Note that we've altered the presentation of the table, so that you can see the teams that have played under 5 games and are therefore still only provisionally ranked.

If a team is provisionally ranked then I think they can be shown on the table for interest, to see where they would fit in, but they should not be allocated an actual ranking position. In other words, the current list:

Rank		Country	Points
1		Australia	N/A
2		New Zealand	51.57
3		PNG	51.10
4		USA	44.69
5		Nauru	44.20
6		Ireland	43.81
7		Great Britain	42.19
8		Samoa	41.72
9		South Africa	41.61
10		Denmark	41.27
11		Peace Team	39.86
12		Canada	38.92
13		Germany	38.22
14		China	35.43
15		Sweden	35.21
16		Japan	34.21
17		Finland	32.92
18		India	32.00
19		Spain	31.05

would instead be:

Rank		Country	Points
1		Australia	N/A
2		New Zealand	51.57
3		PNG	51.10
4		USA	44.69
5		Nauru	44.20
6		Ireland	43.81
7		Great Britain	42.19
8		Samoa	41.72
9		South Africa	41.61
10		Denmark	41.27
Prov.		Peace Team	39.86
11		Canada	38.92
Prov.		Germany	38.22
Prov.		China	35.43
12		Sweden	35.21
13		Japan	34.21
14		Finland	32.92
Prov.		India	32.00
15		Spain	31.05

because a provisional team is not actually in possession of a ranking yet. Sound fair?

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

I agree that we shouldn't stretch the system to include juniors.

Another issue that can only been mentioned briefly was Australia. It was debated in our 2008 rankings. I assume there is no large groundswell of opposition to Australia being granted a defacto number 1 status?

Obviously anyone that has ever seen the AFL and seen international footy knows there is still a large gulf between even the top international sides and the best Australians. PNG is the reigning IC champions, and their side (probably a bit under strength) were competitive in the Cairns AFL pre-season. Cairns would fall well below the Brisbane-based league, which is well below the WAFL/SANFL/VFL leagues, which are well below the AFL.

I think the only reason to exclude Australia would be if they were actively avoiding competition for fear of losing or misplaced arrogance. That is not the case presently. If an argument was made that the rankings were amateur sides only then the argument for Australia to front up would be greater, though clearly still a large disparity exists.

Of course all this will be severely compromised by increasing numbers of international players entering the AFL. PNG now have several listed. What if they are all fully embedded in 2nd tier (e.g. VFL) competitions next year? They may not be available to play for PNG at IC2011. Basically 4 near-AFL quality players out of their side. If they lose to NZ by 1 point you'd have to think PNG are a better side. I guess the answer is that you play with what you've got and results are all that count - music to Cam's ears. 8)

And if countries are being sufficiently compromised because of players unavailable in the state leagues or AFL, then the lobbying will have to begin to play the IC outside of the AFL season or during a break in it. That's a whole other can of worms.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

This is really interesting. I've loved reading the discussion.

Traditional Australian Rules Footy fans judge success of their team on where they finish on the ladder in a particular year, but to think that in the future, footy fans can judge success of their national team on a ranking system that accumulates and stays up to date, is pretty awesome. it also helps with teams who cant make some tournaments or play teams in other regions regularly, but can still have a presence in the ranks.

I like the system as a concept to adhere to for the future. But it's still a few years off being able to be a good indicator and have any merit in being an official ranking. the provisionals that brett added in are a good idea. How you phase Australia in there- I'm not sure. But i've no doubt they deserve #1 for quite a while.

set the system up, keep collating the info.

other comments:
-9s matches don't count. this is a ranking of standard international test matches played under AFL International Cup regulations. its for the long term. and you can still set up a separate international 9s ranking as that area of the game emerges. or use the experience playing 9s to one day also have a formidable 18v18 team. its ok to include some 16v16 matches- restricted by space or numbers, but i think thats it. brett has also made good points about 9s being euro dominated as far as national teams go and having played with different eligibility regulations in past tournaments. e.g. handicaps for aussies etc.
-if it becomes official, needs to have AFL involvement and endorsement. as international matches increase, and AFL effectively act as the IRB or FIFA, the AFL, or someone else, needs to confirm that a certain match is a sanctioned international test match that is played under proper rules and match officiation. then you are sure where the ranking counts. its a while away, but you could have arguments over whether a development squad of south africans on tour who play a match against china for example, and lose by 10 goals, and people think that china will head up the ranks. likewise with 'breakaway' groups or expat involved national teams. perhaps similar set up to 'friendlies' concept in soccer. i guess arguments are unavoidable either way, but someone needs to decide what is a 'test match' and what isn't.
-I think International Cup rules is a good indicator, there may have been some aussies technically playing in past IC tournaments, but in these cases, they applied and were deemed eligibile to play, and i don't think it affected many results anyway. still a good indicator of where the countries are at. games that end up being more for practice and experience and add experienced aussies in the 2nd half for example to even things up would unfortunately have to be deemed invalid.

Just so people know, Sanga is Andrew Sawitsch, who is heavily involved with development in China. And yes, I checked with him that it was okay to name him here (Sanga is his well known nickname). But he did note that the comments are "made as a long time fan of international footy rather than taken as any official statement etc."

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

I agree with Sanga that ultimately any ranking has to have AFL sanctioning, as do the matches that qualify, if it is to be considered official - for the simple fact that the leading nations recognise the AFL as the world governing body. So as long as that is the case then they would have the final say as to whether something is official.

But at this stage they don't appear to have pushed for such a system, so I figure if one is put in front of them that the Leagues support then there is a good chance they would sanction it down the track. And until such time that they do sanction some kind of system, then finding one is worth exploring. I think we pretty much all agree on that, although we may not all ever agree on what that system should look like!

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

In the IRB system I think the provisional teams don't even make it onto the list until they have played their 10 matches, so I can go along with our provisionals appearing with their provisional score but without a ranking. I reckon that is a good compromise, Nations get their name up there "in lights" showing the world they're battling to get on the board. It also lets other nations know that there is another team at around their own score about to come onto the ranking scheme.
Let's go with this aspect at least.
Getting back to including 9's, leave ya footy here we still wanna play. Promise to give it back when we're finished with it.
As 9's is mostly the shortened version of the game and final scores are less than full time games. it brings in how do we account for our 40plus margin of victory bonus when very few games, if any, actual result in a 40 plus victory. I still reckon a seperate 9's ranking is a better option. Once we have an computer program up and running (not pressuring anyone) the 9's version would be relatively easy to get going ( I stopped because of the amount of data (many more games played)(just one EU Cup went over a page and a half) and the player rules don't have to be as strict. And a lower Margin of Victory bonus can be used. Then the 18's version can be a true measure of a nations standing and ability at playing "Aussie Rules" at the (hate this term too) "purest" form. Keeps the maths at its simplest too.
Cam

Yep, I've started the process of automating the procedure so that it's easier to make updates and less likely to have errors.

I really wouldn't suggest using this scheme for an individual 9s rankings scheme because as discussed, at a nation versus nation level, 9s has been a European phenomenon, so such a scheme would only be for Europe and if it followed no-expat rules then it would only have a handful of games in it and would require quite a few more years of data before there would be even 7 or 8 teams qualifying for a ranking.


---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

I get what you're doing with the rankings but predicting the future I reckon GB and SA both will be higher. After the next International cup expect them both up the ladder.

G'day twoleftfeet.
Good to see/hear a new voice!
I don't think you'll get much argument on SA showing big improvement and even GB at IC11 and but success in International Footy does really depend on $$$ (see comment from Vildmand on Denmark's funding efforts to attend IC's, in theLong list of possibles - - - discussion). Certainly the apparent growth in SA and GB tends to suggest a greater talent pool from which to pick your "national side" so here's hoping.
I'm looking forward to both the up-coming Euro and Pacific Champs to see a few more nations entering the "International Arena" and add further games( too few games seems to be problem) to our Ranking System to see how it unfolds.
Cam

The one thing that's sticking out at me in the rankings is that NZ and PNG are a long way ahead of the pack in points. I reckon this is pretty accurate.

You've then got a big group sitting in the middle on very similar scores, including GB and SA. Any team who can string a few wins together they could go right up to third spot pretty quick.

Aaron , if you look a little more closely at the next bunch as you call them(especially those with more than 40 ranking points) you will see that they have all had wins and losses against others in that bunch (and a few wins over the lower than 40 teams).
The teams below 40 don't seem to have had very many wins against those in the higher bunch.
Which seems to suggest that the ranking, despite a couple of apparent anomalies, in the main, ranks teams where Brett(especially):) and most of us reckon they ought to be, and as you suggest any team that can string a few wins together (especially against teams with similar ranking) could quickly skip ahead of the bunch and close the gap to PNG a NZ.
Gives me confidence that the system is sound and with a few more games overall and by some of the teams we'll see those anomalies disappear.
The best test is seeing the higher ranked team win more often than not in each match.
Bring on more games I say :)
Cam

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN