Building a system for International Rugby League rankings

It seems every time the International Rugby League releases its updated International Rankings, people are mystified as to how some sides rank higher than others and more importantly, how the whole thing is even calculated.

It made me wonder if there's a mathematical system one could use to try and rank teams, so I decided to have a go at it. I will get this one statement out of the way early though - I don't think this system is good either, but one thing that is certain is that no system using a mathematical formula will work.

That's because there's been very little structure or purpose behind every match. So you will find some Emerging nations are playing nearly as many Senior International Matches as Australia, New Zealand and England. The attempts by the International Rugby League in more recent seasons to have teams playing Internationals that will affect their ranking, and determine their qualification in the upcoming World Cup is a major step in rectifying this matter.

So this bit of work is based on all International matches between two International sides (so games like Australia's PM XIII v the Papua New Guinea PM XIII are not included) and for all results over the last 10 years (2015-2024). Also, the Great Britain results are added to England, while Tonga Invitational and Tonga are combined.

There are three groups.

Group A - 10 teams - These are the 10 sides who have played in all of the last 5 World Cups:
Australia
England
Fiji
France
Ireland
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Scotland
Tonga 

Group B - 10 teams - These are the next 7 teams who have appeared in the most World Cups since 2008:
Cook Islands
Greece
Italy
Jamaica
Lebanon
USA
Wales

And, the 3 remaining teams in the International Rugby League's top 20 ranked teams not already listed:
Malta
Netherlands
Serbia

Group C - 42 teams - Literally every other nation that has played International Rugby League since 2015:
Albania
Argentina
Belgium
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burundi
Cameroon
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of Congo
Denmark
El Salvador
Germany
Ghana
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Japan
Kenya
Latvia
Montenegro
Morocco
Nigeria
Niue
North Macedonia
Norway
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Russia
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Thailand
Turkiye
Ukraine
Uruguay
Vanuatu

Group D - 1 team - Estonia - Purely because they still appear on the International Rugby League rankings list despite having not played a game since 2009:
Estonia

POINTS SYSTEM
There's a lot to go through here.

World Cup
The Number of World Cups participated in from (and including) 2000-2024 is multiplied by 2.5
Extra Points are awarded for more recent World Cup appearances
2022 RLWC = 10 Points
2017 RLWC = 7 Points
2013 RLWC = 5 Points
2008 RLWC = 3 Points
2000 RLWC = 1 Point

World Cup Results
Teams will earn points based on their performance in the World Cup after the Group stages

Eliminated in First round of play-offs = 3 Points
Eliminated in Semi Finals (Final 4) = 6 Points
Runners-Up = 12 Points
World Cup Winner = 25 Points

Emerging Nations World Cup

The Number of Emerging Nations World Cups participated in from (and including) 2000-2024 is multiplied by 1.5
Extra Points are awarded for more recent Emerging Nations World Cup appearances.
2018 ENWC = 2 Points
2000 RLWC = 1 Point

Group Bonus
Bonus Points awarded based on the group a team is in:
Group A = 200 Points
Group B = 125 Points
Group C = 50 Points
Group D = 0 Points

Now we get to the tricky stuff.

Graded Performances
Teams earn points for wins, lose points for losses and these points are on a sliding scale depending on the strength of their opponent:

Group A def Group A = 3 Points
Group A def Group B = 1.5 Points
Group A def Group C = 0.5 Points

Group B def Group A = 4 Points
Group B def Group B = 2 Points
Group B def Group C = 1 Point

Group C def Group A = 5 Points
Group C def Group B = 3 Points
Group C def Group C = 1.5 Points

Group A lose to Group A = -3 Points
Group A lose to Group B = -4 Points
Group A lose to Group C = -5 Points

Group B lose to Group A = -1.5 Points
Group B lose to Group B = -2 Points
Group B lose to Group C = -3 Point

Group C lose to Group A = -0.5 Points
Group C lose to Group B = -1 Points
Group C lose to Group C = -1.5 Points

Also, a draw between two teams in the same group = 1 Point
A draw between Team A and Team B or Team B and Team C = Higher ranked side gets 0.5 points, Lower ranked side gets 1.5 points
A draw between Team A and Team C = Team A gets 0.25 points, Team C gets 2 points

Recency Bias
Points are multiplied by a higher amount for more recent seasons, to give a more reflective form rating:

2015 x1
2016 x2
2017 x3
2018 x4
2019 x5
2020 x6
2021 x7
2022 x8
2023 x9
2024 x10

Frequency of playing
Teams that play more games deserve to be rewarded, irrespective of the result, so teams will get 1 point for every match they've played in the last 10 years.

