All Blacks remain on world rugb's summit

New Zealand have extended their advantage over Australia at the top of the latest IRB World Rankings to 6.1 rating points following their 27-19 victory in the opening match of the Rugby Championship at ANZ Stadium on Saturday.
 

the table has the wallabies leading the Boks by 2.18 not 1.11???

All Blacks play ireland then sitting 8th and got zero points for any of their wins, cos All Blacks were too far ahead, but the Boks beat the 8th place pumas, and still get points.

only the All Blacks can maintain a monopoly of 80% being ranked No1 under the circumstances. its not easy being No1, just ask Boks and england who have been the only other countries to reach that rank, yet All Blacks have achieved it and held it 4 times longer then both of them combined. wowsers, o_O

keep up the good work All Blacks, ur doing all NZ proud. :)

 Thanks for this I think... Why exactly would their ranking be in question and need a full article?

I'm guessing it was a slow week for irb new staff...

There you go upsetting the natives again sasu.

Next thing boklogic will be saying it's only coz there's so many saffas in our country we're any good. Bean Brain will be saying you must of cheated , then harp on about some conspiracy theory before dashing off for his meds. Denny will be saying but your team is full of islander imports unlike his arstralian team .

Next  thing you'll try logging in and some funny yarpy will start bleating like a sheep.

Try to tone down your patriotic fervour abit mate coz some of the sensitive types around here only want you around here to massage their delicate egos.

I see the gap as 1.11, sasuke....

I really don't see any threat to that placing for at least another year. Aussies seem to be going a little backwards, and the SA's will need time to change the guard, and need time to close the gap.

You're a full 20 points better then my country. : |   :(

@brycy,

LMAO, nah the boys know to take my All Black passion with a grain of salt. its good to spread the word with a liottle mana, :)

@canrugby,

unfortunately its not what the Boks do thats going to change the gap, its what the All Blacks do, by which i mean the RWC where points are doubled. if say All Blacks dont win the next RWC and Boks do, then Boks get heaps of double points, its why the winners of the last 3 RWC have always finsihed at No1, but only the All Blacks for lack of better wording, have records in between RWC which reflect how a wugby world champion team should preform.

i see future All Blacks and Bok tests in the favour of the All blacks, it wont be domination, but it will be more then 60/40 in our favour and IMHO, All Blacks will be either No1 for ever or at worst temporarily dethroned before capturing it back in under a year.

despite the official rankings, i will always rate the All Blacks, Bokjs and wallabies as the best three rugby playing nations and in that order.

Sasuke, nothing is "FOREVER" so I'm not sure where you get  the idea that the AB's will be no. 1  forever!! The Boks dominated world rugby in the amateur days and had a clear advantage over the ABs for many years, but it came to an end in the professional era, so I think you should stop being so arrogant with your statements and enjoy the ride while it's there to have. Good luck to you and the ABs, stay humble my brother...

@green,

sorry my bru, but ur wrong, the All Blacks dominated world rugby in the amateur days, not the Springboks and im talking about amateur rugby before the aparthied era and amateur rugby after the aparthied era up to 1995.

i have posted the actual stats a number of times and will gladly do so again if u want it, but the short of it is this.
Boks had a better winnineg percentage wining in the 50% percentile against the All Blacks, but the All Blacks record vs the world Boks and everyone else was superior to the Boks vs the All Blacks and everyone else record.
FYI, see if u can find one tests series before the aparthied ban that had a neutral referee and not a saffa ref, u will be amazed at what u find.
fastfoward to neutral refs and more matches against each other and well 10 out of 16 trinat titles pretty much sums it up.

im not being arrogrant woth my opinions and u need to remember thats all they are my opinion, but the Boks have plenty of issues to work out and while neither one of us knows the future, IMO and my opinon only, im more confident about the All Blacks for the next 10 years then u boys are with the Boks in the same time frame. we might have a bad year, but the All Blacks record is the perfect posterchild for the term history repeating itself.
 

Sorry Sasuk, Springboks dominated world rugby before the ban, so I'm not sure where you got your stats from and to say that we did it because we mostly had SA refs is very sluggish of you mate. Problem here is try to stay humble when in front mate, not put your opponents down by trying to dicredit their achievements.

There are no stats prior to 1920, so lets look at the percentage wins of SA over NZ one decade at a time in the amateur era:

1920's: 50%

1930's: 66%

1940's: 100%

1950's: 25%

1960's: 43%

1970's: 75%

1980's: 33%

These are the games before the ban and I question the 1980's stats because they dont include the famous 1986 tour where we smashed the ABs. Robbie Deans was your fullback in that one.

Green , the Bok advantage in amateur days especially in SA had alot to do with "ahem" referee bias. Reason why neutral refs started to be used, then all of a sudden no Bok "advantage", hmm imagine that, wonder if there's a link.

Hello Polyboy and welcome to the forum.

During the amateur era referees never travelled overseas to ref games so it was always a local ref who took the whistle. In the stats above, about 50% of those games took place in NZ and had Kiwi refs, so just like Sasuk you are also dicrediting your opponents achievements with what amounts to poor sportsmanship as I see it.

 It has been proven that SA refs are the best in the world, and NZ coaches are the best in the World. So suggesting that SA refs are biased is bullshit. Pretty poor to be honest. So were the NZ referees suddenly better in the amateur era- I doubt it...

It is like some one questioning that the All Blacks have been the best team in the last 5 years. Hogwash

@green,

thats very true, 54% of the games in the aparthied era were played in SA, but ur wrong amateur era had plenty of neutral refs, especially after the british lions complained to their unions about calls made against them in a particular tour to SA.

and im not discredting the refs, im just saying that theres a correlation between the lack of neutral refs and the Boks admirable record and the neutral refs now and the Boks record which is not as good as iot once was.

and again green, ur wrong. i have said plenty of times that the Boks got the edge over us post aparthied ban, but the All Blacks dominated world rugby in that era.

prior to the sporting ban in 1981, here are the percentages of test matches won by ABs and Boks,,,

All Blacks - 69%
Springboks - 63%

Boks still had a good record, but All Blacks was better.

also, the All Blacks never toured SA in 1986, the black caviliers did, so ur record holds no water, cos ur country whack no players of colour law rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. the bulk of the players that went on that tour played in 1986, but NZ and more importantly the IRB have said that it wasnt the ABs.
 

@sharkbok,
NZ didnt always have poor refs, thats a trend of late, guess everyone in NZ would rather play rugby, lol.

and i never once said that NZ refs were better in the anateur era, but i have seen footage of an All Blacks tour to SA, the All Blacks capatin and Boks captain were talking to the ref who was speaking afrikaan, WTF??? o_O
dont know hwat they said, but i guess theres a possibilty that the ref didnt know NZers cant speak afrikaan.
im not saying that refs were biased back then, cos i dont know any more then u do. what i do know is that every captain of every country to tour SA have said it was one of the most hostile crowds around and i am assuming SA refs lived in SA. i know the implication of my words, but thats all it is, cos i got no proof to suggest otherwise.

just an opinion and a view is all it is my bru and each to their own, :)
 

Green,the "bias" ref comment may have been broad, and admit it was a bit of a dig.out of interest on another site's forum though every Bok loss is always attributed to ref bias against the Boks or the AB's are cheats, however one of the games I based this on was one of the first AB/Bok test I had watched in 1976, the 4th test which if the AB's had won would have tied the series 2 all. It was reffed by a South African ref who at a crucial point in the game awarded a penalty kick against the Boks for holding back an AB who was about to score a sure try, what should have been awarded was a penalty try and the ref had an unimpeded view.  It was said that even Danie Craven agreed a penalty try should have been awarded. The AB's lost 15-14. Not discreditting the Boks achievements of past, that 76 test is a standout in my rugby memory and was at a time when AB/Bok tests were the pinnacle of rugby esp. in NZ, so put it short, that ref pissed off a whole country.

Sharkbok I said or meant they "were bias" not "are bias", I agree that current SA refs are the best.