTH AFRICA 90.71
3(1) NEW ZEALAND 89.92
4(3) WALES 87.21
5(5) IRELAND 84.45
6(6) AUSTRALIA 81.90
7(7) FRANCE 80.88
8(8) JAPAN 79.28
9(9) SCOTLAND 79.23
10(10) ARGENTINA 78.31

Teams 1 and 2 in the final and 3 and 4 playing for bronze, the rankings are quite accurate.

Ireland a bit high tho.

Think Ireland are about right tbh.
We defeated both Fra and Oz last time we played them.

We pummeled scotland by 30 ish and lost to nz by about 30 ish

I stand corrected.

Hey - I'm just entering the debate about where I see Ireland. Remains to be seen if Japan keep getting the performances they have to date. I don't think they will and see them dropping down quite a lot. Player eligibility on residential grounds becoming longer could hurt them next cycle.

Lorthern Nights wrote:

handyman wrote:

nardol wrote:

handyman wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:1(2) ENGLAND 92.29
2(4) SOUTH AFRICA 90.71
3(1) NEW ZEALAND 89.92
4(3) WALES 87.21
5(5) IRELAND 84.45
6(6) AUSTRALIA 81.90
7(7) FRANCE 80.88
8(8) JAPAN 79.28
9(9) SCOTLAND 79.23
10(10) ARGENTINA 78.31

Teams 1 and 2 in the final and 3 and 4 playing for bronze, the rankings are quite accurate.

Ireland a bit high tho.

Think Ireland are about right tbh.
We defeated both Fra and Oz last time we played them.

We pummeled scotland by 30 ish and lost to nz by about 30 ish

I stand corrected.

Meh, we beat France and Oz last time we played them so it doesnt mean that much. We are about right at 9th, Ireland is too high based on their RWC performances imho, they were the worst of the quaterfinalists.

You didnt see the SA wales semi? Ireland and world cups just don't go. We will be back in top 3 come 6N. England far out in front and us bashing heads with wales for 2nd. Usual service resumed.

nardol wrote: Hey - I'm just entering the debate about where I see Ireland. Remains to be seen if Japan keep getting the performances they have to date. I don't think they will and see them dropping down quite a lot. Player eligibility on residential grounds becoming longer could hurt them next cycle.

The question is what are Ireland doing wrong, They been one of the top teams over the past 15 years, yet they never got past the 1/4 final and never won a knock out game of a world cup. Is it a mental barrier for them? it cannot just be luck. (good or bad)

NZ in free fall?

msp. wrote:

nardol wrote: Hey - I'm just entering the debate about where I see Ireland. Remains to be seen if Japan keep getting the performances they have to date. I don't think they will and see them dropping down quite a lot. Player eligibility on residential grounds becoming longer could hurt them next cycle.

The question is what are Ireland doing wrong, They been one of the top teams over the past 15 years, yet they never got past the 1/4 final and never won a knock out game of a world cup. Is it a mental barrier for them? it cannot just be luck. (good or bad)

Definitely a mental shit the pants thing going on.

Also, we never have depth in the squad because we only have 4 pro teams (up from 3). There have only ever been 2 QFs where we should have done better and that's 2011 and 2015. The QFs losses to Wales and Argentina. Our squad was down about 6 key players of the leadership group v Argentina. Against Wales we were just outplayed - but we laid down and put the lube in FOR them tbh.

handyman wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:1(2) ENGLAND 92.29
2(4) SOUTH AFRICA 90.71
3(1) NEW ZEALAND 89.92
4(3) WALES 87.21
5(5) IRELAND 84.45
6(6) AUSTRALIA 81.90
7(7) FRANCE 80.88
8(8) JAPAN 79.28
9(9) SCOTLAND 79.23
10(10) ARGENTINA 78.31

Teams 1 and 2 in the final and 3 and 4 playing for bronze, the rankings are quite accurate.

Ireland a bit high tho.

The double-points exchange during the RWC seems to be quite a leveler.
The list tends to "self correct" to the benefit of the finalists for the next RWC cycle.