Strength of Opposition
Following on from the previous metric, teams will be awarded points based on the Group that their opponent falls in:
Number of Games v Group A = x4
Number of Games v Group B = x2
Number of Games v Group C = x1

So with all of that explained, here are the International Rugby League Rankings, mathematically speaking, as at the end of the 2024 season:

1. 775.5 - Australia
2. 700.5 - England
3. 496 - New Zealand
4. 347 - Papua New Guinea
5. 303.5 - Fiji
6. 290 - Netherlands
7. 283.5 - Ireland
8. 273 - Lebanon
9. 256 - Tonga
10. 239.5 - France
11. 233 - Samoa
12. 221.5 - Wales
13. 199.5 - Canada
14. 196.5 - Italy
15. 196 - USA
16. 191 - Serbia
17. 157 - Ukraine
18. 143.5 - Malta
19. 119 - Philippines
20. 116 - Cook Islands
21. 115 - Germany
22. 113.5 - Greece
23. 113.5 - Czech Republic
24. 108.5 - South Africa
25. 105.5 - Niue
26. 101 - Chile
27. 100 - Turkiye
28. 97 - Nigeria
29. 85.5 - Scotland
30. 85.5 - Brazil
31. 81 - Hungary
32. 81 - Japan
33. 80.5 - Belgium
34. 78.5 - Poland
35. 76 - Norway
36. 72.5 - Spain
37. 72 - Sweden
38. 70 - Russia
39. 67.5 - Thailand
40. 66.5 - Solomon Islands
41. 62.5 - Jamaica
42. 62 - Argentina
43. 59.5 - Denmark
44. 59.5 - India
45. 58 - Ghana
46. 56 - Burundi
47. 56 - Democratic Republic of Congo
48. 54 - Morocco
49. 52.5 - Peru
50. 51 - El Salvador
51. 50.5 - Latvia
52. 48.5 - Vanuatu
53. 46 - Bosnia & Herzegovina
54. 39.5 - Uruguay
55. 37 - Albania
56. 32 - Kenya
57. 32 - Montenegro
58. 26.5 - Hong Kong
59. 25 - Bulgaria
60. 19 - Cameroon
61. 18.5 - North Macedonia
62. 16.5 - Colombia
63. 0 - Estonia

The end of every year could see a modification to this system, whereby the top 10 ranked sides become Group A for the upcoming year, The next 10 become Group B etc

Have World Cups every 4 years and Emerging Nations World Cups every 4 years, but 2 years after each World Cup.

The top 20 teams in the 2 years before each World Cup will compete for the 12 spots in each World Cup.

Teams ranked 21-40 compete for the 12 spots in each Emerging Nations World Cup which means it is possible for Emerging Nations sides to qualify for the World Cup.

Obviously a hose of other purposeful tournaments could also take place, such as the Pacific Cup (but run with 2 groups and then a final between the top side in each group), a European Cup (same system as the Pacific Cup mentioned above) and possibly even an AAA Cup (America's, Asia and Africa)

If we can have a meaningful calendar where all games mean something and have the potential to make teams climb up the rankings towards a potential World Cup berth, that would make for a much more captivating International Calendar.

Match Review Farce As Woods Cleared Of Spear Tackle (2017)

On Saturday night, Australia defeated a spirited Lebanon outfit 34-0 in a match which saw Aaron Woods put on report for a copybook spear tackle. Today it was revealed that the Canterbury-bound prop has escaped any suspension.

Many people agreed that it didn’t warrant a suspension; but the simple fact is, it most definitely did.

There has been a horrible trend over years gone by, which sadly hasn’t changed in the wake of the tackle that ended Alex McKinnon’s career, whereby a player’s suspension is overwhelmingly defined by the severity of injury caused, or whether an act was intentional or accidental.

Firstly, there’s genuinely only one person who knows if an act was intentional or accidental – and that is the person who committed the act. And they will always say it was an accident, knowing the penalty is smaller.

Secondly and most importantly, the laws are in place not for the sake of it, but for the safety of the players. Laws come with punishments that are designed to act as deterrents, so that players don’t consider breaking the laws.

Some accidents are clearly that, undoubtedly. But it is hard to accidentally lift someone off the ground, turn them around and have them land head first. There is a reason spear tackles were so heavily punished throughout the 1990s and 2000s: because they can do immense damage in a few short seconds and ruin not just a player’s career, but their quality of life as well.

Some of the arguments supporting the decision not to suspend Woods were along the lines of:
 

-“He was let down gently”
-“It was an accident”
-“No one got hurt”

The problem with all of these excuses is that if something did go wrong, the player on the receiving end of the tackle can suffer horribly.

And then everyone would be demanding long suspensions. But by then it’s too late.

Using the argument of, “It would’ve been legal in….” is stupidly irrelevant. Citing the lax laws of the past is not the basis of a sound argument.

Peddling the tired line, “The game is getting soft” is even more absurd. Protecting a player’s welfare should always be the priority. People used that argument when the shoulder charge was banned. But the tragic death of Sunshine Coast Sea Eagles player James Ackerman proved that the ban was justified.

The game cannot be seen to be suspending players based on injury severity or intent. They should be judging on whether an act outside the rules has occurred. If yes, then dish out a suspension. If no, then no suspension.

Accidents happen in every game. Many have zero impact, some have devastating impact. The laws of the game, like everywhere in life, are in place to minimise the devastating ones. There are always things we could have done differently to avoid accidents, hence why they also deserve to be punished if they lead to an illegal act. Improving a player’s decision-making process and technique ensures a safer, cleaner, yet still tough game for all involved.

Woods clearly put his hand between Mannah’s legs and was trying to lift him. The rest is elementary: Mannah was lifted, went past the horizontal, then head first towards the ground.

 
It was a classic spear tackle and should warrant a suspension every day of the week, no matter where you are in the world or what team’s jumper you are wearing.

****This article appeared on Commentary Box Sports website on November 13, 2017****

The Birth of the World Cup (2013)

Rugby League’s World Cup has a very intimate relationship with the birth of Rugby League in France. Without France, we may have never had a World Cup at all. And it is because of France that a World Cup may have happened nearly two decades earlier than it did.

The late 1920’s and early 1930’s saw Rugby Union in France riddled with sickening violence on field, which saw three players killed in the 1929 and the death of teenage winger Michel Pradie the following year.

The violence coupled with secret payments to amateur Union players led to the French Union being described as ‘shamateurism’. In 1931 the games governing body omitted France from the 5 Nations Championship and all future international matches until they cleaned up their act. They were readmitted in 1939, but due to the war, did not play an official international fixture until 1947.

This decision meant France had no official countries to play International fixtures against; games which were the biggest drawcards in every country. The only country willing to play France was Germany, a very poor quality side that was regularly beaten.

On New Year’s Eve, 1933 Australian Rugby League tour manager Harry Sunderland, organised a game between his touring Kangaroo’s and the English team to be played in Paris. The French public starved of real international Rugby for a few years, flocked to the game in atrocious conditions. Australia, led by the brilliant Dave Brown, ran out convincing winners 63-13 in front of 10,000 cheering French in the snow. The very next day, Frenchman Jean Galia resigned from the French Rugby Union and set about starting the game of Rugby League in France. On April 6, 1934 they were officially a Rugby League nation.

Just 9 months later, the Rugby League Council debated the merits of a World Championship tournament proposed by the French officials, which would include teams from England, Wales, France, Australia and New Zealand. The council though rejected the concept citing “the impossibility of fielding truly Australian and New Zealand teams.”

As World War II drew nearer, France’s national side became stronger and more competitive. In 1938/39, they won the European Championship for the first time, defeating England 12-9 and Wales 16-10.

The War though saw the game in France suffer horrendously at the hands of the pro-Nazi, collaborative Vichy Government, who set out to ‘delete’ Rugby League, and for a brief period, succeeding.

Paul Barriere, a highly decorated French Resistance fighter, was elected vice-president of the French Rugby League on September 16, 1944, working as the understudy to Marcel Laborde. On July 2, 1947, Laborde handed the reigns over to the much younger and energetic Barriere, giving him the onerous task of reviving the game in France.

Four months later, Barriere proposed to the Rugby League Council his idea for a “World Championship of Rugby Leagues” to be played between Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand. Barriere estimated that the tournament would generate £24,000 which would be more than enough to cover travel expenses for all teams to travel to France. The concept was supported by the Council’s secretary Bill Fallowfield. The board members decided to discuss the concept with their respective national boards before reconvening in the New Year to discuss the matter further.

Barriere’s biggest hurdle in the early stages of his talks regarding the World Cup was that he represented a nation who themselves were not represented on the Rugby League Council. Thus, he put forward another proposal, to form a new governing body for the game that would include a member from all Test playing nations. The Council agreed and on January 25, 1948 in Bordeaux, the International Board of Rugby League was formed. Barriere continued to push for the World Championship but was constantly met with concerns about costs and conflicts with international tours, while also trying to figure out the logistics of such a competition that neither Rugby Union nor League had ever staged before.

After years of providing solutions to problems and designing a format for the competition, Barriere informed the games governing body in early November of 1952, that the French Rugby League would provide £25,000 towards expenses for the tournament. He proposed for the tournament to last 15 days and to be held in France around April and May of 1954. The British delegates immediately accepted the proposal, however the Australian and New Zealand officials were apprehensive and agreed to defer their decisions until after they’d spoken with their respective national bodies.

Ten weeks went by without any word on the progress of talks between the Australian and New Zealand boards, so Barriere sweetened the deal moreso by increasing France’s guarantee from £25,000 to £36,000 as well as proposing to put all the New Zealand and Australian players on the one plane and fly them to France, at the French League’s expense.

French Rugby League secretary Antoine Blan also proposed that a team from the United States would be invited to field a team in the inaugural World Cup, as a means of taking the game to new shores.

Two days later, Australian Rugby League secretary Harold Matthews revealed “France’s idea was a very good one” but the major stalling point was the proposed dates for the competition. Barriere had suggested May 16 to May 31, however the English team would be touring Australia and New Zealand around that time and thus they requested that the tournament be held in October 1954 instead.

The following week, Barriere unveiled the mechanics of the competition. Australia, England, New Zealand, France and United States would all play each other once. The top two teams with the best records would play off in a final to determine the World Champion.

Impatience and frustration reared its head on April 19, 1953, when the British Rugby League officials declared the Australian board as inconsiderate for not immediately agreeing to the World Cup concept. They even proposed moving the British tour to Australia and New Zealand to 1955.

Finally, on November 26, 1953, the Australian Rugby League board approved of France’s World Cup concept, after French and British officials agreed to move it to October and November of 1954. The Australians agreed on the provisos that the French Rugby League:

*would pay for return air fares for all players

*would pay £2,000 to all competing teams to cover accommodation and player allowances

*would retain 20% of all gate receipts to cover ground hire and organisational expenses

*would receive the first £5,000 of the remaining profits, while the remaining profits would be shared equally between the other competing nations.

The Australian board believed that if these were agreed to, that the New Zealand board would also accept the World Cup concept. Blan and Barriere agreed to the provisions set down within a few days. Shortly after, the New Zealand board approved of the World Cup concept.

On December 16, 1953, Barriere sent an invitation to the United States, asking them to send a team to play against France to determine if they would be competitive enough to take place in the World Cup. English officials were not happy about having the United States involved in the World Cup as they hadn’t played any international games and thus were not worthy. Bill Fallowfield suggested that Barriere’s programme should not be adopted until the Australian and New Zealand officials had discussed it.

Barriere quite happily suggested that if the United States were not good enough, then he’d be more than happy to send Wales an invitation. On January 9, 1954 France easily accounted for a United States team 31-0 and the decision was made to omit them from the World Cup. Wales however was not approached to replace the United States.

The International Rugby League Board convened in Brisbane on June 27, 1954, where Antoine Blan explained how the competition would be run and that after the final was played, the World Champion team would play against a combined side made up from players from the other competing nations. This idea was met with little interest. Blan later revealed that the organisation of the World Cup could likely cost the French £47,000, not including the World Cup trophy, which was commissioned by Barriere at the cost of 8 million francs and then donated to the International Rugby League Board.

Just a month before the tournament was due to begin, a heavy blow befall England’s side, when a number of prospective representative players refused to be considered for selection as they believed the wages they would receive for competing was not enough. Other English players made themselves unavailable due to domestic reasons, some of whom were to be undertaking naval training.

After 20 years, a World War, a government that deleted Rugby League in a country, high expense, deliberation and most of all, amazing patience, vision and generosity by the French Rugby League, especially Paul Barriere, the inaugural World Cup kicked off on October 30, which saw France defeat New Zealand 22-13 at Paris in front of 13,240 spectators.

England eventually defeated hosts France in the final 16-12. Overall, a total of 138,329 people attended the 7 games, bringing in around £45,000. France’s official outlay was £38,000. This left £7,000 as profit. According to the arrangement made, France was to receive the first £5,000 and the remaining monies would be split equally among the remaining three countries. However the French tax department claimed all of the remaining monies, leaving the other three countries without a bonus; however the French officials did honour their agreement of paying for each team’s airfares and expenses, leaving no country at a loss.

The inaugural World Cup was considered an overwhelming success on and off the field. Australian team manager Jack McMahon rejoiced, saying “It was a terrific gamble by the French, but it has been a great thing for our code.”

And it continues to be.

1954 World Cup Details

Oct 30 – France def Wales 22-13 – Crowd 13,240

Oct 31 – Great Britain def Australia 28-13 – Crowd 10,250

Nov 7 – Australia def New Zealand 34-15 – Crowd 20,000

Nov 7 – France drew with Great Britain 13 all – Crowd 37,471

Nov 11 – France def Australia 15-5 – Crowd 13,000

Nov 11 – Great Britain def New Zealand 26-6 – Crowd 14,000

Final

Nov 13 – Great Britain def France 16-12 – Crowd 30,368

************This article Appeared in Men Of League Magazine***************

Why Bother Cup? (2007)

Back in 1954, a concept was designed to see which Rugby League nation was the best. What ensued was the first ever Rugby League World Cup, contested between Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain and newcomers to the international scene, France.

This competition was a tight one, with only one of the six games played seeing a score of more than 30 points. Great Britain and Australia were clear favourites to play in the final, however a 15-5 victory by France over Australia, saw them leapfrog Australia and walk into the final against Great Britain. The French lost the final by four points, but a platform had been set.

In the next two world cups, Australia (in 1957) and Great Britain (in 1960) were undefeated after their three matches and were awarded the title on superiority. In 1968 Australia and France played out the final, with Australia bringing home the trophy. France being the only team to play in the World Cup final on both occasions thus far.

In 1975, Wales was introduced into the World Cup Competition, after Great Britain had easily claimed the previous two cups. The idea was primarily to weaken the Great Britain side and make a more competitive competition. This had the desired effect, with Australia claiming the title based on its win-loss record for the series.

In 1977, the World Cup reverted back to its original format of four teams playing each other once, which saw Australia beat Great Britain by just one point in the final.

In 1985 a new format for the world cup was created whereby each team would play a home and away series. The competition took four years to complete. Papua New Guinea was the new inclusion to the competition, however they proved to be nothing more than the whipping boys, letting in 325 points in just 7 games.

The 1989-92 World Cup was heavily dominated by Australia and was the turning point in World Cup Competition. World cups prior to this were generally a very closely fought contest by at least all the teams bar one. Now only 2 or 3 of the teams were competitive while the rest were there to make up the numbers.

The 1995 World Cup further enhanced this realisation, more so with the introduction of more teams into the fray. Fiji, South Africa, Tonga, Wales and Western Samoa were all added to the competition, joining lowly France and Papua New Guinea. South Africa let in an average of over 60 points a game in their three appearances alone. Eventually the three strong nations, Australia, England and New Zealand, were the last three teams in the competition, as everyone expected.

It begged the question, “Why bother?”

Along came the 2000 World Cup. The minnows from the previous world cup were bolstered by the inclusion of teams from Russia, Lebanon, Cook Islands, Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand Maori’s. With 11 of the 30 games resulting in a winning score of over 50 points, it became pretty clear that there was a massive gap between the elite and the rest.

The final series of the 2000 World Cup was also utterly disappointing, with score lines such as 66-10 and 54-6 in the Quarter finals, 46-22 and 49-6 in the semi finals and 40-12 in the final, showing just how poorly organised and useless the world cup had become.

The 2008 World Debacle Cup is undergoing its preparations as we speak. It poses to be nothing more than a boring try romp with Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain being the last three teams remaining. It needs to change for the benefit of the lesser nations.

My proposal is different, but makes for more competitive matches. Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain automatically advance to the World Cup. All other countries play in a World Cup Invitational; the winner gets invited to participate in a four team World Cup series. Each team plays the other twice, before the final between the top two teams to decide the World Cup winner.

Currently, lower teams are being humiliated on the world stage. Is this a good thing for the game in their respective countries? No.

Lets not make this a demoralising experience for newcomers to the game of Rugby League, lets give them a chance to improve and grow, and one day become a competitive force.

This is what the international game needs.

Otherwise, why bother?