2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

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?

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554835" data-time="1453982169">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Most outsiders? You mean you.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554833" data-time="1453981597">
<div>
No way Ireland would host it solo. They put that in their prospectus but it's more blatant than the Trojan horse.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
<img src="http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_super/0/4355/1145798-941670_937204_facepalm_implied_super_super.jpg" alt="1145798-941670_937204_facepalm_implied_s">

No Quarter

Rowan is well advanced into the troll territory of completely ignoring posts that blow his ideas out of the water and continuing to repeat the same stupid shit over and over.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="554861" data-time="1454007904">
<div>
Rowan is well advanced into the troll territory of completely ignoring posts that blow his ideas out of the water and continuing to repeat the same stupid shit over and over.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yep now he's throwing out bait like his comments about the 2011 rwc being the worst ever.

Virgil

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554854" data-time="1454002840">Most outsiders? You mean you.</blockquote>
 
I think he meant Quade Cooper

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554830" data-time="1453980976">
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.</blockquote>
 
No. The 99 system was crap. Nothing to do with nz's failure. 
Trying to invent a play off system for an unbalanced number of teams was just wrong.

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554835" data-time="1453982169">
There's no logic in your analogy at all. </blockquote>
 
Alanis? Is that you?

rotated

Genuine question though - would South Africa be considered a safe pair of hands for the RWC?
 
Japan has already had some major issues (Singapore/HK axed, national stadium lost) and I don't imagine anything outside transport logistics will come easy there. I can imagine World Rugby would much prefer a safe pair of hands for 2023 if 2019 is going to be very resource intensive for them. Sporting bodies routinely do this.
 
There is no doubt South Africa can organise a tournament in the modern era (they did the Soccer World Cup), but given their national board and the governments antagonism towards the sport I highly doubt it would be a walk in the park.
 
South Africa seems logical on paper, but the more you look at it from a WR perspective Ireland is the better candidate.
 
I can just see those idiots trying to get the Southern Kings inserted into the World Cup or some other such nonsense.

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="554845" data-time="1453989047">
<div>
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
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Dude, I'm loving your work, but wasn't 99 "in" Wales? And i have strange memories of watching the 2007 final in Paris.

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554835" data-time="1453982169">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It wasn't an analogy, bro, it was a mockery. Because if you think 1000 odd rugby players, coaches and management between 20 or 24 teams is going to even come remotely close to filling up a country a third of the size of New Zealand, you're a fucking idiot. Fucking Qatar is hosting the FIFA World Cup in a few years, a country less than half the size of the Waikato.
 
2011 RWC was the worst?! Yeah, I guess if you're a not a big fan of entertaining rugby, it was up there with the worst.

mariner4life

This thread is pretty great.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="554845" data-time="1453989047">
<div>
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
</div>
</blockquote>
 
France hosted in 2007, dude.
 
Italy are, in fact, tier 1. But like Japan, they are not what we would consider a rugby 'heartland.' The sport is relatively minor there. So it would be prudent to wait and see how Japan goes off before awarding the tournament to another 'emerging' rugby nation.
 
Rugby is not only firmly in the shadow of Gaelic and hurling in Ireland, it is also in the shadow of football.

Derm McCrum

It's the fact that Ireland has pretty much the same numbers of foreign visitors as South Africa is the bit that worries me. 
SA had 9.4m foreign visitors in 2014. And Ireland only had 9.9m. How on earth would we fit another 1,000 people in? 
And only 1.5m fans go through the GAA turnstiles every summer. How would we manage 450,000 in Sept/Oct? 
And how would we fill the stadia? I mean Ireland managed to set a new attendance record at a World Cup match against Romania last Sept in the UK? God knows what would happen if we held it in Ireland. 
Tis a fearsome worry, the whole thing.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="554918" data-time="1454025834">
This thread is pretty great.</blockquote>
 
It is , Rowan is basically a whack a mole of stupidity. Add that to an unfathomably huge amount if self regard and you have a sure fire recipe for mirth. 
So far it boils down to Ireland is too wet and cold for a winter sport and there's not enough to do there. On the other hand the vastness of South Africa in comparison is no issue for a travelling fan . 
Ok.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ulsterman" data-cid="554847" data-time="1453997452">
<div>
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 . . .
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I've already demonstrated that London is significant warmer than both Dublin and Belfast in October, has about twice as many sunshine hours, and a much lower chance of rainfall. 
 
Yes, the 1995 final was a titanic struggle between two evenly-matched teams, that's why. Same happened in Australia in the 2003 final, and also in 2011. When the teams are that good - and that close - the conditions are basically irrelevant. But in the vast majority of the games, they undoubtedly play a part. A wet track is not conducive to espansive rugby, plain and simply.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="554868" data-time="1454009885">
<div>
No. The 99 system was crap. Nothing to do with nz's failure. 
Trying to invent a play off system for an unbalanced number of teams was just wrong.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I thought 99 was a better tournament than 91 or 11, but, yes, the play off system wasnt good. The group stages were fine - that was my original point.

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa