http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/ Les 25 derniers commentaires publiés sur le blog "Les archives de Serge" fr Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:24:31 +0100 Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:24:31 +0100 Over-blog.com RSS 2.0 Engine Sport http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification/ http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-37111213-6.html#comment49878816 FFA (8 à 1.12, d’andorrafanclub, Écosse) - Sometime ago I and others had stab at this. I personally used four differen calculation theories. The main result (of all four) was New Zealand are the bst 15s team by far. Then there are a couple of others (England being one, and a couple of the other major players, affected by method but including USA, Canada, France and maybe one other I have forgotten). Then a block of 6 to 8 (or sometimes more) - Ireland, Spain, Scotland, Australia and similar types. Then it gets very tricky due to the lack of inter regional matches, even worse than the mens game. Oh and New Zealand were ranked one (did I mention that?). Looking forward to a new view - the two major problems I had were accounting for the time between games including matches that alleged to be the irst XV but clearly weren't. Bon chance!
FFA (8 à 9.32, de Dick Dastardly, Italie) – Well done! Like AFC, I have some doubts about the perfect correctness of the rank (NZ is certainly stronger than Canada) but I know that find a method to write a correct female world ranking is very difficult and this is an optimum basis.
FFA (8 à 12.14) – You’re right : since WWC 1998, New Zealand is morally the first country. And as they don’t play many matches, they have a special treatment in my ranking. But, like in boxing, if you don’t fight, you can lose your title : it’s the case. Compare English and Black Ferns’ games since WWC 2006 final (where NZ beat England 25 to 17) : 2007 – England : grand slam in 6 nations and a win vs USA – NZ : only 2 wins vs Australia. 2008 – England : grand slam in 6 nations, 3 wins in FIRA European Championship and 4 wins in and out Nations Cup (vs Canada and USA) – NZ : only 2 wins in Australia. 2009 – England : 4 wins and only a 1 point defeat (vs Wales) in 6 Nations and 4 wins in Nations Cup (vs Canada, USA, France & South Africa) – NZ : not still a game ! Total for 3 years – England : 26 wins and 1 defeat vs major countries – NZ : 4 wins vs Australia. I’m sorry but, until the both November tests between the two countries, in the data, England is now the 1st. And morally, it’s NZ. But thank you very much for your post : I had to add a footnote to explain it ! You’re right too for emerging countries where it’s very difficult to count. But as I said it for IRB Men’s ranking, with all its defaults, it has the merit to exist. For Canada, you’re right too and here, it was really a mistake on the Glendale match of June 2009, 27th between USA and Canada (17 to 25) which had a too big pound in the average of the 2 countries. Before the publication, I’d verified many times every game between major countries. Apparently, I forgot that one ! I’m a little bit shameful to have an error in my 1st presentation and the correction has already be done (Canada is 4th and not 2nd and USA 6th and not 5th). But thank you too for your observation.
FFA (8 à 14.07, d’afc) – But that's what the forum is for - to help get it right.
FFA (9 à 0.19, de YamahaKiwi, Auckland Nouvelle-Zélande, ex Japon) – While NZ played much fewer games than England, how can you go against Triple World Cups?? So England played more games. Well they have the small advantage of having many neighbouring countries at a similar level to play against. The only country at a similar level in our neck of the woods is Australia. You can argue that are other countries like Samoa etc but witness what happened in the WRWQ between them and Australia. To get decent matches NZ has to travel far, far further than England has to - either to North America or Europe. That costs a lot more money and the womens team is not the highest on the ladder of importance for the NZRFU especially under the current administration. Yes, England has travelled to North America but again they have far deeper funding resources than NZ. Please remember this.
FFA (9 à 0.52) – Here comes finally the english version (I already apologize for translation mistakes...)
FFA (9 à 1.12) – A little word : I know all that and I regret it : I didn't judge, I only notice it as the "good" statistician I am. What you say is true for many other countries where XV women's rugby is the "poor relation"...
Forum rugby.it (12 à 8.16,d’Ilgorgo) – Ranking femminile - L'IRB non ha mai redatto un ranking internazionale femminile omologo a quello maschile, forse perchè le partite delle donne sono troppo poche per poter stilare una classifica attendibile e completa. Qualche appassionato però ogni tanto prova a comporne una. Questa è stata ideata da un fan francese. ]]> Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:38:19 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-37111213-6.html#comment49878816 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-37111296-6.html#comment49878712 FFA (7 à 16.22, de Mestre, Brésil/Portugal) – Congratulations. Next post in my blog, I will put a link to you.
FFA (8 à 3.33, d’antlat, Melbourne Australie) – Looks interesting but sadly don't speak or read french. Can not wait to the english translation comes. Looking forward to it!
FFA (9 à 0.43) – Here comes finally the english version (I already apologize for translation mistakes...)
Dernière MAJ (9 à 8.09 de Ferdinand Lopez) – Que veut dire les petits numeros devant les points de chaque pays? Par example, devant les 8063 points de Nouvelle Zelande vvous trouvez +1 -7. C'est quois ces numeros?
FFA (9 à 10.51, de m.map) – How we have to read the table? ex.: 14 États-Unis / USA 6069 9 50. 15 Géorgie / Georgia 5965 14 32. I try to explain me: what are the numbers '9' and '50' after the '6069' ranking score for the Usa? Then, italy is ordered at 9th, just over argentina. It is obtained by all matches played by the two nations, I guess, but is amazing, anyway. More: very interesting thing! Congratulations and thank you.
FFA (9 à 12.01) – For USA, 9 is the better score in ranking (from 1913 to 1928), 50 the worse (in 1974 and 1975). They don’t play any test match between May 1924, 18th (Olympics final won in and vs France 17-3) and January 1976, 31st (vs Australia 12-24). For Italy and Argentina, the number of matches every year can explain the order, even if Argentina was third in WRC 2007 and had recently some good, but not regular, results. My ranking is maybe a little low for the Pumas (nevertheless one of my favourite teams in the world for their forward and defence style) but I think too that they never access to the third place like in IRB’s ranking after WRC.
Dernière MAJ (9 à 12.05) – 1 est le meilleur classement depuis 1871, 7 le plus mauvais.
FFA (9 à 13.59, d’andorrafanclub, Écosse) – We all know that Argentina are a good team that can challenge most - but they have been a little less reliable of late and your system seems to reward those that play more regularly as well as having some consistency. Their place is a surprise but then just now so could their play be. I'm sure it will change! Is there any consideration for dealing with nations that go a long time without playing? Really they should be penalised for not playing (for instance the ATP tennis looks at something like the previous 12 months).
FFA (9 à 19.31, de m) – Merci beaucoup.
Article Brésil (10 à 20.11) – This is a very good work. Congratulations. You may check the (known) brazilens games since the first one in my blog. Any thing you need, please get in touch.
FFA (13 à 13.11) – There are many reasons for a country not to play international test matches. For example, as one said it in a post of women's ranking, distance can be the first one (it's true for NZ but too for emerging countries in the wide rugby world, without neighbours of a same level) and then money (rather absence of money) can be the second. A third, true for USA after 1924, is the decision to stop international games (the Olympics final vs France wasn't a match but a street fight). Rugby decreased in the country but didn't die. So why remove their points ? If a country didn't play, the points are only decreasing with the yearly 2%. With 1.296 pts in 1924, USA had so only 453 pts before playing Australia in 1976 (and a defeat 12-24 isn't a bad result). But, if a country plays matches, even losed, it can gain points. Following a simple example for us both with the 6 nations 2009 game between France and Scotland (22-13 on february 14th in Stade de France). Before the match, France had 7.375 pts and Scotland 7.161. The points of the match for France : 7268 (average of Fr & Sc) + 400 (win) + 25 (home vs European) + 22 + 9 (difference) = 7.724. For Scotland : 7.268 + 100 (defeat) + 75 (away in Europe) + 13 - 9 = 7.447. After the match, France has 7.375*0,9 + 7.724 = 7.410 pts (or a gain of 35 pts) and Scotland 7.161*0,9 + 7.447 = 7.190 (or +29 pts). In my ranking but objectively on the ground too, a defeat vs France in France by 9 pts is not a bad result and Scotland had not to lose points. Conclusion : a team who doesn't play doesn't lose points but a team who plays can win (and generally win) some.
FFA (13 à 15.26, d’andorrafanclub) – Or short answer "yes"!! Effectively penalised as losing would have already gained them more. I still wonder if an extensive down period should see actual penalties - only representative sies would be exempted. I tried doing it for the womens and it was damn difficult - I used a formula to judge the relative performance over 10 years (so in season 11, the season 1 resutls drop off) and also assumed a minimum number games per season (ie if it was 4 and a team played just one, the points they gained would be reduced by 75%). It was damn complex but made sense in the end. Anyway, good luck with the future!
FFA (13 à 23.12) – Your idea is good and exchange of ideas is always good too. My choice is following. For a country who plays regularly, as you see, the latest match counts 10%, and so the match before 9%, and the match before 8,1%, then 7,29%, then 6,561% and so on... (an answer of a data man). With many matches yearly, the part of a 10 years ago match is very low. But yes it's complex, and I wish you too a good luck for converting your tries.
FFA (16 à 20.26, de Charlieh) – Couldn´t help but notice who was at the foot of the table: 145 Estonie/Estonia 79 145 145, 146 Cuba 69 108 146, 147 Saint-Kitts et Nevis/St Kitts & Nevis 58 146 147, 148 Congo Démocr. (Zaïre)/RD Congo 57 144 148, 149 Albanie / Albania 38 148 149
FFA (19 à 12.32) – Without any tests, Estonia played recently two matches in England, a Cuban selection -named Cuba- played some matches vs French amateur teams a few years ago, St Kitts (known as 7’s team) played apparently a XV match vs British Virgin Islands, RD Congo was forfeit in an official CAR tournament in Burundi and a selection of Albanian players in Italy -named Albania- played apparently a match vs a local team in a Friuli sport feast.
FFA (19 à 20.03 d’afc) – Great that the system is flexible enought to include these nations before they are playing real games
FFA (20 à 12.09) – Just a question of statistical level-headedness and adjustment. Nobody's perfect, neither rather good IRB's sometimes not enough, nor not so bad mine's maybe too much !!! ]]> Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:36:05 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-37111296-6.html#comment49878712 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-11532425-6.html#comment49242149 This is a very good work. Congratulations.
You may check the (known) brazilens games since the first one in my blog.
Any thing you need, please get in touch ]]> Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:11:46 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-11532425-6.html#comment49242149 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-37111213-6.html#comment49150789
As I don’t know any women’s world ranking (it exists perhaps) and as I realized my own men’s ranking, I naturally used the same method for women and established my own women’s ranking, with a program and data of my property, of whom main characteristics are following :

Every match attributes some points to every country as a sum of 5 or 6 elements :
- the match level (points average of the 2 teams before the match, with a minimum to 100 for new countries or to the three quarters of the team points).
- the kind of result, victory, draw, defeat or forfeit in an official competition (400, 200, 100 or 0).
- the match venue (0 or 25 at home according to the opponent from the continent or not, 25 in an other country of its own continent, 50 on neutral ground, 75 in a country of the continent of its opponent, 100 or 75 away according to the opponent).
- the number of registered points.
- the difference between the number of registered points and the number of taken points.
- a bonus for WRC (50 in qualifying, 100 in final phase, 150 in play offs et 200 in the final).

The points number of the country after the match is equal to the average between the match points and, generally, 5 to 10 times the points number before the match. That number decreased in 2% each year.
To win some points or places is thus difficult and requires a regular progress.
For me, New Zealand, triple world titleholder, doesn’t compete every year international games enough to be classified before England, regular in 6 Nations.

There are of course exceptions in this method, in particular when countries play A, B , Emerging, Amateur, Junior, Student, Army, Police or Services teams, even provinces or clubs in official competitions.
Also, in an official competition, results of A, B, Emerging, Junior or student teams can make move marginally the concerned country points, with a specific calculation.
Finally, matches results with « special » teams (Great Britain, Nomads…) are counted and these teams classified apart.

My ranking isn’t certainly perfect but it counts this day 57 countries for 902 matches listed since 1982. I worked one year to compile data from all the important sites (thanks to them) : IRB, University of Idaho, en.wikipedia (special thanks to John Birch) and, more recently, Scrumqueens.
Thanks too to Dick and to all the others members of the FIRA-AER forum, for all the written news, and please go on ! ]]> Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:15:21 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-37111213-6.html#comment49150789 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-37111296-6.html#comment49150740
If others are existing, I know three good world rankings : IRB’s et 2 privates, on RugbyInternational and Mazlenaz sites.
Mazlenaz, the most complete with 132 countries, hasn’t be more updated since October 2007.
Excellent job by Gary Carbines (RugInt) with a world ranking upon only the 25 or 30 most important countries but completed by continental rankings, with results of competitions organized by each continental federation.

IRB’s ranking is the official ranking and is in particular used for order and venue of WRC matches (Play off semi-finals, final phase pools).
It presents nevertheless to my opinion 4 problems :

1) That ranking contains 95 countries only while, officially, each IRB member, which has played at least 10 matches, can enter.
It’s false, and, unofficially, that are the 94 countries which participated to WRC 2007 qualifying, more Monaco, participant for 2003, even if they don’t have played 10 matches.
For example, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (74th among 95 on October 2009, 5th with 39.30 points) has played an only counted match, versus Sainte Lucia, on May 2005, 28th. On May 23rd (IRB archives), the both countries had each 40.00 points (number for entry in ranking). On May 30th, Ste Lucia had 40.70 points against 39.30 to St Vincent, its current score ! Since 2005, St Vincent has played an only other match, not counted and lost vs Mexico (out of IRB) on March 2008, 29th. And before, Mazlenaz indicated 2 matches only, won on May 2003 vs Ste Lucie.

