2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

Wurzel

Rowan, your "2023 SA World Cup" bid got shot to pieces by anyone and everyone on the T2 Forum last weekend so you've turned to a Kiwi-centric rugby message board in the hope to find some anti-European allies.
 
You are quite bizarre.

Crucial

I have no particular issue with SA having another tournament.
 
I do find the logic in the original post odd though. Questioning whether Rugby has cut the umbilical cord but then pumping for a well established rugby country.
 
If you applied the arguments correctly you would be promoting Argentina.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="554389" data-time="1453833109">
<div>
No offence but you're a crazy person if you don't think playing top tier teams on a consistent basis is a huge help for any team, even Italy. The idea that teams are just going to magically become world beaters in complete isolation is laughable. Argentina started their progression into where they're at now by getting their players into European domestic competitions and giving them a taste of top flight rugby and they've come on leaps and bounds since being included in the Rugby Championship, getting their first ever win against SA just last year.
 
Increasing the number to 24 teams increases the length of the tournament a whooping ONE week, while getting rid of the bullshit midweek short turnaround games. It'd be worth it even without increasing the number of teams.
 
Also, did you watch the 2015 RWC? I can't remember that many pumpings.
 
 
 
Should've really worked on your maths there ;)
 
2x12 = 24
3x8 = 24
4x6 = 24
 
Anyway, good premise. I'd like to see it expanded to 24 teams but as for hosting, I'd be fine with Italy, SA or Argentina hosting the next couple of RWCs, so long as their proposals were quality. I wouldn't mind Ireland hosting one solo, just make it a bit further down the line. It's ridiculous how many tournaments have been hosted in that part of the world.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
All of which would result in a protracted group stage and tournament. No, the 24-team should replicate the 1986 - 1994 FIFA World Cup model, with 6 groups of 4 teams. That transfers the emphasis to the knock-out stages, which would obviously include another round - 'Octavos,' in Spanish. What this means is that 4 of the 3rd-placed teams in the group stages would also progress. Too easy, you say? Maybe for the All Blacks & Springboks, but what a marvellous opportunity this would be for the likes of Japan & Georgia! In fact, this is precisely the format which brought the African teams through. Morocco became the first team from that continent ever to reach the knock-out stages of the FIFA World Cup in 1986, and was followed by Cameroon in 1990 (who made the quarters and, very nearly, reached the semis too) and Nigeria in 1994 (who destroyed two of the teams in their group on debut). Could a 24-team RWC lead to a similar 'revolution' in rugby?

booboo

Thank you Mr Oregan Hoskins. 
Wouldn't object to SA, Ireland or Italy hosting 2023. France is too soon. Would like to see Argentina and Canada put their hands up for a shot in the future (maybe a combined North American bid?). 
Not a fan of a 24 team tournament.

Derm McCrum

"Should it go to Ireland, that would also mean, technically-speaking, that the United Kingdom were involved to some degree in hosting the event for the fifth time, given at least a few of the games would be staged north of the border."
 
I read this and said to myself....... okay be patient. 
 
Then I read this: "I have no doubt Ireland, if awarded the event, would ship some of the games to Britain. They're promised a single-nation tournament, but we've heard that before, and Ireland is just too small. Of course, once they secure the event (supposing they do), there will be nothing anybody can do to stop them doing an about-face."
 
Why would you have no doubt that Ireland would ship some of the games to Britain?
 
They've promised a single-nation tournament? No, they've promised an all-island, dual nation tournament, given that the rugby structure is based on an all-island basis. 
 
Ireland is just too small? For what? Landing planes?

Turtle

If those are the countries that have bidded, then I'd prefer South Africa to host it

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="554444" data-time="1453858007">
<div>
"Should it go to Ireland, that would also mean, technically-speaking, that the United Kingdom were involved to some degree in hosting the event for the fifth time, given at least a few of the games would be staged north of the border."
 
I read this and said to myself....... okay be patient. 
 
Then I read this: "I have no doubt Ireland, if awarded the event, would ship some of the games to Britain. They're promised a single-nation tournament, but we've heard that before, and Ireland is just too small. Of course, once they secure the event (supposing they do), there will be nothing anybody can do to stop them doing an about-face."
 
Why would you have no doubt that Ireland would ship some of the games to Britain?
 
They've promised a single-nation tournament? No, they've promised an all-island, dual nation tournament, given that the rugby structure is based on an all-island basis. 
 
Ireland is just too small? For what? Landing planes?
</div>
</blockquote>
beating New Zealand
 
I would really like someone new to get it, preferably Argentina, but Italy would be good too. But if SA can put together a decent bid, then no reason they shouldn't hold another one. 
 
I actually wouldn't care if they kept the 20-team format for a while yet. I would prefer they made more of a 2nd tier comp for the other emerging nations to play in, with the winner getting a guaranteed spot in the main cup.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554382" data-time="1453813489">
<div>
Argentina didn't bid. I personally think SA had a better case than NZ in 2011 and England 2015. NZ were actually axed as co-host just 8 years before they hosted it. England has been involved in hosting - and co-hosting - it before. I have no doubt Ireland, if awarded the event, would ship some of the games to Britain. They're promised a single-nation tournament, but we've heard that before, and Ireland is just too small. Of course, once they secure the event (supposing they do), there will be nothing anybody can do to stop them doing an about-face. No doubt Wales would end up playing its World Cup games at home yet again.
 
Re expansion: A 24 team tournament could actually be played in a shorter time-frame than a 20-team format. That is because 4-team groups can be completed in just over a week with 3 simultaneous rounds. 5-team groups require 4 rounds with unequal scheduling, and require almost 3 weeks to complete. So, even with the extra round of sudden death games, a 24-team tournament would be quicker. It would also entail just 4 more games, 52 instead of 48. I also had my concerns in 99 when the event was expanded from 16 to 20, but one of the beneficiaries was Georgia, & just look at how they've come along - nearly beating Ireland in 2007 and picking up 2 wins last year.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but in an interview Jock Hobbs talked about the South African bid and he said said their presentation and plan was so amateurish he felt embarrassed for them.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Wurzel" data-cid="554390" data-time="1453833567">
<div>
Rowan, your "2023 SA World Cup" bid got shot to pieces by anyone and everyone on the T2 Forum last weekend so you've turned to a Kiwi-centric rugby message board in the hope to find some anti-European allies.
 
You are quite bizarre.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I just read this thread, his posts reminded me of someone formerly of Levin.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554471" data-time="1453868669">I just read this thread, his posts reminded me of someone formerly of Levin.</blockquote>
 
Carlos Spencer is a ferner?

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="554473" data-time="1453869259">
<div>
Carlos Spencer is a ferner?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
No, unfortunately. 
 
A man with a penchant for sewing machines .

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554475" data-time="1453869611">No, unfortunately. 
 
A man with a penchant for sewing machines .</blockquote>
 
You've lost me

mooshld

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="554389" data-time="1453833109">
<div>
No offence but you're a crazy person if you don't think playing top tier teams on a consistent basis is a huge help for any team, even Italy. The idea that teams are just going to magically become world beaters in complete isolation is laughable. Argentina started their progression into where they're at now by getting their players into European domestic competitions and giving them a taste of top flight rugby and they've come on leaps and bounds since being included in the Rugby Championship, getting their first ever win against SA just last year.
 
Increasing the number to 24 teams increases the length of the tournament a whooping ONE week, while getting rid of the bullshit midweek short turnaround games. It'd be worth it even without increasing the number of teams.
 
Also, did you watch the 2015 RWC? I can't remember that many pumpings.
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That wasn't what I said at all. What I said is that increased exposure to tier 1 teams is no guarantee to improve the quality of rugby. Example Italy and Argentina, One has much more exposure yet has not really progressed the other has recently had more exposure and has progressed massively. So it must be something else that is causing it. I don't know what it is but there is more to it then just regular games against better opposition. 
 
Oh and in the last world cup
 
Aussie beat Uruguay by 65-3
Saffers beat USA 64 - 0
Argentina beat Namibia 64 -19
 
All of those are hidings, considering the tier 1 teams did not even roll out their top teams.

booboo

NZ beat France 62-13 ...

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="554444" data-time="1453858007">
<div>
"Should it go to Ireland, that would also mean, technically-speaking, that the United Kingdom were involved to some degree in hosting the event for the fifth time, given at least a few of the games would be staged north of the border."
 
I read this and said to myself....... okay be patient. 
 
Then I read this: "I have no doubt Ireland, if awarded the event, would ship some of the games to Britain. They're promised a single-nation tournament, but we've heard that before, and Ireland is just too small. Of course, once they secure the event (supposing they do), there will be nothing anybody can do to stop them doing an about-face."
 
Why would you have no doubt that Ireland would ship some of the games to Britain?
 
They've promised a single-nation tournament? No, they've promised an all-island, dual nation tournament, given that the rugby structure is based on an all-island basis. 
 
Ireland is just too small? For what? Landing planes?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Too small to host a 20-team rugby World Cup - obviously. Geographically it's about half the size of New Zealand's South Island. There are only two major cities, including Belfast in Northern Ireland. & if the tournament is expanded, as World Rugby itself has suggested it may be, then forget it. That's why I have no doubt Ireland would ship some of the games to Britain - possibly as many as half, were it expanded.

Rowan

"I actually wouldn't care if they kept the 20-team format for a while yet. I would prefer they made more of a 2nd tier comp for the other emerging nations to play in, with the winner getting a guaranteed spot in the main cup. "
 
They already have. It's called a repechage tournament.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554470" data-time="1453868264">
<div>
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but in an interview Jock Hobbs talked about the South African bid and he said said their presentation and plan was so amateurish he felt embarrassed for them. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Well, Jock Hobbs was a Kiwi, so we can take it in that context. I actually knew the guy. RIP.

jegga

Why is its geographical size a disadvantage ? Surely that would be an advantage for fans following their team? 
Also you said a Ireland is too small wet and cold, I think South Africa is too big dry and hot .

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mooshld" data-cid="554500" data-time="1453883960">
<div>
That wasn't what I said at all. What I said is that increased exposure to tier 1 teams is no guarantee to improve the quality of rugby. Example Italy and Argentina, One has much more exposure yet has not really progressed the other has recently had more exposure and has progressed massively. So it must be something else that is causing it. I don't know what it is but there is more to it then just regular games against better opposition. 
 
Oh and in the last world cup
 
Aussie beat Uruguay by 65-3
Saffers beat USA 64 - 0
Argentina beat Namibia 64 -19
 
All of those are hidings, considering the tier 1 teams did not even roll out their top teams.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
& Japan beat South Africa

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554514" data-time="1453886823">Well, Jock Hobbs was a Kiwi, so we can take it in that context. I actually knew the guy. RIP.</blockquote>
 
What context? Can you explain how the SA bid was better?

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa