2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554528" data-time="1453889023">
<div>
Don't forget the endless opportunities to be the victim of a serious crime as well . 
I don't think it sends a particularly good message to SAs union giving them a rwc considering their idiot behaviour .
</div>
</blockquote>
 
So you wouldn't hold it America either then? You know, they have that massive gun control problem . . .
 
Actually, South Africa already holds an annual international 7s tournament without everybody getting mugged, and crime wasn't a problem for the FIFA World Cup there either.
 
Can you elaborate on your comment about the SA union's behavior? You men their sluggish approach to transition or something?

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554558" data-time="1453894640">"So you don't know how the SA bid was better than NZs then? Probably best you stop claiming it then." 
That's a very haughty attitude to take. Are we not entitled to express opinions here then? It's a long time ago since the 2011 tournament was awarded to NZ, and I don't recall the finer details, I'm afraid, but I distinctly recall the South Africa bid appeared superior to me. What I do know are the comments I expressed above, which you failed to address in your response. "The Samoa comment is silly, it makes your argument look even weaker." 
No, it's your dismissive attitude which comes across as silly. It's a perfectly fair comment I made; the point being, where would you draw the line with small nation tournaments? Ireland is geographically tiny and the weather conditions are not conducive to the open, expansive brand of rugby most of us would like to see - and which we did see in South Africa in 1995. As mentioned, there are only two major cities and a limited number of stadiums - almost none of which would be rugby purpose stadiums. South Africa, meanwile, not only has among the best rugby purpose stadiums on the planet, it also has a vast array of football stadiums, many of which were upgraded for the 2020 FIFA World Cup. It also has a population of 50 million, and geographical dimensions which are about perfect for a World Cup tournament - which loads to do for the travelling fan.</blockquote>
 
The Samoa comment was idiotic Rowan. Completely unrelated issues of population and geographical size. 
Wouldn't Ireland have similar weather/climate (apparently there is a distinction) to England? Shit dour footy at RWC 2015 wasn't it? Wasn't it? 
2010 FWC

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="554533" data-time="1453890596">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
World Rugby itself has mentioned expansion. This isn't coming from me, though I do support it. Yes, as mentioned in my original post, much work needs to be done in the interim. What stands in the way of a more global rugby circuit are the closed-shop elite tournaments and the stratification of nations through tiers.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554539" data-time="1453890916">
<div>
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 .
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Italy has actually come a long way since the amateur age. Remember that as recently as 1999 they conceded a ton against the All Blacks and lost to Tonga at the World Cup. During much of their involvement in FIRA competition during the 20th century they generally played second fiddle to Romania, and sometimes third to the USSR. In fact, they never actually won the competition until their final year of involvement!! Now they are consistent, at least, and averaging about a win a year in the 6 Nations, having defeating all the other teams bar England. It took France a couple of decades to get up to speed after joining the 5 Nations, let's not forget. Argentina, on the other hand, has been a respectable force since the 1960s, & began to really threaten the heirarchy in the 80s (beat the Boks in SA disguised as the Jaguars, drew with NZ and very nearly snatched victory in the dying moments, thrashed the Wallabies in Aussie, beat France and all the Celtic teams). So I don't think we can really compare the two.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="554543" data-time="1453891651">
<div>
No. 
The repecharge is to find the last, lowest level of qualifiers after the automatic qualifiers and then the reginsl qualifiers. 
I agree with Mariner. Definitely scope for a second tier tourney running parallel with the Cup knockouts. 
No need for 24 teams.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I know. But it's been turned into a 4-team competition now. Isn't that what you mean? It could grow in the future, of course.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="554560" data-time="1453895013">
<div>
The Samoa comment was idiotic Rowan. Completely unrelated issues of population and geographical size. 
Wouldn't Ireland have similar weather/climate (apparently there is a distinction) to England? Shit dour footy at RWC 2015 wasn't it? Wasn't it? 
2010 FWC
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The Samoa comment was perfectly relevant. You're talking about small nations and I want to know where you draw the line. How about Fiji then? They've got a 25,000 seater stadium in Suva.
 
Dublin and Belfast - Ireland's only two major cities - have much worse weather than much of England, including London. It's more comparable to the north of England, Manchester, Newcastle and all. During the winter it's all dark by mid-afternoon. Pretty dreary place to hold a World Cup, in my view.

Rowan

"Oh and Rowan, I think your proposed structure for a 24 team tournament sucks. Adding four teams would extend the tournament by a whooping one week, that's hardly protracted."
 
It would actually be about a week shorter. 4-team groups entail three similtaneous rounds, so can be played in just over a week with one midweek round. Let's say, a Saturday-Wednesday-Sunday schedule, for example. Then a week for each of the knock-out rounds gives us a 5-week tournament. A 20-team tournament requires 6 weeks to complete, including 3 weeks for the group stages because the four rounds cannot be played simultaneously due to uneven numbers. The controversy surrounding unequal scheduling is one of the reasons World Rugby is looking at expansion.
 
The group stages produce few surprises (a few notable exceptions, of course) and many one-sided encounters. In a 20-team tournament this goes on for about 3 weeks, half the tournament, and becomes a little tedious. In a 24-team tournament the group stages would be done and dusted in just over a week, and the rest of the tournament would entail sudden-death encounters between more evenly matched teams.

antipodean

Given the weather, what makes you think it would be held in winter? The fact the last RWC was? Oh wait. Your Samoa analogy is perfect, or would be if Ireland didn't have 24 time the population of Samoa, or 12 times the GDP per capita.

mooshld

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="554511" data-time="1453886099">
<div>
NZ beat France 62-13 ... :)
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yes I know but even though that was a pasting France are very much a tier 1 team. 
 
Normally.

Disgusted of TW

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554539" data-time="1453890916">
<div>
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 .
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554562" data-time="1453895439">
<div>
Italy has actually come a long way since the amateur age. Remember that as recently as 1999 they conceded a ton against the All Blacks and lost to Tonga at the World Cup. During much of their involvement in FIRA competition during the 20th century they generally played second fiddle to Romania, and sometimes third to the USSR. In fact, they never actually won the competition until their final year of involvement!! Now they are consistent, at least, and averaging about a win a year in the 6 Nations, having defeating all the other teams bar England. It took France a couple of decades to get up to speed after joining the 5 Nations, let's not forget. Argentina, on the other hand, has been a respectable force since the 1960s, & began to really threaten the heirarchy in the 80s (beat the Boks in SA disguised as the Jaguars, drew with NZ and very nearly snatched victory in the dying moments, thrashed the Wallabies in Aussie, beat France and all the Celtic teams). So I don't think we can really compare the two.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Agreed that it's not a like with like comparison. First, maybe a minor point, but arguably Argentina had more rugby DNA than Italy (the offspring of rugby playing British immigrants were heavily represented in early teams). Of course, Argentina's forwards were pretty handy already prior to the RWC era. I'm not sure why the national focus seems to have been on forwards, but as a result Argentina produced decent gnarly/nasty packs for a long time, with the occasional outstanding halfback (e.g. Porta, Dominguez) able to capitalise on the bajada platform. Not pretty, but effective. What they lacked in my view was world class backs, but the sevens programme really seems to have raised skill levels across both sevens and fifteens. Undoubtedly the exposure of the top players to European club rugby from 95 onwards made a difference, and the exposure of the latest generation to the RC has helped consolidate all of those elements into a much more formidable team than Italy.

mooshld

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554517" data-time="1453886972">
<div>
& Japan beat South Africa
</div>
</blockquote>
How is that relevant.
 
Think of the worst team in the last world cup. You are advocating having 4 more teams worse then them. For whose benefit is that? At that level most of the players are amateur would their unions even be able to afford the cost of sending them to another country for a month.

mooshld

Ireland have more and better stadiums then NZ did. <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_in_Ireland_by_capacity'>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_in_Ireland_by_capacity</a> They have 25 stadiums with a capacity over 20K how many do they need? 10 tops?
 
Geographical size is irrelevant. Its not like the fans won't fit.
 
Only 2 major ciities, except for Cork and Limerick and Galway.
 
The weather will suck, well guess what, its rugby not beach volleyball, who cares what the weather is like.

Derm McCrum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554558" data-time="1453894640">
That's a very haughty attitude to take. Are we not entitled to express opinions here then? 
it's your dismissive attitude which comes across as silly. It's a perfectly fair comment I made; the point being, where would you draw the line with small nation tournaments? Ireland is geographically tiny and the weather conditions are not conducive to the open, expansive brand of rugby most of us would like to see - and which we did see in South Africa in 1995. As mentioned, there are only two major cities and a limited number of stadiums - almost none of which would be rugby purpose stadiums. .</blockquote>
 
You don't see the irony (hypocrisy) in castigating others for being haughty and dismissive, whilst assessing other contending countries bids with comments like, it's tiny, only two cities, too dreary, etc, etc. 
It might be useful if you actually had some facts or personal experience to support your assertions.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554558" data-time="1453894640">"So you don't know how the SA bid was better than NZs then? Probably best you stop claiming it then." 
That's a very haughty attitude to take. Are we not entitled to express opinions here then? It's a long time ago since the 2011 tournament was awarded to NZ, and I don't recall the finer details, I'm afraid, but I distinctly recall the South Africa bid appeared superior to me. What I do know are the comments I expressed above, which you failed to address in your response. "The Samoa comment is silly, it makes your argument look even weaker." 
No, it's your dismissive attitude which comes across as silly. It's a perfectly fair comment I made; the point being, where would you draw the line with small nation tournaments? Ireland is geographically tiny and the weather conditions are not conducive to the open, expansive brand of rugby most of us would like to see - and which we did see in South Africa in 1995. As mentioned, there are only two major cities and a limited number of stadiums - almost none of which would be rugby purpose stadiums. South Africa, meanwile, not only has among the best rugby purpose stadiums on the planet, it also has a vast array of football stadiums, many of which were upgraded for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. It also has a population of 50 million, and geographical dimensions which are about perfect for a World Cup tournament - which loads to do for the travelling fan.</blockquote>
 
It's not haughty at all to ask you substantiate a claim, you couldn't which suggests you have no idea how and why the SA bid was better.thd irb certainly didn't think their bid was better and that's what counted. I'm interested in why you say South Africa's size is an advantage, I disagree that a larger country is better for the touring fan. 
The Samoa comment was childish and a number of other posters have pointed out to what silly thing it was to say. Samoa are completely incapable of holding a rwc while Ireland are. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Ireland bidding , no idea why .

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554559" data-time="1453894904">
So you wouldn't hold it America either then? You know, they have that massive gun control problem . . . 
Actually, South Africa already holds an annual international 7s tournament without everybody getting mugged, and crime wasn't a problem for the FIFA World Cup there either. 
Can you elaborate on your comment about the SA union's behavior? You men their sluggish approach to transition or something?</blockquote>
 
Once again another couple of silly childish comparisons, South Africa is known for a horrific crime rate . One sevens tournament over a weekend is not the same as a rwc. But as you seem to like drifting away from the point because you might have to substantiate your otherworldly claims , in comparison to SA Ireland is the safer option for fans to visit. Are you going to argue otherwise? 
I'd prefer they didn't try and " transition " the team at all and let the best springbok team take the field regardless of the colour of their skin. 
Personally it doesn't bother me who gets it but if you're going to make claims about who should get it and why you should be able to back them up with facts . Calling someone haughty for saying you shouldn't be claiming something you can't prove is true is very childish .

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="554389" data-time="1453833109">
<div>
Should've really worked on your maths there ;)
 
2x12 = 24
3x8 = 24
4x6 = 24
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You are of course missing 1 group of 24!
 
None of those options work as the protract an already unnecessarily long tournament, if you go about jamming an additional midweek fixture into the current schedule - that is fine - but expect injuries to make the quarterfinals onwards more of a crapshoot.
 
I would rather we hold off until we can expand to 32 - hopefully - at some point giving us an additional knockout round just like the FIFA World Cup.

Smudge

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554471" data-time="1453868669">
<div>
I just read this thread, his posts reminded me of someone formerly of Levin.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Gooo, gooo, gaaa gaaaa, gee aren't you clever?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(I hope jegga understands that, otherwise I'm going to look like a tool. Well, more of one than usual).

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Smudge" data-cid="554604" data-time="1453926629">[font='courier new', courier, monospace]Gooo, gooo, gaaa gaaaa, gee aren't you clever?[/font] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(I hope jegga understands that, otherwise I'm going to look like a tool. Well, more of one than usual).</blockquote>
 
No idea what you're talking about at all. 
Not interested in the RQ business started by the usual suspects.

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="554555" data-time="1453894344">
<div>
I take issue with "still". I recall them being the strongest of the Home Unions. Admittedly it was the 80s ... 
It's about structure, style, management, governance, development.
</div>
</blockquote>
It's been over 26 years booboo, it's time to let the 80s go.
 
Agreed on the second bit though. I was trying to think of all the different factors last night but I think you got the most important ones.
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554568" data-time="1453896842">
<div>
"Oh and Rowan, I think your proposed structure for a 24 team tournament sucks. Adding four teams would extend the tournament by a whooping one week, that's hardly protracted."
 
It would actually be about a week shorter. 4-team groups entail three similtaneous rounds, so can be played in just over a week with one midweek round. Let's say, a Saturday-Wednesday-Sunday schedule, for example. Then a week for each of the knock-out rounds gives us a 5-week tournament. A 20-team tournament requires 6 weeks to complete, including 3 weeks for the group stages because the four rounds cannot be played simultaneously due to uneven numbers. The controversy surrounding unequal scheduling is one of the reasons World Rugby is looking at expansion.
 
The group stages produce few surprises (a few notable exceptions, of course) and many one-sided encounters. In a 20-team tournament this goes on for about 3 weeks, half the tournament, and becomes a little tedious. In a 24-team tournament the group stages would be done and dusted in just over a week, and the rest of the tournament would entail sudden-death encounters between more evenly matched teams.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I meant adding four teams to the current structure would only add one week.
 
Also, your structure sucks even harder now that you've gone into it. 3 games in 9 days?! What the fuck's the point of even adding 4 new teams if you're going to send them back home a week and half later? On top of that, you'd be getting rid of some fantastic games like Georgia vs Tonga and Romania vs Canada by splitting those teams up into different pools. May as well just say fuck it, get rid of the minnows entirely and start at the sudden-death stage at that point.
 
Oh and I agree with everyone else that comparing Ireland to Samoa or Fiji of all countries is laughable.

taniwharugby

it's like there are 2 threads going on in here....

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa