Poms slump to fifth
27 Feb 2006
England are fifth in the world rankings after their shock defeat to the Scots in Edinburgh.
The world champions, who slumped to sixth post the 2003 victory, worked their way up to fourth after beating Australia in the Autumn internationals. Saturday’s setback has put them back to fifth.
Scotland’s win gives them a ranking high, in points, but does not shift their position. They remain in eighth place behind Wales and Ireland.
New Zealand are ranked one and South Africa two.
1 (1) New Zealand 93.32
2 (2) South Africa 88.76
3 (3) France 84.44
4 (5) Australia 83.93
5 (4) England 82.74
6 (7) Ireland 81.08
7 (6) Wales 80.35
8 (8) Scotland 77.04
9 (9) Argentina 75.16
10 (10) Samoa 73.97
63 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
27 Feb 2006, 16:53 pm
i dont know how these rankings are compiled…slipping 3 positions when you lose 1 game seems strange, as is France at No3 – they have looked very poor the whole way this the 6N (mind you most of the rugby in this years 6N has been extremely mediocre).
27 Feb 2006, 17:45 pm
Cant see us giving the poms a hiding in the scrums as much as Id like to. Os wont last the 80 minutes and andrews as a back up in the front row isnt going scare a school side let alone the poms. we can only hope the bok pack turns up for the games this november.
27 Feb 2006, 17:59 pm
Pierre,
Sorry China, You made a valid and introspective point about our team the boks, And the bonehead brigade ripped into you.
Until we beat england we have nothing to say you tossers, 6 years is a long time, And although they have not had the balls to play us at home for some time, The record stands.
Isaw an England pack rip us up, And even their backs out think and out play us.
Face reality. That I believe is the first step to improving.
27 Feb 2006, 18:29 pm
Every year we go up north we try out muscle England. And every year we fail. Hell, that was what we tried in 2003 when they smashed us by 50 points. England has described SA as the most unimaginative and predictable rugby side around. Most of their squad have never lost to SA. As much as it pains me to say, they have no respect for us.
27 Feb 2006, 18:29 pm
come now rednik, pierre made a valid comment, but not everyone needs agree. Yes we do need to beat them, but the english record at Ellis park isn’t exactly marvelous either.
The reality is SA are already much improved. The reality is that over the last 2 years SA have been more consistent than England have and as a result are higher in the rankings. Credit where its due.
27 Feb 2006, 18:56 pm
Stan
Your such a dumb numbnuts you probably cheer for the AUS and NZ sides when the Stormers play them.
Did your mom play hooker at school?
27 Feb 2006, 19:15 pm
Where is that little By Jupiter.
28 Feb 2006, 03:20 am
The reality is that the rankings are an accurate reflection of who is LIKELY to beat who on any given day.
How you can put a ranking on the French defies logic. I guess you try and average out the brilliant with the shocking.
It’s no mystery that the standard of Springbok rugby has improved since 2003.
It’s no mystery that the standard of English rugby has declined (markedly) since 2003 – when they were the best team in the world.
The mystery is how the Springboks (and their fans) seem to underestimate their own ability, while the English (and their fans) can so OVERestimate theirs.
I could pick a Springbok side that – 1 through to 15 – would be AS good, if not better, than their individual English counterparts. Certainly in 11 out of 15 positions anyway.
After that youre talking – in order of importance…
1. home advantage
2. confidence/morale
3. which team actually plays as a team
4. the ref
5. any outstanding individual performances
6. luck
7. tactics (not so important as both teams employ the same tactics anyway!)
In the final analysis we’re going to be arguing about this forever outside of one global season. How does soccer do it?
28 Feb 2006, 05:00 am
The Boks haven’t ever beaten England in England or NZ in NZ any time this CENTURY yet! You don’t earn serious bragging rights by fluking one lucky win once a decade, just as what Scotland haven’t got real rugby bragging rights over England after last weekend’s rare win. To have the REAL bragging rights you need consistency. Your opponent has to take the field knowing that he is the underdog up again the top dog. That’s the REAL bra.
But, having said that, Scotland DO have their name on the Calcutta Cup. Just as what England DO have their name on that World Cup, no matter what the rankings may say. That’s the minor brag of being able to say “No matter how scary you are, for the moment I am still holding the actual silverware”.
28 Feb 2006, 05:51 am
listen rankings mean nothing the all blacks are the best team in the world at the moment why because they have there coconut mates helping them out. take them out of the equation and the sheep shaggers will be sitting at the bottom with Samoa ,but having said that how many black faces will we see in the future bok team .I say in 20 years time the bok team will consist of mainly black players and a few whities here and there
28 Feb 2006, 06:54 am
pompies
So we have ethnic variety – you have ethnic variety. That puts us on the same playing field.
I think SA rugby should see the quota as short term pain for long term gain. Long term the pain’s going to be ours!!!
1 Mar 2006, 03:49 am
“…why because they have there coconut mates helping them out. take them out of the equation and the sheep shaggers will be sitting at the bottom with Samoa…”
The selectors choose strictly on merit from anyone who is eligible.
That’s always been the case and it will always be the case.
Dry your weepy eyes and get used to it.
1 Mar 2006, 05:17 am
“Dry your weepy eyes and get use to it” no can do bro as they say if you can’t beat them f@#$% sakes join them
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.