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.

A Plan To Stop ARL's Pillaging Of Pacific Talent (2016)

On Tuesday new Australian Test coach Mal Meninga named his side to take on New Zealand in the annual test match. Included in his side was Fiji-born Semi Radradra, New Zealand-born Josh Papalii and James Tamou, and the 2014-15 Samoan Test player, Josh McGuire.

I’m not begrudging these players or their form; they are all great players in awesome touch and are clearly among the best in the world in their respective position.

But is Australia really that low on world-class players that they need to rape the vastly smaller playing stocks of the surrounding Pacific nations? The answer is obviously a resounding no.

Corey Oates has been in amazing form and is just as deserving of a Test call-up as Radradra. Trent Merrin, Nate Myles, David Klemmer, Luke Lewis, Josh Jackson, Greg Bird and Beau Scott have all played Test football in the last 18 months and most of them have been in good form as well.

Any of these players could have been included and the Australian side would be, at worst, minutely compromised in ability.

It has been argued that many non-Australian born players choose to represent Australia because of the financial reward.

While this may be true, it’s a sign that Australian players are paid handsomely.

So here’s an idea that has precedence: a ‘Nation of Origin’ tournament involving sides from Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga. Play them all on the same week as the below games (perhaps even one on the same day).

Week 1 – same week as ANZAC Test
Fiji v Tonga

Samoa v Papua New Guinea

Week 2 – same week as Origin 1

Tonga v Samoa

Papua New Guinea v Fiji

Week 3 – same week as Origin 2

Fiji v Samoa

Tonga v Papua New Guinea

Week 4 – same week as Origin 3

Top two sides play in a final to determine the champion.

Give the players a good financial incentive to play. Then sit back and watch international rugby league become the pinnacle of the game that it rightfully should be, which will only help to add more big-ticket games to the next broadcasting rights deal – in turn further improving the international game.

**This article appeared on the Commentary Box Sports website**

Mad Monday - Fixing International Fixtures in Australia (2012)

There's something wrong in the game today if International fixtures are not greeted with more fervour and fanfare than interstate clashes.

Since 2002, Australia has played 50 tests - 27 of them against New Zealand.

Go to any other decade in time prior to the Superleague war and you'll find Australia playing regularly against other nations. It is this very issue that has seen the Australian International Calendar becoming mundane and secondary to State of Origin.

If we are going to have a representative weekend, why have it between players who we see every weekend? Why not get people excited and give them something new and interesting other than the same tired schedule which is slowly starting to bore people.

People really embrace and love the All-Stars concept at the start of the year. Its great, it's a fresh idea and it works.

So here's my suggestions (all games are to be televised Live.):

Friday - Double Header in Country NSW
NSW - City vs Country - With NRL players in both sides.
NSW - City Firsts vs Country Firsts - City eligible players from NSW Cup vs Players from Country RL.
Saturday - Double Header in Country QLD
QLD - City vs Country - with NRL players in both sides.
QLD - City Firsts vs Country Firsts - City eligible players from QLD Cup vs Players from Country RL.
Sunday - Double Header
Oceania vs Europe - It would be a great quality game for all spectators and we would get to see players from other countries as well.
USA vs Lebanon (or any such equivalent) - Have this as an official match.

Here is now an opportunity for the NRL to showcase the game to the world, and to bring the world into the NRL. This would be a massive advertisement for the game everywhere.

It would also make for a much more exciting weekend of rep football than just watching NRL players playing against each other in different coloured jumpers one weekend.

Complicating the Uncomplicatable (2012)

Ever since the introduction of the Rugby League International Federation (the successor of the International Rugby League Board in 1998), the International game has been in a steady decline.

It’s inability to have set rules for the code in every country the game is played in has been a minor issue for many years, but the most burgeoning problem they have has been surrounding the one thing of which there was never an issue before.

The one thing which it would appear would be so crystal clear without any grey area whatsoever, the most certain of all certainties.

International eligibility.

The International body began its existence in 1927, initially known as the Imperial Rugby League Board. It contained representatives from Britain, New Zealand and Australia. The big ideas of post-war French officials lead to the creation of the International Rugby League Board in 1948. Paul Barriere was the chief of French Rugby League at the time and he put forward plans for a World Cup. The French provided the trophy and the venues for the first competition in 1954.

The International game blossomed and soon games were played in USA, South Africa and Italy among other nations. By the late 1970’s, Papua New Guinea had a test team. The game continued growing right up until the Superleague war in Australia put International Rugby League in disarray.

In 1998, the games governing body was again reformed, this time as the Rugby League International Federation. In its time it has increased the number of member countries to twelve, however with half of these nations all located in the Oceania region, it has seen a lot of players leave the smaller islands to play in the ‘big time’ in either New Zealand or Australia.

The RLIF believed it needed to clearly define set rules for player eligibility, which had previously followed the very practical and inflexible rule – You play for the country you were born in.

Four core rules were created to define eligibility, providing greater flexibility, but also creating great controversy and confusion. While the core rules seem solid enough, all they have done is taken a simple, obvious, clear-cut rule and muddied the waters in what can only be believed to be a misguided attempt to improve the game

Internationally, by allowing prominent players born in either New Zealand, England or Australia, to play for a weaker International side.

Sounds good in theory, but the RLIF insistence on flexibility has all but muddied the waters and made the whole process a joke. It’s turned the International game into a mess.

A player is eligible to play an International game for:

1. A country he was born in
2. A country in which either his parents or grand-parents were born
3. A country he has lived in for at least 3 years prior to selection
4. A country he has gained senior international honours in any sport

Players who qualify for dual International representation are seen as taking the ‘easy way’ to International level football by playing with their second nation so to speak, because they may not have been good enough to break into the team representing the country they were born in.

If a player born in Australia, but with Tongan heritage decides to play for Tonga, he is not allowed to represent any other nation….

….until after the next World Cup has finished, or two years have passed since his last international game for Tonga.

Herein lies the biggest issue with the entire guidelines. They are set this way to allow a player to play International football, but to also play for his country of birth down the track if he so wishes.

This concept entirely removes pride for representing ones country, the once highest accolade a player could ever achieve. It has cheapened the International game, essentially whoring it out in a pathetic attempt to improve the quality of the game internationally.

And that has failed.

These rules are farcical and borderline insane. There are many great ways this Federation can improve the game Internationally, but this cheap pathetic ploy is getting out of control and turning the game into a parody. There would be close to half of all senior Rugby League players eligible to play for different nations to that of the one they were born in.

These rules need to be scrapped and we need to go back to common sense, for the sake of the game!