One result this weekend has an effect on the ladder:
2005-04-16 Uruguay 24 Japan 18 (Montevideo)
1 France 2 Wales 3 Ireland 4 Australia 5 England 6 South Africa 7 Argentina 8 New Zealand 9 Georgia 10 Romania 11 Scotland 12 Italy 13 Fiji 14 Uruguay 15 Japan 16 Canada 17 USA 18 Samoa 19 Tonga
Uruguay climb four places to 14th, pushing Japan, Canada, USA and Samoa all down one place.
EXPLANATION OF RSRU LADDER:
Teams (including those not currently ranked) beating a nation above them in the ladder take their place, pushing all teams previously ranked higher down by one place. The initial placings were based on performance in the 1999 Rugby World Cup, although enough matches have taken place since then that the ladder would be exactly the same whatever the starting order.
Charlie
-- Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs
On 19 Apr 2005 03:03:15 -0700, "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote:
1 France>2 Wales>3 Ireland>4 Australia>5 England>6 South Africa>7 Argentina>8 New Zealand>
If NZ beat the Lions do they automatically jump to 2nd?! Or maybe>we should allow them a fraction of a win over each country based on the>number of players included in the Lions starting line-up from that>country.
What's the playing order for the remainder of the year? Who are Frances next few opponents?
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:41:28 +1200, TomV <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 03:03:15 -0700, "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de>>wrote:>
1 France>>2 Wales>>3 Ireland>>4 Australia>>5 England>>6 South Africa>>7 Argentina>>8 New Zealand>>
If NZ beat the Lions do they automatically jump to 2nd?! Or maybe>>we should allow them a fraction of a win over each country based on the>>number of players included in the Lions starting line-up from that>>country. >
What's the playing order for the remainder of the year? Who are>Frances next few opponents?>
"Myk Cameron" <aqb@image.co.nz> wrote in message news:tsq961tvkdiu9208436cnj21ae9uj1a8ce@4ax.com...> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:41:28 +1200, TomV <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz>> wrote:>
On 19 Apr 2005 03:03:15 -0700, "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de>>>wrote:>>
1 France>>>2 Wales>>>3 Ireland>>>4 Australia>>>5 England>>>6 South Africa>>>7 Argentina>>>8 New Zealand>>>
If NZ beat the Lions do they automatically jump to 2nd?! Or maybe>>>we should allow them a fraction of a win over each country based on the>>>number of players included in the Lions starting line-up from that>>>country.>>
What's the playing order for the remainder of the year? Who are>>Frances next few opponents?>>
That has a certain poetry about it doesn't it? Grand Slam busters AND> going top of the RSRU ladder - surely that's motivation enough for any> England side? (Assuming nobody else busts their GS first of course.)
As much as I admire your endless cheerleading for NZ Dave, isn't it a bit presumptious to assume NZ will be top of the ladder in Nov?
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:58:09 +0100, Sean Byrne <byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com> wrote:
19 Nov All Blacks v England London>>
That has a certain poetry about it doesn't it? Grand Slam busters AND>> going top of the RSRU ladder - surely that's motivation enough for any>> England side? (Assuming nobody else busts their GS first of course.)>
As much as I admire your endless cheerleading for NZ Dave, isn't it a>bit presumptious to assume NZ will be top of the ladder in Nov?
Based on who France is playing, I don;t think we can make top of the ladder this year.
Uncle Dave wrote:> 19 Nov All Blacks v England London>
That has a certain poetry about it doesn't it? Grand Slam busters AND> going top of the RSRU ladder - surely that's motivation enough for any> England side? (Assuming nobody else busts their GS first of course.)
Dave Dave Dave. It's just another end of season junket. The All Blacks will be over there to drink your beer, shag your daughters and trash your hotel rooms. The rugby is barely relevant.
If we win, you must be fucking hopeless, and if we lose, it was just a meaningless one-off end of season junket.
Uncle Dave wrote:> <As much as I admire your endless cheerleading for NZ Dave, isn't it a> bit presumptious to assume NZ will be top of the ladder in Nov?>>
I kind of took that as a given. They are, after all, unbeaten in, oh,> it must be 2 or 3 games now. Which was enough in 2003 to make them hot> favourites for the RWC and is more than enough to make them hot> favourites to top the table come the autumn. Even Rick reckons they're> hot hot hot so I just got carried along. Sorry...
Is that the same Rick that recokons they're fucking inconsistent and it depends which team turns up on the day?
Surely the big thing about inconsistency is that you *can* predict it?> If you couldn't then it wouldn't be inconsistent would it? It's the> very fact that it's inconsistent which gives it its consistency, ergo,> to be inconsistrent is to be consistently inconsistent.
Oh yes, if you want to be semantically difficult. The old "the only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency".
Or incoherent in your case. Followed by incontinent.
Ah, I see the Davian logic in this. Will any words beginning with 'in' do? Like invincible, incredible and inimitable?