2) The ranking didn’t take in account the level of the teams : the winner gains some points, the loser loses them.
For example, when the All Blacks meet Portugal in WRC, who’s progressing ? According to IRB, New Zealand is in progress and Portugal puts off. For me, it’s Portugal who has gained some experience.
Other example with Ste Lucia who, after they beat St Vincent in 2005 for the 1st tour, has heavily lost for the 2nd tour vs Trinidad, Guyana and Barbados (countries with a better level), has played no match since and met itself 79th (with its 37.57 current points) behind St Vincent !

3) The ranking didn’t take in account the matches vs « special » teams (British Lions, Barbarians, Maoris, Pacific Islanders…) and vs not IRB members, even for a tournament organized by an affiliated to IRB federation.
For example, they don’t count matches of Niger, 3 times winner in 2006, 2008 and 2009 of CAR Trophy North.

4) IRB’s ranking is "sclerosed". If there are only and always 95 countries, that’s why it’s very difficult, even impossible, to add others.
The clearest example is Brunei. Defeated on June 2008, 28th by Guam 74 to 0, it enters on June 30th (erased IRB archives) and on July 7th in ranking (current IRB archives) with the 79th place (and 38.47 points) before... Guam (80th with 38.33 points) among 96 classified countries, losing even 5 places with regard to June 23rd where it didn’t appear (but where he’ld should have had 40.00 points). On July 14th, Brunei disappeared again…

But IRB’s ranking has a merit : it exists. And then, people says that « criticism is easy but art is difficult».
That’s why, to have this right of positive criticism, I realized my own ranking, too opened to criticism, with a program and data of my property, of whom main characteristics are following :

Every match attributes some points to every country as a sum of 5 or 6 elements :
- the match level (points average of the 2 teams before the match, with a minimum to 100 for new countries or to the three quarters of the team points).
- the kind of result, victory, draw, defeat or forfeit in an official competition (400, 200, 100 or 0).
- the match venue (0 or 25 at home according to the opponent from the continent or not, 25 in an other country of its own continent, 50 on neutral ground, 75 in a country of the continent of its opponent, 100 or 75 away according to the opponent).
- the number of registered points.
- the difference between the number of registered points and the number of taken points.
- a bonus for WRC (50 in qualifying, 100 in final phase, 150 in play offs et 200 in the final).

The points number of the country after the match is equal to the average between the match points and, generally, 10 times the points number before the match. That number decreased in 2% each year.
To win some points or places is thus difficult and requires a regular progress.
For me, in spite of its 2009 results, South Africa was too late from New Zealand, very regular since a few years, just like South, far before North, much less regular.

There are of course exceptions in this method, in particular when countries play A, B , Emerging, Amateur, Junior, Student, Army, Police or Services teams, even provinces or clubs in official competitions.
Also, in an official competition (Churchill Cup, Nations Cup, Pacific Cup…), results of A, B and Emerging teams can make move marginally the concerned country points, with a specific calculation.
Finally, matches results with « special » teams (British Lions, Barbarians, Maoris, Pacific Islanders…) are counted and these teams classified apart.

My ranking isn’t certainly perfect but it counts this day 149 countries for 7.862 matches listed since 1871. I worked more than 2 years to compile data from all the important sites (thanks to them) : IRB, RugbyInternational (special thanks to Gary), RugbyData, Scrum, 2Rugby, archives from the "Timbrés du Rugby", en.wikipedia and Mazlenaz.
Thanks too to Quentin and to all the others members of the FIRA-AER forum, for all the written news, and please go on ! ]]> Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:12:55 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-37111296-6.html#comment49150740 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-17575660-6.html#comment44018791 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:02:53 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-17575660-6.html#comment44018791 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-17575660-6.html#comment43984603 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:24:25 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-17575660-6.html#comment43984603 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment37687003 Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:03:04 +0100 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment37687003 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment33165141 Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:07:23 +0100 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment33165141 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment33165012 Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:01:32 +0100 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment33165012 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment33164979 Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:00:14 +0100 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment33164979 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment32143844 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:45:08 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment32143844 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-11067442-6.html#comment28868507 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:55:08 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-11067442-6.html#comment28868507 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment28865613 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:35:31 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment28865613 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment28865597 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:34:37 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment28865597 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment28865579 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:33:34 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment28865579 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment28865554 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:32:17 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment28865554 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment28865532 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:30:40 +0200 http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog.com/article-12205810-6.html#comment28865532