2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

Derm McCrum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="554776" data-time="1453959796">
<div>
Growing in terms of money maybe, not the quality of the rugby. 2015 was by far the best yet in that regard, whereas 1999 and 2007 were the absolute worst and you can only try and blame one of those on 5 team groups.
 
As someone who was living in New Zealand during the 2011 RWC, I can assure you that 20 rugby teams didn't fill up the entire South Island or even the North Island, there was plenty of space left over. So don't worry your little head over that detail, Ireland isn't going to sink under the weight of 1000 odd rugby players, coaches and management.
 
What's your next argument? Dick measuring contest?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It's obviously a 'big' question in South Africa - <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://gq.co.za/2015/08/penis-size-gq-answer/'>http://gq.co.za/2015/08/penis-size-gq-answer/</a>
 
Think Ireland might have to give in on that one - we're learning to accept that size isn't everything.

mooshld

Its like Rowan thinks all these players will be shoulder to shoulder, bunking down 6 to a room. Forgetting that around 6 to 7 million people visit Ireland every year. If you can't find something to do in Ireland then your not trying very hard.
 
I feel like both countries would be suitable and its just down to who puts together the best proposal. 
 
In summation 
 
Stadiums.
Yes South Africa has more seating and its newer. But Ireland's is perfectly sufficient.
 
Weather.
Its rugby no one cares about the weather.
 
Geographical size.
Don't stress everyone will fit without anyone having to stand in the Irish sea. Some people prefer to tour in a more accessible country ( Read smaller ) some people like to travel hundreds of miles.
 
Geographical location.
Ireland is closer to where the money is.
 
So I am sorry Rowan its not a given that South Africa deserve this tournament. You will have to actually put the work in and go out and win it.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="554722" data-time="1453948354">
<div>
1. 99 had 4 team pools and was an abortion 
2. Seriously with the size of the land mass? Weird
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I thought 99 was fine. Kiwis are perhaps still having nightmares about the semi. There was criticism, agreed, but it was about the second round playoff system which entail 6 teams playing for the remaining quarter final spots, while the five direct qualifiers sat around twiddling their thumbs. It had nothing to do with the 4-team pools. They were perfectly efficient at the first four World Cups, and the "abortion" arrived with 5-team groups and uneven scheduling.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="554726" data-time="1453948962">
<div>
Rowan - let's start with your personal knowledge. 
Have you lived in South Africa and for how long? 
I was there for three weeks - once. In Cape Town. That's the total sum of my personal experience of the entire country. 
You say you've been to Ireland. For how long and what time of the year and where did you stay?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I've been to southern Africa but not South Africa itself. I've been to Ireland, yes.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Immenso Rapido" data-cid="554728" data-time="1453949341">
<div>
Actually the Saffas v USA game would be an example of why expanding would be a good idea. USA put out their reserves due to a short turnaround because of the odd number of teams in a pool.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Good observation

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="554751" data-time="1453954498">
<div>
But given that England and France have never hosted it on their own, what makes you think that Ireland will?
 
There's just no evidence to suggest that any home union will host the thing solo - why argue differently?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
No way Ireland would host it solo. They put that in their prospectus but it's more blatant than the Trojan horse.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554755" data-time="1453955082">
<div>
Rowan is claiming it wont all be in Ireland because some of the games will be played in Northern Ireland, not because they might be played in the England Scotland or Wales. Thats quite a different slant.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
In your imagination, perhaps. 
 
What I've actually suggested is that Ireland, once awarded the tournament, will almost certainly ship a bunch of games to Britain.
 
An all-Ireland tournament would be a one nation event, of course. If it must be in Ireland, that's the only way to go. But Northern Ireland is part of the UK, which has already been involved in hosting the World Cup 4 times. I think you confused this comment with the above comment.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="554776" data-time="1453959796">
<div>
Growing in terms of money maybe, not the quality of the rugby. 2015 was by far the best yet in that regard, whereas 1999 and 2007 were the absolute worst and you can only try and blame one of those on 5 team groups.
 
As someone who was living in New Zealand during the 2011 RWC, I can assure you that 20 rugby teams didn't fill up the entire South Island or even the North Island, there was plenty of space left over. So don't worry your little head over that detail, Ireland isn't going to sink under the weight of 1000 odd rugby players, coaches and management.
 
