The Springboks remain the second best team in the world according to the latest IRB Rankings, with the All Blacks remaining at the top of the tree. I know a lot of people do not like to take these rankings seriously, especially Springbok fans as New Zealand is usually at the top of the pile all the time. But Bok fans always tell the All Black fans that they are the World Cup holders so they are the best team in the world. It is a debate that will go on and on. What do you think about this? Are the Springboks the best team in the world?
IRB World Rankings:
1 New Zealand 92.41 rating points
2 South Africa 88.28
3 Australia 85.65
4 England 83.16
5 Argentina 82.22
6 France 80.13
7 Wales 79.58
8 Ireland 77.18
9 Scotland 76.92
10 Italy 75.24
Loading ...
14 comments
Guru says:
Nov 11, 2008
Based on current form, no doubt, the best team in the world are the ABs. That’s exactly what the rankings consider, the best team on current form. However, the curent world CHAMPIONS are the boks………that’s right, the BOKS. It is interesting to note Ron, that the All Blacks have been ranked #1 for 80% of the last 20 years, yet teams like SA and Aus have had 2 WC victories in that space of time and the ABs are still seraching for the coverted prize. Rankings count for nothing boss, get the silverware first then you can start ranting and raving. May in just remind you Ron that if the AB’s do not win in 2011 you will NEVER hear the end of it.
Ron says:
Nov 11, 2008
Guru, give me a second to throw this scenario to you, take these IRB standings as the English Premiership. The IRB standings are like the Premier League table. What matters most is who finishes top of the table consistantly, they become the Premier League winners. So if there was a ‘title’ at the end of the year, the All Blacks would be ‘Premier League’ champions all the year.
We can then equate the World Cup to the UEFA Champions League as it is a knock out tournament and ANYTHING can happen in a knock out tournament as we have seen in the rugby world cup, soccer world cup etc.
The AB’s have been the best team over the last 20 years according to your 80% statistic. Not having the world cup hurts for AB supporters but they get sleep at the end of the day knowing they are the best in the world and the IRB rankings show it. Rankings do count for something!
As for 2011, I am sure the AB’s will finally deliver, have no fear!
Simbarashe says:
Nov 11, 2008
Firstly the IRB World Cup was last year, the IRB Rankings are this year. So the Boks won a RWC,so what!!!! It does not change the fact that they play some of the most boring Rugby out there.It does not change the fact the SA Rugby is miles behind NeW Zealand and Australia in style and structure. PDV tried to usher in expansive rugby but that is proving very difficult for the Boks. Under the ELVs Rugby Union will become faster and will require flair. There are not enough dynamic Boks in the current Bok structure and none in the whole country.
This maybe the reason why SA Rugby is trying to hold SANZAR hostage by demanding that they have a permanant Super Rugby semi-final spot.Typical SA Rugby, they see they dont have the tools to run the ABs and Wallabies so they want to always be allowed to play. Look at Super Rugby stats over the 12 years or so SA teams have a winning percentage of under 50% with some teams having an away winning record of under 33%.
Good on the Boks for being RWC Champs but NZ is and will always be the best Rugby playing nation in the world.
Manny says:
Nov 11, 2008
I have always been one to say that when it comes to sports, the “best” should be determined by looking at results in a variety of conditions and across a relatively long period of time. For rugby purposes, the IRB rankings meet these needs and because they are a measure of consistent performance, we should not look down upon them. To me, the rankings are a pretty accurate description of the state of world rugby at the moment. New Zealand is the best, Australia have not done enough to reclaim second spot yet even though they beat the Boks home and away in the tri-nations. They need to do it again next year (different conditions and variables but the same results would prove that Australia are better). Ron’s English Premiership and Champions League analogy is pretty spot on and I agree with it. If rugby were a league, won on points, New Zealand would have the most titles by far. The problem with knockout tournaments is that luck plays a greater role in determining a winner than in a league format.Yes, Boks are world champions, but they beat Argentina and England to win that trophy and nobody else. And even the most ardent Bok supporter cannot downplay the role that the luck of the draw played in paving the Bok teams path to success in the RWC. Had they met Australia, France or New Zealand in the tournament things may have turned out differently.
