Welcome to World Footy News
Wednesday, November 22 2017 @ 03:36 am ACDT

Final World Rankings prior to IC11

Site

WFN has updated its unofficial World Rankings after the recent international matches in Europe. Favourites Ireland (ranked 4th) comfortably defeated Great Britain (10th) in England, whilst in Paris home side France lost fairly convincingly to Germany (13th). It was the debut for France in full field internationals, remembering it takes 8 matches to be consider fully ranked on our table. The results saw all teams hold steady in their positions.

As far as we know these are the last full field international prior to the 2011 AFL International Cup. Depending on how many matches are played, we hope to see Tonga, Peace Team, China and India play enough games to fully qualify on our rankings. France may qualify depending on how we count lightning carnival matches (if they are played to start IC11).

In the next few weeks we'll open up some discussions on how the various countries might fare at IC11.

Latest matches:

British Bulldogs   5.6 (36)
Irish Warriors11.6 (72)

France2.7 (19)
Germany   13.5 (83)


Below are our updated ranks.

 

World Rankings

There is currently no official system of World Rankings for Australian Football, as the international game is still mostly amateur, still maturing and there are often difficulties in nations having all their best players available. However, due to popular demand, since 2006 worldfootynews.com has been providing rankings. Below are the current rankings. This is the first update since 3rd April 2011.
 

World Footy News / Homes Australian Football World Rankings

(as at 13th June 2011)

Rank        Team Points Games
1 Australia - -
2 Papua New Guinea 53.89 23
3 New Zealand 53.84 27
4 Ireland 48.46 32
5 Nauru 47.06 13
6 United States 46.53 29
7 Denmark 44.22 35
8 South Africa 43.92 16
9 Samoa 41.85 18
10 Great Britain 40.01 37
11 Sweden 39.06 19
12 Canada 38.01 29
13 Germany 37.37 10
14 Japan 33.33 18
15 Finland 29.02 13
Prov. Croatia 40.60 4 *
Prov. Tonga 40.00 3 *
Prov. Peace Team 39.88 5 *
Prov. France 37.00 1 *
Prov. Iceland 35.64 4 *
Prov. China 34.00 5 *
Prov. India 28.33 5 *
Prov. Spain 28.00 6 *

 

* Nations marked in grey with an asterisk have played less than eight (8) matches under our criteria, and currently hold provisional ranking points, but are not yet officially ranked. Spain has not played an eligible match for more than 4 years and so would be provisionally ranked either way. They must play an eligible match by 13/08/2013 to remain on the list.

 


   For a full discussion of the eligibility criteria of games see World Rankings - Criteria

   For a full list of the included matches, see World Rankings - Matches

   For a full discussion of how the rankings are produced, see World Rankings - Method

   For previous rankings see World Rankings - Historical
 

 

Share
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • SlashDot
  • Del.icio.us
  • Yahoo Buzz

Story Options

Final World Rankings prior to IC11 | 24 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: footyjules on Sunday, June 19 2011 @ 08:33 pm ACST

Hi,

I dont think your log is applicaple to the current International system.  Teams not playing regular International matches will always be at the bottom.  There is no way Denmark can be where they are nor Nauru. 

It will be interresting to see what the log looks like after the International Cup!!  That will give you a clear indication of where each team stands.

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Brett Northey on Sunday, June 19 2011 @ 09:01 pm ACST

I definitely agree the rankings are not perfect, but I'd argue they are better than nothing - media and sponsors and the public look for a quick snapshot of the sport and it's not good if there isn't any.

But specifically to your comment about Denmark and Nauru, I think their ranks are pretty accurate.  Probably South Africa are better than their position, but that's based on one good tournament, IC08.  Obviously they have to back that up to rise all the way up the ranks.  Nauru have a solid history and by the end of IC08 looked as good as South Africa and Ireland.

So other than South Africa being higher, why do you reckon the other two are too high?

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN
[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Troy Thompson on Sunday, June 19 2011 @ 09:46 pm ACST

Will the first "lightning" round of the IC be counted towards the rankings?  I notice the write up on the rankings says "regular" IC matches.  I assume the shorter the games the more chance for an upset (a result that goes against the statistical rankings)?

Let's all remember that these are figures based on the past and unless all teams are to remain the same strength forever then matches future results are not always going to follow the rankings.  Also with such a small amount of data spread over a long time there are plenty of factors that can skew rankings. 

They are by no means official and I find them a good discussion starter, other than that I agree with Brett that in the absence of any other rankings it is a handy reference point.  Just as handy though is the list of results used to calculate the rankings, from which you can draw your own conclusions.

The most important factor will be the actual teams that each country put out and what they do on the field.

 

 

 

 

 

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Brett Northey on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 10:48 am ACST

Troy asked the question earlier:

Will the first "lightning" round of the IC be counted towards the rankings?  I notice the write up on the rankings says "regular" IC matches.  I assume the shorter the games the more chance for an upset (a result that goes against the statistical rankings)?

I agree it needs to be addressed.  I think we'll wait and see what the final draw looks like, how long games will be etc, but I do have some initial thoughts.  Games are generally weighted by a factor of 1 for our rankings.  In keeping with what they do in the Rugby Union World Cup we apply a factor of 2 to International Cup matches as they are considered the most important and most likely, in general, to have the best squads available (we know that isn't always possible with travel and time commitments, no one ever brings their absolute best team).  I suggest that if the AFL stage a first round lightning tournament for initial seeding of teams then we should consider including those games but with a weighting of 1 not 2.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN
[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Cam Homes on Monday, June 20 2011 @ 12:45 am ACST

Hi Footyjules.

Nauru finished 5th at IC08, Denmark were further back but have beaten Sweden and Great Britain in Euro Champs 10 losing to Ireland in final by 17pts so have crept up the ranks since IC08.

South Africa finished 3rd at IC08 but they started the tournament ranked 11th and their success pushed them up to 7th. Perform as well at IC11 and they would certainly climb higher into the ranks.

The ultimate test of whether the ranks are accurate is that higher ranked teams will win more often than not, and so far that has been the case. When a lower ranked team has won it usually has usually pushed them up the ranks or at least their rating has increased.

Yes! teams that rarely play will not move very much as the system only uses the results of games played not the perception of those watching them or playing in them.

I believe that the ranks are pretty accurate as they stand, considering the number of international matches that are played each year.

The upcoming IC will certainly test the system and I am confident at tournament's end the ranks will generally reflect the respective ability of the teams taking part. 

The system is not static but a dynamic system that reflects each team's standard at the time they play their last game. Their rate can only change when they play their next game and but other teams results can have them rise above or fall below a team that hasn't played for a while.

Read the eligibity criteria, and how the system works(see World Rankings-Method) and also if you go back and check out the match results you will see that it is fair for all teams, ie. teams that play often are at no advantage over teams that only play now and then.

Play and win against a team with similar rank will see movement in the team's rating and possibly their rank, play and lose to a team where the points gap is large does not advantage the higher ranked team nor disadvantage the lower ranked team.

Unfortunately our system does not yet have an archival set up which would enable you to check out the ranks historically but I can assure you that system has worked pretty well and higher ranked teams have won more often than not, from the second and third games ever played, right up until now.

When lower ranked teams have won, their rating has risen, and more often than not,  their rank has risen also. 

I am willing to provide the historical ranks for any given date at which teams played an International match and any change that occurred as a result of that match.

Cam

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: footyjules on Monday, June 20 2011 @ 04:08 am ACST

 Hi All,

Brett, I agree that the log is better than nothing.  I think Denmark is there because of their performance in the 2002 International Cup and Nauru because of their performances at previous Cup's.  I think Canada will smash Sweden.. I dont know how they are in that position. I think Japan will kill Germany... I also dont know how they can be there...

I think I am refering to the 2008 International Cup results as an indication on the performances and standards of the teams. 2011 Will be a good indication on the feasibility of the log system.

Cam, That is my problem with the system... Euro Cup, where International teams will benefit from playing more often apposed to teams not playing regular International football.  The teams that will benefit are USA and Canada because it seems like they play each other regularly.  All the european teams: Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Britain and Finland because they are playing the Euro Cup. And 10 aside is not full on footy mate... I can get a footy team together in South Africa in 10 days, train them for 10 days, that will beat every team in Europe in 10 days..

I am not to sure about New Zealand, PNG, Tonga and Nauru if they have some form of tournament.  Japan and China? South Africa? 

My point is the log will take shape after the Intenational cup no doubt, and for me the results will give me a clear idea of the ratings of the teams... After that the teams playing regularly during the following 3 years leading towards International Cup 2014 will benefit more compared to teams not playing regularly...

Looking forward to the Cup!!!

Cheers

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Aaron Richard on Monday, June 20 2011 @ 06:59 am ACST

 Jules,

You're confused on one point - the Euro Cup (9-a-side) is not counted in these rankings.  We have only counted 16 or 18 a side games.  So the European Championships are in, but not the Euro Cup.

The first-ever Euro Champs were played 16-a-side last year, with Ireland, GB, Denmark etc playing pretty close to their IC sides.

I do agree that there are one or two teams whose rankings are a bit off - Canada being the obvious one.  Because they keep just playing the US, and usually coming away with a loss, their ranking has ended up a bit low.  But by the same token, Canada have lost most of their IC matches, albeit with a few unlucky losses along the way.

We'll see.  I reckon the rankings will still predict the vast majority of games accurately at the IC11!

Thanks, Aaron

 

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Brett Northey on Monday, June 20 2011 @ 11:42 am ACST

Jules as people haev pointed out I think there's a few misunderstandings here.

As Aaron said, 9-a-side does NOT count in our ranks, we required I think at least 14-a-side in older games and recently at least 16-a-side.

You seem to suggest playing regularly boosts a team's rankings.  No.  Of course a team cannot move if they don't play.  But teams that do play will go up or down depending on whether they win or lose and who they are playing, as you would expect.  South Africa is slightly disadvantaged because they don't play anyone AND because they have historically been down the bottom which was a true reflection of the side's ability.  So now they are on the rise but because they don't play very often it takes a while for that to be reflected.  But as Cam always tells me, if you don't play anyone just THINKING you are better doesn't make you deserve a higher rank.  Remember, prior to IC08 South Africa's record was 2 wins 9 losses, with the 2 wins against Japan (currently 14th) and Spain (not yet even fully ranked and bottom of our provisional ranks with no wins). So it will take some time to climb all the way to top 4.

You said "I can get a footy team together in South Africa in 10 days, train them for 10 days, that will beat every team in Europe in 10 days".  I'm afraid I doubt that.  Under the same conditions I reckon Ireland could gather together a better team.  But again, 10-a-side results do not go into our rankings.

The 2 main "anomalies" are Canada as said, because they always lose to the US just about every year, pushing them down.  And South Africa's rise taking a bit longer to be reflected.  You also mention Nauru and Denmark again, and that "Japan will kill Germany".

At the end of the article above you will see links in a box.  They lead to a page with ALL the matches we've included.

http://www.worldfootynews.com/staticpages/index.php/World_Rankings_Matches

Have a look at Nauru's form.  Some early losses to top sides like PNG and NZ, a few close losses to some teams a bit lower, but then in 2008 they beat Peace Team, Great Britain, US, Canada, only losing to eventual champs PNG.  So I think they clearly deserve to be ranked highly.  And for Denmark they did beat GB last time they played, so they can well argue to be rankde higher than GB.  But I suspect they are a little too high.  I think if South Africa back up 2008 form then they will jump up and everything will look more like what you expect.

As for Japan killing Germany, we won't see that because Germany are not coming IC11.  If they did, there isn't a lot of overlapping matches to draw from, but Germany are on the improve and have had some wins in Europe e.g. over Finland and some competitive matches against the likes of Sweden.  Unfortunately I think Japan are only holding steady, not a huge lot of growth in the game and high turnover in their national squad which is generally very young.  I reckon it would be a pretty competitive match, probably with Japan just ahead.  But Germany are still holding off from attending International Cups.  Maybe 2014.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN
[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Cam Homes on Monday, June 20 2011 @ 01:44 pm ACST

Hi Jules.

Brett has summed it up all very nicely, but further to your assertion that teams that don't play regularly are disadvantaged is erroneous, again take Nauru, they have only played 13 internationals with a 7-6 win/loss ratio with all but one of those losses were back before 2003, their IC08 matches were the last ones played.

They began that tournament in 13th place with 35.06rating points and beating the likes of GB, USA and Canada and Peace Team(each of these wins earn't them the max rating change allowable4 x 3 =12pts)and the loss to PNG first up they lost no points because PNG were well over 10 rating points higher when they met. Consequently Nauru ended the tournament with 47.06 Pointsand 4th rank.

Now take South Africa. 16 international matches with 6-10 win/loss ratio. They started the tournament at 32.05 points and ranked 14th. their wins also earnt them the max allowable 4 x3=12points but their loss to PNG came later in the tournament and they lost 0.13 rating points off the 12 they had gained. They are still the full three pts(3.14) less than Nauru. So they ended the tournament on 43.92 rating points at 7th place. Remember other teams were also playing in the tournament and the results of those other matches would have had other teams improving or at least holding their ground.

South Africa's win over Ireland actually pushed Ireland's rate down below Naura's.

Take Canada, 29 international matches, 8-21 win/loss ratio. played many matches but below both Nauru and SA (played less matches) at 12th place with 38.01rating points. Being very cruel, they are low because they lose so often.

Take PNG, 23  international matches with win/loss 21-2 hence they are 2nd behind Aussie.

When you put your South African team together and get them on the park and beat the teams you reckon they can beat then SA's rank will reflect that standard and they would move up the ranks accordingly:-)

The ranks are calculated and based on the results of actual games played, not  the fantasy of coaches or players of where they believe their team rates.

I'm quite sure David Rodan senior(Fiji Coach) believes Fiji will win at least a couple of matches in the IC11(and they very well might does so) but they aren't even ranked at all because they are yet to play those matches.

Cam

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: sverik25 on Monday, June 20 2011 @ 01:46 pm ACST

Jules, I do think that Denmark deserve to be in 7th or at least 8th position considering their performances over a long time period against higher ranked teams. Just remember that they came 2nd in the European Championships ahead of Great Britain (4th) and only lost to Ireland by 17 points in the final. The Vikings also beat Great Britain by 36 points in this tournament.

Canada do seem to be out of place, I don't know that much about footy in North America but I would expect that Canada would be in the top 10, probably ahead of GB and Sweden. 

Just a question regarding Samoa - what significant victories have they had that would put them in 8th place?

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: sverik25 on Monday, June 20 2011 @ 01:49 pm ACST

9th place I mean (for Samoa).

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Cam Homes on Monday, June 20 2011 @ 02:11 pm ACST

Samoa have played 18 Internationals with 9-9 win/loss ratio. they have two wins over South Africa and Canada, 2 wins and loss against Great Britain and single wins over Nauru, India and Sweden. Japan surprised them at IC08 and they also lost to New Zealand and PNG. IC08 form saw them slide from 6th to 9th.

0-4 in total against NZ other losses to USA and Ireland and PNG(one each)

Cam

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: footyjules on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 03:47 am ACST

Here is my International Cup top 10 Results:

1: PNG

2: New Zealand

3: Nauru

4: Ireland

5: South Africa

6: USA

7: GB

8: Canada

9: Somoa

10: Denmark

I am pretty sure of the top 5, and 6 - 10 might differ a bit.

I really hope there will be some new faces at the Cup! I know South Africa will send a couple of new faces, but mostly regulars.

Regards to all,

Julian Horn

 

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Brett Northey on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 10:44 am ACST

I reckon you're around the mark Jules.  I haven't finalise my thoughts yet, but I suspect Ireland will be very strong again with a lot of players in Australia now getting weekly high quality footy exposure, so it wouldn't shock me to see them break back into the grand finalists.

Samoa is a worry with things not travelling great there, so I wonder if they can maintain their position.

I reckon we'll have to start a separate thread on everyone's IC11 tips once we know the final list - we'll publish it as soon as it's confirmed.

