It has not even been a month and the dust has nearly settled. Congratulations to the Springboks, world Rugby Union champions, the world's No.1 team.  And deservedly so.

Richie McCaw and his All Blacks have relinquished their position and it does seem like a harsh reality. I have no doubt that South Africa are worthy champions - but do they really deserve the title of the world's premier side? Are the rankings a true reflection of status?

England dropped to as low as seventh during their World Cup reign. They lost 30 games after the 2003 World Cup (including the current final loss). Seven nations in the world have a better win/loss ratio over this period - yet England are now the fourth best team in the world.  This may not be fair considering their 2007 record but the fact is that they finished runners-up in the tournament.

'After the All Blacks' loss to France in the World Cup, the IRB ranking list experienced its biggest single move between two nations'


South Africa can lay a better claim to being the world's best team. Skipper Jon Smit's men hold the most impressive recent record against the All Blacks, the ledger is lopsided at three wins, six losses in recent games. The French, who would have been the Springboks' opponents but for the English, have lost only twice to South Africa in the new millennium, with five victories recorded - as well as a better overall record in the last four years. Yet South Africa are ranked as a superior nation.

The All Blacks have lost only 15 games since 2000, fewer than half the losses of any other nation in world rugby. Outside of the World Cup, most teams cannot beat them. Do they deserve to be ranked second in the world after this World Cup? The answer is yes.

The IRB has ranked teams for a few years now - and credit to them, it is a near impossible task. All things must be considered, including strength of teams and location, but a team's recent record against another team as well as an overall record is basically impossible to calculate.

A team accrues points with certain games, ranked between 0-100 points with the basic pretext of a team being ranked over 90 points being the best team in the world. Formulae are based on wins by 1-15 points, 15 points or more, or a draw. Home teams are handicapped by having a +3 rating, and after a series of calculations essentially when a team win they gain a set amount of points while the losers have the same number of points deducted.

The All Blacks at their peak, before the loss to the Wallabies, held 95.02 points - the highest a nation has ever had. They had a near 10-point buffer on any other team. They held the title as the world's No.1 side for 40 months. 

But ranking points are doubled during the World Cup. After the All Blacks' loss to France, the IRB ranking list experienced its biggest single move between two nations, with 3.78 ranking points being taken from the All Blacks (93.37 to 89.59) and the same being given to Les Bleus (84.5 to 88.27) 

In the last two games of the World Cup, Argentina's 34-10 thumping of France left Les Bleus reeling at sixth in the world, despite their victory over New Zealand - while the Pumas moved to third in the world, and deservedly so.

In the final, South Africa's 15-6 victory saw them take top spot in the world, while England hold fourth spot after astonishing everyone by reaching the final through sheer bloody-mindedness.

The All Blacks are a great team, but were eliminated in the quarter-finals despite being the most overwhelming favourites in World Cup history.  Even allowing for other quarter-final losers, this is at the best a fifth-place finish. I believe they lost simply because they tried too hard to play flowing rugby.

South Africa won seven straight games, and claimed the title in a similar fashion to the way any team wins a tournament - by making fewer mistakes, being intense in defence, keeping the ball away from their line and having a consistent team throughout the closing stages. They won simply because they played only to win, irrespective of the style in which the win was accomplished.  Ironically, this is how Martin Johnson's England won the World Cup four years ago.

It will be a demanding time for the new world champions, with an outgoing coach, senior players leaving South Africa and continued political interference. But the Springboks performed when it mattered, and by winning the World Cup, they proved themselves to be the world's No.1 team. 

(Rankings tables courtesy of IRB.com)

As of November 12, 2007

1 SOUTH AFRICA 90.81
2 NEW ZEALAND 89.59
3 ARGENTINA 87.42
4 ENGLAND 85.55
5 AUSTRALIA 84.20
6 FRANCE 80.32

As of October 1, 2007

1 NEW ZEALAND 93.38
2 AUSTRALIA 87.73
3 SOUTH AFRICA 86.44
4 ARGENTINA 85.78
5 FRANCE 84.63
6 ENGLAND 80.10