How is South Africa number 2 on the IRB World Ranking ladder if we won both the Tri-nations and the Lions tour?
I mean we were even IRB team of the year.
You pretty much answered your own question. The Lions Tour have zero effect on the IRB Rankings. It covers only international test matches between nations. As for the Tri Nations, SA was up against highly ranked nations anyway, so there were less IRB points to trade. IRB Team of the year is not a consideration either.
The Ranking system does not reflect trophies or series’ won by any team. It is simply a game by game mathematical equation that takes lots of factors into account:
1. Home team is treated as having an automatic 3 point advantage.
2. Ranking gap is calculated for any given match. This is the current ranking between the two teams facing each other. This is used to calculate a core ranking change should either team win.
3. A lower ranked team can acquire more points from a win than a higher ranked team because their core ranking change will be higher. e.g. if South Africa beat Fiji, they would collect little points. If the Fijians upset the Boks, they would collect much more.
4. If a team wins by more than 15 points, the core ranking change is multiplied by 1.5. This means that if you win by bigger margins, you collect more points.
5. Core rankings are always multiplied by 2 in RWC finals. This is to ensure the finalists are reflected in the IRB rankings.
In the case of NZ vs SA, NZ has simply won more games by bigger margins. While SA was busy playing the Lions, NZ was playing France and Italy. Also add 3 x 15 point + margins against Ireland and Wales in 2010, you start to get the picture.
Comments
Because NZ has an over all win loss of over 75%
References :
You pretty much answered your own question. The Lions tour have zero effect on the IRB Rankings. It covers only international test matches between nations. As for the Tri Nations, SA was up against highly ranked nations anyway, so there were less IRB points to trade. IRB Team of the year is not a consideration either.
The Ranking system does not reflect trophies or series’ won by any team. It is simply a game by game mathematical equation that takes lots of factors into account:
1. Home team is treated as having an automatic 3 point advantage.
2. Ranking gap is calculated for any given match. This is the current ranking between the two teams facing each other. This is used to calculate a core ranking change should either team win.
3. A lower ranked team can acquire more points from a win than a higher ranked team because their core ranking change will be higher. e.g. if South Africa beat Fiji, they would collect little points. If the Fijians upset the Boks, they would collect much more.
4. If a team wins by more than 15 points, the core ranking change is multiplied by 1.5. This means that if you win by bigger margins, you collect more points.
5. Core rankings are always multiplied by 2 in RWC finals. This is to ensure the finalists are reflected in the IRB rankings.
In the case of NZ vs SA, NZ has simply won more games by bigger margins. While SA was busy playing the Lions, NZ was playing France and Italy. Also add 3 x 15 point + margins against Ireland and Wales in 2010, you start to get the picture.
References :
http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html
Let’s remember the Boks lost 5 games last year, the All Blacks only (!?) 4.
IRB Team of the year is certainly subjective. I mean the question is why wasn’t it Ireland? Weren’t they unbeaten?
References :
Because the All Blacks are better.
References :
At the start of 2009 the All Blacks were #1. Conclusion of Tri Nations SA assumed #1. The end of year internationals All Blacks were unbeaten, SA lost (at least once by memory) to some pathetic Northern team. All Blacks finished the year top again and started top this year.
SA wins 2 out of 3 against AB’s and go unbeaten against Aus they will probably go top again.
References :
It’s because of SA’s dismal end of year tour last year – they lost a game or 2 and with that handed the nr. 1 ranking back to NZ.
References :
July 6th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
All down to recent performance’s, the IRB has set dates each year for rankings and those rankings are based on performance’s agaisnt other teams. The main race for top spot was between NZ and SA but NZ have done far better against teams than SA have. SA have swept aside a Italy side when really they should of done better and only scrapped a win over Wales. Whereas NZ have manage to destroy a Irish side and beat Wales twice by bigger margins. SA victorys in the Tri-Nations and the Lions was a year ago. Does’nt matter anymore
References :