2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa
-
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="554389" data-time="1453833109">
<div>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also, did you watch the 2015 RWC? I can't remember that many pumpings.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Oh and in the last world cup</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Aussie beat Uruguay by 65-3</p>
<p>Saffers beat USA 64 - 0</p>
<p>Argentina beat Namibia 64 -19</p>
<p> </p>
<p>All of those are hidings, considering the tier 1 teams did not even roll out their top teams.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="554444" data-time="1453858007">
<div>
<p>"<span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:HelveticaNeue;">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."</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:HelveticaNeue;">I read this and said to myself....... okay be patient. </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:HelveticaNeue;">Then I read this: "</span><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">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."</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Why would you have no doubt that Ireland would ship some of the games to Britain?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ireland is just too small? For what? Landing planes?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"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. "</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>They already have. It's called a repechage tournament.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554470" data-time="1453868264">
<div>
<p>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. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Well, Jock Hobbs was a Kiwi, so we can take it in that context. I actually knew the guy. RIP.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mooshld" data-cid="554500" data-time="1453883960">
<div>
<p>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. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Oh and in the last world cup</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Aussie beat Uruguay by 65-3</p>
<p>Saffers beat USA 64 - 0</p>
<p>Argentina beat Namibia 64 -19</p>
<p> </p>
<p>All of those are hidings, considering the tier 1 teams did not even roll out their top teams.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>& Japan beat South Africa</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554514" data-time="1453886823"><p>Well, Jock Hobbs was a Kiwi, so we can take it in that context. I actually knew the guy. RIP.</p></blockquote>
<br>
What context? Can you explain how the SA bid was better? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554518" data-time="1453887009">
<div>
<p>What context? Can you explain how the SA bid was better?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>It's just a better country to stage it in, with bigger and better stadiums, much larger population & TV market - almost on the same time zone as the British Isles, better weather conditions, and a whole lot more to do for the travelling fans.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"<span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Why is its geographical size a disadvantage ? "</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Would you stage it in Samoa then?</span></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554520" data-time="1453887182"><p>It's just a better country to stage it in, with bigger and better stadiums, much larger population & TV market - almost on the same time zone as the British Isles, better weather conditions, and a whole lot more to do for the travelling fans.<br>
<br>
"<span style="color:#282828;"><span style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Why is its geographical size a disadvantage ? "</span></span><br>
<br><span style="color:#282828;"><span style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Would you stage it in Samoa then?</span></span></p></blockquote>
<br>
So you don't know how the SA bid was better than NZs then? Probably best you stop claiming it then.<br><br>
The Samoa comment is silly, it makes your argument look even weaker. -
Who is this retard?
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554520" data-time="1453887182"><p>It's just a better country to stage it in, with bigger and better stadiums, much larger population & TV market - almost on the same time zone as the British Isles, better weather conditions, and a whole lot more to do for the travelling fans.<br>
<br>
"<span style="color:#282828;"><span style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Why is its geographical size a disadvantage ? "</span></span><br>
<br><span style="color:#282828;"><span style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Would you stage it in Samoa then?</span></span></p></blockquote>
<br>
Pffffft, if you've been to one Safari you've been to them all -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="554527" data-time="1453888781"><p>Pffffft, if you've been to one Safari you've been to them all</p></blockquote>
<br>
Don't forget the endless opportunities to be the victim of a serious crime as well . <br>
I don't think it sends a particularly good message to SAs union giving them a rwc considering their idiot behaviour . -
<p>I get that we have to expand the game but I don't know if a 24 team World Cup is the right way to do that. I would like to keep it as a 20 team World Cup but everyone has to qualify. That way you would give the developing nations the chance to play the top tier nations more than once every four years. What we need to do now is to make sure that a team like Georgia has the opportunity to become like Argentina. I think that is more pertinent than expanding to 24 teams. In saying that, we will probably have to expand the tournament at some stage. I just don't think we will be there yet in 2023.</p>
-
Anyone have any theories why Argentina has progressed and Italy are still fairly rubbish after 16 years in the 6n? They don't really do much for the theory that playing top teams on a regular basis helps lift a team, they aren't short of cash either or shy about poaching players .
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554513" data-time="1453886732"><p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);"><span style="font-family:helvetica;">"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. "</span></span><br><br>
They already have. It's called a repechage tournament.</p></blockquote>
<br>
No.<br><br>
The repecharge is to find the last, lowest level of qualifiers after the automatic qualifiers and then the reginsl qualifiers.<br><br>
I agree with Mariner. Definitely scope for a second tier tourney running parallel with the Cup knockouts.<br><br>
No need for 24 teams. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="554543" data-time="1453891651">
<div>
<p>No.<br><br>
The repecharge is to find the last, lowest level of qualifiers after the automatic qualifiers and then the reginsl qualifiers.<br><br>
I agree with Mariner. Definitely scope for a second tier tourney running parallel with the Cup knockouts.<br><br>
No need for 24 teams.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Something similar to the sevens with a plate comp? 24 teams is too many, there'd be some real dross there.</p>
