Welcome to World Footy News
Thursday, July 09 2020 @ 11:41 am ACST

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Is this the first step towards the Official World Rankings?
Authored by: Cam Homes on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 09:17 pm ACDT

Brett, I have wondered why the newcomers start at 40 too, and I have come to the conclusion the IRB wanted to avoid the assumption that all newcomers are cr-p compared to the rest. eg. Croatia might be as strong as you and krolja51 think they are and when they finally make the jump to "full" size games to start them at the bottom would penalise them unjustly. Coupled with the fact that newcomers are provisional for the first 10 games. Maybe we have been too generous by making our teams full blown at only 5. I chose that number basically to get as many nations on the board as possible. I don't see a problem as long as the provisionals are shown as that. Canada being below Peace Team would not be seen as an anomoly but Peace Team just not played enough games yet. Maybe 6 or 8 might be a better number to come off being a provisional.

[ # ]
Is this the first step towards the Official World Rankings?
Authored by: 00Bock on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 01:13 am ACDT

I don't get it: isn't it compulsory to exclude Australian players?
Of course rules differ from tournament to tournament / game to game but they all exclude aussie expats, or? e.g. Euro Championships allow only players who lived in the coutry they represent between their 10th and 16th birthdays. If not, that surely has to change because I can remember an incedent where a 16s game with 100% locals turned from a 70 point lead after the first half into a level game at the end after 2 aussies were included for the loosing team.

[ # ]
Is this the first step towards the Official World Rankings?
Authored by: Aaron Richard on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 06:49 am ACDT

That's another important issue we need to discuss. Obviously going forward, we'd like ideally to just include games played under the "country of origin" rules.

I think Cam's reasoning behind having some tolerance on that was so that as many games and nations as possible could be included. For example, even at the IC there have been a few exceptions made so that teams can get a team onto the park, Spain wouldn't have been able to play at the 2005 IC without a few Spanish Australians, and Finland fielded a few Aussies in 2008 to fill the gaps as well.

Ideally, you wouldn't include that, but that's the reality of international footy at the moment.

Benno, on another topic do Germany have any further 16/18-a-side test matches scheduled for this year besides the Euro Champs in Denmark/Sweden?

[ # ]
Is this the first step towards the Official World Rankings?
Authored by: Brett Northey on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 10:25 am ACDT

So we could say "no games included that had Aussies" but then that would exclude quite a few IC games. Although the AFL tries to keep it to an absolute minimum, there are occasional exceptions made, such as those Aaron mentioned. I think there have been a few others too.

Although it isn't ideal, everyone acknowledges that at this youthful stage of international Aussie Rules, no hard and fast system can cover everything adequately. I guess we just make some rules, try to be consistent, and make occasional exceptions where there is reasonable agreement. In 15 years time we should have 30 ranked teams all playing a lot of 18s (or maybe 16s?). Of course the 9s issue may be a long term debating point.

Perhaps the best thing is for us to focus on 16-18s games, start releasing our data of what is and isn't included, and allow there to be debate on any "extra" inclusions. I'd suggest we start with the most recent matches and slowly move back from there. In the next few days I'll roll some of that info out and probably do it as a separate story / thread. But for now, keep the comments coming on here.

Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

[ # ]