Boks may be World Champions…but they have not been the best team in the world since the 17 match unbeaten team of 97/98.
Guru says:
Nov 11, 2008
Gentlemen, you are all quite right, ofcourse we cannot downplay the rankings, which I admit I suggested. But the context of that statement was simple, noone remembers which country was rated #1 in 1997 or 2006 for that matter. However, ask any half decent rugby fan and they will tell you all the WC winners since the inception of the tournament in 1987, why because it is the coveted prize, the All inclusive tournament which is not just biased to the best team on current form but also rewards BIG MATCH TEMPERAMENT (BMT), something that clearly lacks within the DNA of the All Blacks. As I suggested a long time ago gents, let’s rename the World Cup to something like “16 Nations” and take away all the hype and pressure then maybe the AB’s might just win it.
Regarding the Champions League and Title nonsense, I will say is this, even in Soccer where the competition is much stiffer and you have all these other smaller tournaments, the ultimate priza is still the World Cup. I can tell you all the Soccer WC winners from as far back as 1958, why, because it is the ULTIMATE PRIZE.
Let me further break this down to you people, the Olympics are held once in 4 years, and atheletes by the name of Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay had been dominating the men’s 100m circuit for 3 years but when it mattered, at the Olympics, a relatively unknown by the name of Usain Bolt came through and who will be remembered in History books, the 100m Olympics Champion, Usain Bolt.
Let’s cross over to something closer to home, we all have decent education and we should all know that during the course of the year at school, we all had to write tests, mock exams, mid-years and the like. However, may I remind you that the most important exam is the final exam, yes, that bone chilling Final paper. As with anything alse in life, it matters not how you begin, but how you end. Gents, the AB’s are extremely good on the rugby field, just not when it is World Cup time. I cannot believe that you all dare suggest that the boks had an easy route. Let me remind you that the boks beat Endland not once bit TWICE, including a 36-0 drubbing. The same team that went on to beat the mighty Australia. As for the AB’s, how do you even begin to suggest your greatness when you lost to France, a team that lost to Argentina not once but TWICE in the same tournamen. And may I remind you that the Boks did outplay, outwit and outplay the very same Argentinian team. And you dare suggest that the boks had it easy???? Come on gents, let’s be real here. Be gracious in defeat and accept that the boks were the BEST TEAM at the world cup.
So in closing, I agree with you 100%, “IF” there were league titles, yes the AB’s would be Champions, but the reality is this, for a nation as blessed as NZ is, with the depth of rugby players that they have, 20 YEARS without the World Cup Trophy is INEXCUSABLE. You may throw all arguments at me gents but it’s plain and simple, the AB’s are chokers and have earned that title without a doubt. They are head and shoulders above the rest regarding CHOKING. For the last 20 years, barring 2003, they have gone into the World Cup tournament as “HOT FAVOURITES” and yet they have choked time and time again. It is an abomination to NZ rugby when you consider how long 20 years is, just take a moment and think about it…………………………..AB’s ARE CHOKERS!
Dume says:
Nov 11, 2008
Let’s get one thing straight gentlemen,the boks were number 1 last year when they won the world cup using the same rankings used today.so let’s not get it twisted,the boks do hold their own.indeed,the ABs r no 1 right now and they’ve been setting the standard but indeed they do not have what my colleage said BMT.what’s the use of having countless trinations,and being number 1 ranked team in the world and not win the one prize that confirms a nation’s domination of the game and write it’s name in the history
kambas says:
Nov 12, 2008
Ron, Manny,
as much as i would like to agree with you, Guru is correct ( this pains me to say) The All Blacks have rightly earned the title of Chokers. But the same can be said of South Africa, How is it that they can be tossed around by teams in the Southern Hemissphere but do incredibly better against teams in the northern hemissphere. This points to the fact of why they won the world cup, it is because they did not have to face australia or New Zealand, to put it mildly. Yes they beat england twice but lets face it, england is not the nation it was and yes they beat argentina but again lets face it Argentina is a tier two southern hemisphere team. Look Guru it must be said that if we put this matter to a vote, ask anybody commenting on this site, if the Springboks would have beaten either of the tri nations teams had they met them in the world cup and the answer will surely be no. I mean lets look at the tri nations tournament of that year, where did the boks place? Look at this year, when the boks had a ‘supposedly superior team to the All Blacks you got whupped, and then just managed to squeak by them then got whupped again. Are these the actions of your so called ‘World Champions’?
Honestly speaking, the boks deserve to be 3rd on that list.
I to this day believe that had New Zealand played South Africa or Australia in that world cup anywhere they would have won it. Argentina was the team that upset the balance of things.
SPringboks world champions kuita sei?
Guru says:
Nov 12, 2008
LOL……there is no use in throwing what ifs,maybe,shouda,wouda,couda into the equation. The fact is that both Aus and NZ did not give the boks a chance to play against them. Had both teams beaten England and France respectively, then they would have given the boks an opportunity to play them. Kambas states that “england is not the nation it was and yes they beat argentina but again lets face it Argentina is a tier two southern hemisphere team”. Well, Aus lost to England. That very same team that you say is not the same actually competed in the 2007 WC final, something that the All Blacks last did 12 years ago. And you dare downplay that English team?
It is all well to state what should have been but please do not blame the boks for not playing Aus and NZ. It was due to NZ and AUS CHOKING that they did not meet both teams. It is not the boks’ fault that both teams could not step it up when it counted. I insist, rename the World Cup first and maybe NZ might just get the BIG MATCH TEMPERAMENT (BMT)!!!!!
dume says:
Nov 12, 2008
Kambas, with all due respect sir:
Newzealand and Australia did not earn the right to play South Africa in the world cup.They couldn’t get through the small hurdles that the Boks took care of with ease.I mean, how is it that England beat Australia but we beat them by 36 points, shouldn’t that say something about the Boks’ superiority!?
Gentlemen, it is very simple in my eyes. Pete Sampras was a great Tennis player, he won five wimbledons, etc. Chicago Bulls were a great team, they won so many championships, Lakers were/are a great team, they won so many championships.Crusaders are the greatest southern hemisphere team, they won 8 super14 titles…!!The All blacks are a great team they won 1 world cup (in amature age)!?England has a better success rate than Newzealand!?We should be discussing who is better between Australia and springboks, we both won two world cups…!?we are both written in the history books as duoble winners.You ask the all blacks if they’d rather be ranked number 1 team in the world for 4 years or be world champions and spend the four years moving btw no 1 and 3 and see what they’d answer.
WE ARE THE CHAMIONS…!!!
Manny says:
Nov 12, 2008
Are the AB’s chokers when it comes to the RWC? Absolutely. As Guru pointed out, the AB’s almost always go into a world cup as hot favourites and almost always leave emtpy-handed. The danger, I am afraid, is in equating winning the World Cup with being the “best”. I put the word “best” in inverted commas because clearly everyone in this forum has their own definition of this word.
For some, winning the RWC gives you the right to be called the best. I disagree with that on two points. Firstly, the RWC is a tournament in which you only play a relatively small number of games and you don’t get to play all the competing teams. Using the current Bok win as an example, SA managed to avoid playing NZ, Aus and France. Now, admittedly, no one can blame the Boks for that, it is not their fault that the teams I just mentioned failed to reach the final in the first place. But as I pointed out, sports should not be about one win against one team, but rather a series of wins against all-comers, in varying conditions so as to eliminate variables that do not have anything to do with skill or ability e.g. luck! Using the soccer analogy again, Portsmouth won Englands premier knockout cup competition, but would anyone dare suggest that they are the best team in England by virtue of that victory? Bear in mind that in winning the FA Cup, Portsmouth won against Manchester United….. at Old Trafford! I ask again, are we then to assume that Portsmouth is the best team in England, and by default Europe since Man U also won the Champions league too? With all due respect Dume, just because England beat Australia, and then South Africa beat England, that does not mean South Africa can beat Australia. Look at the head to head of these two teams this year and last to illustrate my point.
Second point, if winning the RWC makes a team the best, does that mean for the next four years that team has the right to be called the “best”? Look at England just after the 2003 RWC. No one in their right mind called that team the best a few months after winning the trophy! No, winning the RWC means just that..and nothing more. It means the Boks won THAT tournament, it does not necessarily follow that they are the “best” team according to my definition of the word best. For me the “best” cannot be determined according to a singular tournament wherein any number of external factors could come into play to affect the outcome.
Yes, the Boks are the RWC champions, yes, the AB’s are chokers at this tournament, but in my mind, looking at ALL the results over a long period of time (and that includes the RWC), AB’s are the best.
Manny says:
Nov 12, 2008
Just to add on to what I mentioned in my last post, I have GREAT respect for the Bok team that won in 95…they beat EVERYBODY to win that trophy..England, Australia, France and the AB’s all lost to the green jersey. To me the 95 Boks had a much better claim to being the best in the world than the Boks of 07.
Guru says:
Nov 12, 2008
Some valid points there Manny and some that I do not necessarily agree with. However, you have managed to separate the issues everso accurately. I think the key issue here is that people will never agree on subjective opinions. The only way we can all agree is to stick to objective facts and they are as follows :-
The World Cup Champions until 2011 will be the Boks.
The Number one ranked team at the moment are the AB’s
The Current Tri Nations Champions are the AB’s.
However, the word “best” is by nature subjective and very much based on opinion, therefore, we will never agree on it. I think the underlying argument is actually whether the #1Ranking is more important than the WC and the overwhelming response would be simple. Dume could not have said it better, the AB’s would trade all the #1 rankings they have raked up (and they have plenty) in the past 20 years just to have the William Webb Ellis Trophy for a day in their cabinet.
Truth is, we all want and would die to be called the World Cup Champions. That’s the ultimate in any team sporting code.
dume says:
Nov 12, 2008
Some Valid Points Manny.
But again, with all due respect:
Indeed Portsmouth won the FA cup, i’d equate it to “the trinations”…!!It is smaller in comparison to the world cup and as such, teams tend to prioritise the world cup.Indeed we can argue about results over time but the truth is, it is at the world cup, no check that, the world stage, where Men are separated from Boys. You see, go look at all the All blacks preparations, guess what…, they were done with the world cup in mind.Almost everything was sacrifised so as to gain the world cup, to earn the right to be called, world champions.I think Manny and Kambas (with all due respect) forget the part where it is written “WORLD” and focus on Champion. You almost isolate it to just a tournament champion. No gentlemen, it is WORLD Champions, meaning: after being put against world teams, one team imerged.Indeed, Australia did beat us in the head to heads but i put it down to a limited coach trying to find his footing in the international stage.And it goes to show how good the Boks are that they still hold their own even with an incompetent coach.But guess what happened when the coach started seeing sense…!?Half century against the 3rd best team in the world, that should say something.
Now, look at the soccer world cup. You mean to tell me that because Italy didn’t meet Brazil,Netherlands,spain etc they are not the true world champions!? that they got there by Luck!? Oh hell no, it was pragmatisim of the Italians, much like of the Greeks that won them the title and the right to be called “WORLD CHAMPIONS”.Remember the pre-world cup talk from coaches. Gram Henry said attack will win the day, Jake White said Defence will win the day…!? What stopped Newzealand from lining up a drop goal against France with all the possession and territory they had!?Just earlier that year, in Capetown, a young Frans Steyn lined up two drop goals to win the Boks a game!!Teams that earn this right are those who can handle the hand that is dealt to them, the ones that pick a stratergy that suits them and implement it to the latter, the one that overcomes…! Now Newzealand couldn’t, Australia couldn’t, SPRINGBOKS COULD…!!!
Simbarashe says:
Nov 13, 2008
Ok,so we are all biased to our different teams of choice. But what about the game? Where is rugby at right now? This is iloverugby but we have shown our love for our teams but what about the game?
The last RWC finalists (Boks and England) are trying to destroy rugby by fighting the ELVs and not allowing the expansion of Super Rugby. This type of shortsighted selfishness is not necessary and foolish in the global sports business in which Rugby is going to continue to be an Anglo-Saxon-Franco Commonwealth Games of British and French colonies. Cricket is trying its hardest to shake off its colonial roots and thats why India is at the cutting edge of cricket global push.
But what about Rugby? As much as we can debate the merits of who is the best,the game is dying. We the fans need to look into this issue and start a dialogue as fans bout the State of Rugby Union.