What's your next argument? Dick measuring contest?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Ireland is less than a third the size of New Zealand geographically. Why didn't you just compare it to Australia? There's no logic in your analogy at all.
 
Most outsiders would regard the 2011 RWC is perhaps the worst so far, with the possible exception of 1991.

Catogrande

1999 was a cock-up, no doubt about it. I also think that the format for the 2015 competition was unfair for some due to the scheduling. Oddly enough it seemed OK for most of the Tier 1 Nations, which pretty much stunk things up for me. So whether it stays as a 20 team comp or gets expanded, the format needs to be tweaked.
 
Getting into the Ireland v SA debate. For sure SA have more and bigger stadia than Ireland but I would question whether or not this is a particular issue. In the last RWC there were only 5 of the stadia that had capacity for more than 50K and these were not always sell outs. Id suggest that with the stadia Ireland already have AND with 7 years to make any improvements deemed necessary this should not be a problem. Geographically Ireland is almost ideal for the tournament. Everywhere is accessible from everywhere, there would not have to be too much decamping from one overnight stay to another and you can pretty much follow your team or any/all teams from anywhere. Bloody great news.
 
Is there much to see and do in Ireland? The simple answer is yes. From what I have seen it is a beautiful country with a rich history and some stunning countryside and coastal scenery. Some top rate cities and loads of beautiful friendly towns. Culturally there is all you could wish for. Oh and by and large the people are incredibly friendly and helpful. It would be a stonking place for the tournament.
 
SA (although I've never visited) strikes me as also a wonderful place to visit with lots to do and see. Yes they have the advantage over Ireland in stadia but then again Ireland have the advantage in being perhaps more user friendly to the rugby travelling fan. As I said before, I'm sure the RSA would also put on a bloody great show.
 
However, it is all down to the proposition and how good your bid is and seemingly money is playing a greater importance in things. SA might have the edge here but Ireland I feel could benefit by having by far the largest number of supporters living on their doorstep, not much more that a Â£50 Ryanair flight away.
 
Oh and Rowan, according to the story the Trojan Horse was not particularly blatant - the Trojans fell for it after all.

Rowan

"Oh and Rowan, according to the story the Trojan Horse was not particularly blatant - the Trojans fell for it after all."
 
It was a metaphor for false diplomacy.

Rowan

I think it would be fair to say that any number of countries could host the Rugby World Cup successfully. So World Rugby needs to look at what is in the interests of the sport and its development. The organization has a self-professed mandate to globalize. Repeatedly staging its showpiece event in one small corner of Europe runs contrary to that cause. Continental rotation is far more conducive to globalization. Regarding TV audiences, SA is in a similar time zone to Europe. South Africa has the second largest rugby community in the world, and it is the second most successful rugby playing nation in the world. It is also the only major rugby playing nation with a non-European majority. A World Cup in South Africa would generate interest in neighboring countries and benefit the sport throughout the continent. As regards South Africa & Ireland head-to-head, the former has vastly superior stadia, about half of it rugby purpose, and most of its football stadia was upgraded for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, when a few more stadiums were actually built. Ireland has only one large rugby stadium, and would be reliant on mostly Gaelic and hurling stadiums, some of them ancient, others relatively small. South Africa is a large nation - though not giant - with many large cities. Even in the event of expansion, the tournament could be nicely spread out with fans able to bus it between venues. Ireland is geographically very small and only has two major cities. South Africa has an average June temperature of 16 degrees with 9 hours of sunshine and only a 2% chance of rain (Kruger Park taken as the example). Dublin and Belfast have average October temperatures of 10 and 9, respectively, 3 & 2 hours of sunshine, and a 60% and 74% chance of rain respectively. Drier weather conditions make for firm grounds and more open and expansive rugby. Wet conditions make for a dreary supporters' tour, IMHO. The main argument against South Africa is crime, yet they host a leg of the World 7s series without problems, they hosted the 2010 FIFA World Cup without problems, and they staged a spectacular and memorable RWC in 1995 without problems. By the time 2023 rolls around, an entire generation of Africans will have grown up without having ever had the opportunity to witness the event.

Catogrande

Mate I, and I think most on here can see the positives for staging the RWC in SA in 2023 and also see that it would be fair on SA seeing as it would have been 28 years since the previous RWC (note England had to wait 25 years, as did NZ so quite understandable why the Saffers would want it/feel it fair). What most seem to disagree with you about is that you are advancing SA's cause by shitting on Ireland's and in doing so you are raising some pretty spurious reasoning. Either would put on a great show and either would be worthy of hosting the tournament, but it is not any one countries 'right' to host it.
 
Sure SA would not have hosted it for 28 years. By the next one France too would not have hosted it for 28 years. Ireland have NEVER hosted it. Neither have Argentina or Italy. There is the argument that "Repeatedly staging the (sic) showcase event in one small corner of Europe runs contrary to the cause (of globalising the sport)'. An argument - yes. Another argument could be that in that one small corner of Europe there are five (that's 5, which is 4 more than1) Tier 1 nations, plus Italy, Georgia, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Belguim, Russia and then many more active nations below those. In re the RSA staging the event in the name of globalisation there is one (that is 1 which is 4 less than 5) Tier 1 nations plus Namibia and Zimbabwe. There is also Kenya but I'm not sure what else.
 
Good luck to SA in their bid, but also good luck to Ireland.

pukunui

Personally Im happy to see SA miss out on any future hosting rights until we see how their proposed racist selection policies unfold.
Ireland would hold a great RWC for many reasons but reason, logic and facts clearly have no place in Rowan's world.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="554842" data-time="1453986118">
<div>
Mate I, and I think most on here can see the positives for staging the RWC in SA in 2023 and also see that it would be fair on SA seeing as it would have been 28 years since the previous RWC (note England had to wait 25 years, as did NZ so quite understandable why the Saffers would want it/feel it fair). What most seem to disagree with you about is that you are advancing SA's cause by shitting on Ireland's and in doing so you are raising some pretty spurious reasoning. Either would put on a great show and either would be worthy of hosting the tournament, but it is not any one countries 'right' to host it.
 
Sure SA would not have hosted it for 28 years. By the next one France too would not have hosted it for 28 years. Ireland have NEVER hosted it. Neither have Argentina or Italy. There is the argument that "Repeatedly staging the (sic) showcase event in one small corner of Europe runs contrary to the cause (of globalising the sport)'. An argument - yes. Another argument could be that in that one small corner of Europe there are five (that's 5, which is 4 more than1) Tier 1 nations, plus Italy, Georgia, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Belguim, Russia and then many more active nations below those. In re the RSA staging the event in the name of globalisation there is one (that is 1 which is 4 less than 5) Tier 1 nations plus Namibia and Zimbabwe. There is also Kenya but I'm not sure what else.
 
Good luck to SA in their bid, but also good luck to Ireland.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I simply think Ireland would be a terrible decision for the 2023 World Cup and have explained why. You need to do your math on France, Ireland has co-hosted it twice (not the major partner, for the very reasons I've been explaining), Argentina didn't bid this time (but would be an excellent choice) and Italy following Japan could be a bit risky, while it's time for the tournament to return to the Southern Hemisphere and a rugby heartland again. Italy for 2027 - absolutely. That's not so far away.

Catogrande

You have explained why you think Ireland would be a terrible decision and have had most of your reasoning debunked.
 
I'm pretty sure my maths on France is accurate. They hosted it in 1999 and if they get it "by the next one" (ie 2027), that would be 28 years.
 
I don't understand why Italy after Japan could be a bit risky? Are you saying that because neither are Tier 1 nations?
 
Sure there is an argument for the tournament returning to the SH, I don't think anyone has really denied that and yes SA is a rugby heartland, but then again so is Ireland. Rugby is very much a part of Irish life (and yes I know that so is Gaelic Football and Hurling), but to suggest that Ireland is not a rugby heartland is pretty lame and not much to base an argument on.
 