Our last update showed the following contenders:

1. PNG 2002, 05, 08
2. New Zealand     2002, 05, 08
3. South Africa 2002, 05, 08
4. Ireland 2002, 05, 08
5. Nauru 2002, 08
6. Canada 2002, 05, 08
7. USA 2002, 05, 08
8. Japan 2002, 05, 08
9. Great Britain 2002, 05, 08
10. Samoa 2002, 05, 08
11. Denmark 2002, 08
12. Tonga 2008 (not in main draw)
13. Sweden 2008
14. China 2008
15. India 2008
16. Peace Team 2008
17. Switzerland (New)
18. Fiji (New)
19. France     (New)
20. East Timor (New)
21. Multicultural 2008 (not in main draw)

I'm thinking Japan may slide a bit too.  Tonga and Fiji should be very interesting and may push into the middle positions straight away.

Even harder to tip will be the women's league.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN
[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Cam Homes on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 11:59 am ACST

Howdy Guys.

Jules, I'm surprised to see you mark SA so far down, I think if the development has progressed since IC08 as much as it did between IC05 and IC08 South Africa could go one better than last time and play in the Grand Final.

Brett, I have to agree with you Ireland will be stronger this year and it seems development hasn't progressed much in Samoa and Japan and you suggest Fiji could well surprise(fair amount of effort and money been outlaid in Fiji over last couple of years by all accounts).

If they do have a 'lightning carnival' to start the shebang off, the most we can do if we include those matches in the ranking scheme is give them 1 loading. If the matches are too short then I reckon they shouldn't be counted at all. Keeps the integrity we have tried to build into the scheme in tack.

Cam

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Brett Northey on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 12:59 pm ACST

South Africa set up an academy to really focus on their best 40 or so players.  But I'm not sure how often they train or play together - if it was a full on academy I would expect a very polished side at IC11, but if it's more like a 3 times a year camp, then I suspect South Africa will be of similar relative strength to 2008.

OK so how long do people reckon games need to be to be worthy of inclusion?  Standard IC matches have generally been between 14 and 17 minute x 2 halves as I recall.  So even they are shorter than most "Tests" we include, which perhaps questions why we go so far as a double weighting for IC matches (too late to turn back now!)

If they are 10 mins x 2 halves would that count, with the weighting of 1 instead of 2?  I'd like to think so, because it will be the only chance we get to have data for higher teams playing lower teams, and it will fast track some nations moving from provisional to fully ranked.  I think clearly a team like NZ will beat a team like Switzerland, and that is good data,  It's only if very similar teams play off that you could argue the "wrong" result might emerge, if one teams is unlucky or plays below their best or are surprised and don't get a chance to respond.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN
[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Cam Homes on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 01:48 pm ACST

Brett.

I think we have the weighting of 2 for the IC's cause it's the closest thing to "World Cup" that Australian Rules Football has, and in time that is what it would become I hope. All the nations that have taken part in the previous IC's I reckon have considered it to be the pinnacle of International Footy. I think that the international community have even more regard for it now than ever before. I think it is no longer seen as just a footy trip to Australia by anybody, anymore. To a man(and woman:-)) the combatants now all see themselves as the National Team playing for the highest prize in International Aussie Rules Footy I reckon.

As to the inclusion of the 'lightning carnival' matches it depends on how credible we think the Ranking scheme is and If we truly want it to be the arbiter of world footy at the "gold standard" as you put it, or not. My opinion is, to be as '18 carat or close to as possible. Hopefully that will be an incentive for those nations that are not yet in the ranks to inspire to. But to dilute it just to get them on board would be an insult to those that are on it now.

A dilema!!!!!!!!

Cam 

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Cam Homes on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 02:12 pm ACST

Hey Brett, remember that teams that are too far apart don't actually make an impact on the Ranks(rating gap > 10.00) anyway, all those games do isgive the lower ranked(or debutants)teams a chance to measure(or see how big a flogging they get) themselves against the power nations, and a few extra matches so they can become fully ranked quicker.

New Zealand v Tonga 3 test series last year didn't tell the ranking scheme any thing about Tonga. They are still on 40.00 rating points, have no real idea of where their standard sits but are three games closer to being fully ranked.

By the way I'm not critising or denigrating those matches. As they say "s--t happens and the matches happened and were a real booster for both teams but did nothing for the ranking scheme:-)  I think 3 test series' are probably better(financially at least)( only half the number of teams travelling) than a Oceanic/Pacific Championships each year or so. Just get the teams that are within 10.00 rating gap points to play each other:-).

Cam

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Brett Northey on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 03:47 pm ACST

Ah but those matches DID tell us something, they told us that Tonga are well short of NZ.  So the ranking scheme got data into it, in terms of Tonga moving closer to full ranking, and didn't go up in the ranks, i.e. the system is establishing they are down the lower end to start with.  I've often thought that teams should start at the very bottom and slowly move up, however the system is a neutral system in that points that are gained by someone are lost by someone else.  So starting teams lower would slower drag the average down.  Instead we require teams to be provisionally ranked, i.e. must play enough games for their ranking to make sense before they jump onto the full table.

Re watering down the system by including shortened games... they are still full field, best players available IC matches.  Taking a few minutes off the clock doesn't invalidate them in my view, not any more than the fact that regular IC matches are already shortened as well.  Is 4 x 25 mins plus time on okay?  Yes.  2 x 17 mins?  Historicaly we've said yes.  2 x 14 okay?  Historically we've said yes (I think IC05 was that length).  2 x 10 okay?  I'm arguing yes, but half the weighting of the others.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN
[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: sverik25 on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 04:38 pm ACST

Personally, I don't think matches which are 2X10 mins in length should actually count towards the rankings, I think it is too short a game for anything significant to be taken out of it. Thats just  my opinion. :)

 

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Rog on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 06:18 pm ACST

I think "lightning" games if played should still count towards the world raknings (maybe at a reduced weighting). The higher ranked ie. better teams should still beat worse teams no matter how long the game is. Shorter games are still a indicator of teams relative strengths and seeing that it is at the IC11, these lightning games are much more important than any friendly played over a longer period.

Even though i disagree with some aspects of the ranking system based on the IRB system, i still think it is fairly accurate for the data (results) so far. I developed my own ranking system based on the Elo ranking system addressing some of my issues with the Worldfootynews rankings and the positions of the countries are still fairly similar.

Rankings from my Elo system for interest. I excluded Australia and have included teams given a provisional rating by WFN. I agree Canada, Japan and maybe even Finland are actually stronger then their rank suggests, but the havn't really ever won many games.

Rank Country Points (1 PNG 1277.7 (2 New Zealand 1239.6 (3 Ireland 1164 (4 USA 1086.4 (5 Nauru 1033 (6 South Africa 1027.7 (7 Denmark 995 (8 Samoa 983.4 (9 Great Britain 931.9 (10 Croatia 928 (11 Germany 924.3 (12 Canada 920.8 (13 Peace Team 911.2 (14 Sweden 908.2 (15 Tonga 892.2 (16 Iceland 872.5 (17 Japan 852.2 (18 Spain 847.3 (19 China 840.3 (20 India 787.4 (21 France 784.9 (22 Finland 775.2
[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Troy Thompson on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 10:05 pm ACST

Brett, would have to look back to 02 and 05 records, but IC08 matches were definitely all 4 quarter matches - probably 4X17 I beleive.  And as far as I remember so was 05.

[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Brett Northey on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 10:30 pm ACST

Bugger.  Yeah you're probably right.  4 x 17 for IC08 and 4 x 14 or 15 for IC05.  I need to get more sleep.

OK, so we're perhaps comparing matches in the past that have counted as weighting 2 that were 4 x 15 = 60 mins, versus (my speculation) 2 x 10 mins = 20 mins.  Or maybe 2 x 15 mins = 30 mins.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN
[ # ]
Final World Rankings prior to IC11
Authored by: Cam Homes on Tuesday, June 21 2011 @ 01:05 pm ACST

Woops.

That should be, "keep the integrity and credibilty intact".

Cam

[ # ]