By all means promote SA as an option (and a good one at that) but don't dismiss another option just because it's not your favoured one. Look at the merits - there are plenty, just not necessarily the same one

Derm McCrum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554841" data-time="1453984490">
<div>
I think it would be fair to say that any number of countries could host the Rugby World Cup successfully. So World Rugby needs to look at what is in the interests of the sport and its development. The organization has a self-professed mandate to globalize. Repeatedly staging its showpiece event in one small corner of Europe runs contrary to that cause. Continental rotation is far more conducive to globalization. Regarding TV audiences, SA is in a similar time zone to Europe. South Africa has the second largest rugby community in the world, and it is the second most successful rugby playing nation in the world. It is also the only major rugby playing nation with a non-European majority. A World Cup in South Africa would generate interest in neighboring countries and benefit the sport throughout the continent. As regards South Africa & Ireland head-to-head, the former has vastly superior stadia, about half of it rugby purpose, and most of its football stadia was upgraded for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, when a few more stadiums were actually built. Ireland has only one large rugby stadium, and would be reliant on mostly Gaelic and hurling stadiums, some of them ancient, others relatively small. South Africa is a large nation - though not giant - with many large cities. Even in the event of expansion, the tournament could be nicely spread out with fans able to bus it between venues. Ireland is geographically very small and only has two major cities. South Africa has an average June temperature of 16 degrees with 9 hours of sunshine and only a 2% chance of rain (Kruger Park taken as the example). Dublin and Belfast have average October temperatures of 10 and 9, respectively, 3 & 2 hours of sunshine, and a 60% and 74% chance of rain respectively. Drier weather conditions make for firm grounds and more open and expansive rugby. Wet conditions make for a dreary supporters' tour, IMHO. The main argument against South Africa is crime, yet they host a leg of the World 7s series without problems, they hosted the 2010 FIFA World Cup without problems, and they staged a spectacular and memorable RWC in 1995 without problems. By the time 2023 rolls around, an entire generation of Africans will have grown up without having ever had the opportunity to witness the event.
</div>
</blockquote>
You clearly didn't read any of the factual information I posted on here and think by simply repeating inaccuracies that people will accept that.
 
Why not respond to the information now provided or at least reflect it in your contributions.
 
And for someone who has spent little or no time in either South Africa or Ireland, you seem mighty sure of your opinions and assertions about both countries.

ulsterman

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554558" data-time="1453894640">
<div>
"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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
England has the same climate as Ireland. England just hosted arguably the most expansive Rugby World Cup in the professional era.
 
The 1995 final:
 
 - Was won by a team marking Jonah Lomu out of the game
 - Had no tries, and was won by a drop-goal in extra time.
 
 
Not exactly open rugby . . .

Disgusted of TW

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ulsterman" data-cid="554847" data-time="1453997452">England has the same climate as Ireland. England just hosted arguably the most expansive Rugby World Cup in the professional era. 
 
The 1995 final: 
 
- Was won by a team marking Jonah Lomu out of the game 
- Had no tries, and was won by a drop-goal in extra time. 
 
 
Not exactly open rugby . . .</blockquote>
 
It's also maybe less likely that you'd pick up pre-final food poisoning from a plate of colcannon...

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554844" data-time="1453987964">
<div>
I simply think Ireland would be a terrible decision for the 2023 World Cup and have explained why. You need to do your math on France, Ireland has co-hosted it twice (not the major partner, for the very reasons I've been explaining), Argentina didn't bid this time (but would be an excellent choice) and Italy following Japan could be a bit risky, while it's time for the tournament to return to the Southern Hemisphere and a rugby heartland again. Italy for 2027 - absolutely. That's not so far away.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yes you have and every reason you've posted has been shown to be utter nonsense. Theres nothing about the size of Ireland thats a disadvantage in fact Ireland size is firmly in its favour for fans, then theres you grasping at straws-theres not enough to do there.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554834" data-time="1453981788">
<div>
In your imagination, perhaps. 
 
What I've actually suggested is that Ireland, once awarded the tournament, will almost certainly ship a bunch of games to Britain.
 
An all-Ireland tournament would be a one nation event, of course. If it must be in Ireland, that's the only way to go. But Northern Ireland is part of the UK, which has already been involved in hosting the World Cup 4 times. I think you confused this comment with the above comment.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
What on earth are you talking about?

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa