2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="555116" data-time="1454096085">
<div>
My opinion was that it was a successful tournament. Also, FIFA gave it a 9 out of 10, near-perfect, while analysts said this would help improve perceptions of Africa and help development throughout the continent as a whole. FIFA surveys suggested the tournament had "done wonders for South Africans' confidence and optimism. Author John Carlin, in 'Playing the Enemy,' rated it an even better tournament than the 1995 RWC, South African president Jacob Zuma described the event as "one of the greatest achievements of the post-apartheid era," and said the fans were the "true stars," uniting to show the world that the country and the continent were capable of hosting world class events. Nine major cities hosted the event in 10 superb stadiums which generally exceeded tournament requirements. Soccer City was subsequently named winner of 'Design and Construction' at the prestigious international Leaf Awards. Sepp Blatter described it as one of the most beautiful stadiums in the world. Durban's 'Surf City' was among the many hits with the touring fans. South Africa reaped major rewards from tourism during the event. Over a million visitors arrived during the first week of the tournament alone. The opening match set a record TV viewing audience for South Africa, while ratings were also particularly high in Europe, North and South America and China. Crime did not effect the tournament.
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
So with that said - how did you find South Africa's lack of previous success at the World Cup effected the tournament, specifically not qualifying for the 2006 edition? South Africa ranked 84th in the World heading into 2010, did this concern you as to whether the tournament would be a success or not? These seem to be key criteria for you when deciding if a tournament is successful or not.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="555123" data-time="1454098343">
<div>
So with that said - how did you find South Africa's lack of previous success at the World Cup effected the tournament, specifically not qualifying for the 2006 edition? South Africa ranked 84th in the World heading into 2010, did this concern you as to whether the tournament would be a success or not? These seem to be key criteria for you when deciding if a tournament is successful or not.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Rowan?

Rowan

I think the comments about terrorism are a fair response to the earlier comments about crime. South Africa has proved that it can stage major tournaments without them being effected by crime. It's not the only country with a crime problem either. The US certainly has this in common, but has never been denied a major tournament on that basis.
 
Yes, the 95 semi was hit by a freakish downpour. Reminded me of ABs v Scotland in 74. So it could have happened in Auckland too, and that's a city that has hosted 2 World Cup finals. & it could have happened in Australia, not to mention anywhere in Europe, of course. But the statistics I provided earlier in the thread showed rain was a 2% chance in SA in June (probably why it seemed so freakish), but a 60% and 74% chance in Dublin and Belfast respectively, in October.
 
SA is not the first rankings outsider to have staged the FIFA World Cup. The US, Japan & Korea already beat them to it. But the popularity of the sport in SA ensured that it would be a success despite this. Football has this luxury because precisely because of its popularity. Rugby doesn't. It's only the number 1 team sport in NZ and the Pacific Islands, in terms of playing numbers (I believe football has overtaken rugby in Wales).
 
Re: the popularity of the NZ World Cup abroad, some things I read about it were that the TV viewing times were not good for most, of course, travelling fans had to make expensive, long haul flights (Paul Ackford was one who complained about the jetlag effect), one city hosted much of the business end of the tournament and there were all sorts of transportation problems, the five-team groups induced the usual complaints about short turn-arounds, Fiji were not permitted to send their best team, many of the group games were basically played in farmsville and lacked atmosphere, and the Mexican waves became so cliche that were almost as annoying as South Africa's vuvezelas.

taniwharugby

<div> </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="555128" data-time="1454102063">
<div>
Yes, the 95 semi was hit by a freakish downpour. Reminded me of ABs v Scotland in 74. So it could have happened in Auckland too, and that's a city that has hosted 2 World Cup finals. & it could have happened in Australia, not to mention anywhere in Europe, of course. But the statistics I provided earlier in the thread showed rain was a 2% chance in SA in June (probably why it seemed so freakish), but a 60% and 74% chance in Dublin and Belfast respectively, in October.
</div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
 
Will they move the RWC back to June though?
 
Was only 1987 and 1995 that were played at that time of year, 1991, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 have all been Sept-Nov

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="555128" data-time="1454102063">
<div>SA is not the first rankings outsider to have staged the FIFA World Cup. The US, Japan & Korea already beat them to it. But the popularity of the sport in SA ensured that it would be a success despite this. Football has this luxury because precisely because of its popularity. Rugby doesn't. It's only the number 1 team sport in NZ and the Pacific Islands, in terms of playing numbers (I believe football has overtaken rugby in Wales).</div>
</blockquote>
 
You seem to be moving the goalposts a touch. Is your concern that Ireland will not have enough local interest for a RWC and on-field performance is evidence in past World Cups is evidence of this?
 
As a proportion of national population I am almost certain Ireland will give more of a shit about a RWC than RSA.
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">Yes, the 95 semi was hit by a freakish downpour. Reminded me of ABs v Scotland in 74. So it could have happened in Auckland too, and that's a city that has hosted 2 World Cup finals. & it could have happened in Australia, not to mention anywhere in Europe, of course. But the statistics I provided earlier in the thread showed rain was a 2% chance in SA in June (probably why it seemed so freakish), but a 60% and 74% chance in Dublin and Belfast respectively, in October.</blockquote>
 
Not quite sure you know how to use statistics there - that is incredibly misleading on several levels.

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="555129" data-time="1454102533"> 
Will they move the RWC back to June though? 
Was only 1987 and 1995 that were played at that time of year, 1991, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 have all been Sept-Nov</blockquote>
Yeah. Pretty sure the RWC window is now pretty much permanently Sept-Oct. 
What's the chance of rain in SA at that time of year? 
Rowan, re the 2% in June I assume you are talking in the veldt? And ruling out playing any matches in Cape Town. Recall some abominable weather there for winter test matches.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="555128" data-time="1454102063">
<div>
1 I think the comments about terrorism are a fair response to the earlier comments about crime. South Africa has proved that it can stage major tournaments without them being effected by crime. It's not the only country with a crime problem either. The US certainly has this in common, but has never been denied a major tournament on that basis.
 
2 Yes, the 95 semi was hit by a freakish downpour. Reminded me of ABs v Scotland in 74. So it could have happened in Auckland too, and that's a city that has hosted 2 World Cup finals. & it could have happened in Australia, not to mention anywhere in Europe, of course. But the statistics I provided earlier in the thread showed rain was a 2% chance in SA in June (probably why it seemed so freakish), but a 60% and 74% chance in Dublin and Belfast respectively, in October.
 
 
3 Re: the popularity of the NZ World Cup abroad, some things I read about it were that the TV viewing times were not good for most, of course,
4travelling fans had to make expensive, long haul flights (Paul Ackford was one who complained about the jetlag effect),
5one city hosted much of the business end of the tournament and there were all sorts of transportation problems,
6the five-team groups induced the usual complaints about short turn-arounds,
7Fiji were not permitted to send their best team,
8many of the group games were basically played in farmsville and lacked atmosphere,
9and the Mexican waves became so cliche that were almost as annoying as South Africa's vuvezelas.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
1 You live in Turkey which recently experienced a terrorist attack, should people avoid Turkey? 
2 So you admit it rains in South Africa too? Theres a breakthrough.
3 TV viewing times will inevitably affect some people
4 some fans will have to make expensive long haul flights
5 so what? The transport issues were at the start and sorted out
6 the fault of the irbnot NZ
7 see above
8 rubbish, ask the Georgians and Romanian teams about the bucketheads, this is the first and probably last time I've heard of "farmsville".
9 Nonsense, and few things are as patently ridiculous and irritating as a vuluezela.
 
So your "widely held opinion" boils down to Paul Ackford getting jetlag? You have no evidence other than the tenuous things I've quoted above to back up your rather bold claim? No links to articles from people saying it was the worst ever? 
 
Rowan is that really all you have to offer?
.

Wurzel

The reason so many of the games at the business end of the 2011 RWC were played in Auckland was because of...
 
<img src="http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1298891438/116/4715116.jpg" alt="4715116.jpg">
 
... please jog on Rowan. You've made an absolute fool of yourself on two forums this week. And the more you post the more you embarrass yourself.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="555133" data-time="1454106029">
<div>
Yeah. Pretty sure the RWC window is now pretty much permanently Sept-Oct. 
What's the chance of rain in SA at that time of year? 
Rowan, re the 2% in June I assume you are talking in the veldt? And ruling out playing any matches in Cape Town. Recall some abominable weather there for winter test matches.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
maybe Rowans thinking is it'll be too hot in Sept-Nov in SA, but IIRC the 2003 Final was in Sydney, late November if I am not mistaken, now I'll admit here I have never been to Sydney, but my impression is it can get quite warm there too?

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="555133" data-time="1454106029">
<div>
Yeah. Pretty sure the RWC window is now pretty much permanently Sept-Oct. 
What's the chance of rain in SA at that time of year? 
Rowan, re the 2% in June I assume you are talking in the veldt? And ruling out playing any matches in Cape Town. Recall some abominable weather there for winter test matches.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
So you're now trying to argue Ireland's case versus South Africa in terms of weather.
 
"You seem to be moving the goalposts a touch. Is your concern that Ireland will not have enough local interest for a RWC and on-field performance is evidence in past World Cups is evidence of this?"
 
No. How on earth did you construe that?
 
"As a proportion of national population I am almost certain Ireland will give more of a shit about a RWC than RSA."
 
About the same, I'd say, except that South Africa's rugby communitiy (roughly four times as big as Irelands') is likely a great deal more passionate. Also, by your method of evaluation, the US would never host it, and Japan shouldn't have got it either, and even France ought to be a fair way down the pecking order. Meanwhile, it seems that, with its minute geographical proportions and immense 'giving a shit about a RWC,' Samoa would meet all your criteria.

jegga

" you've lost it son" 
RIP Bulldog

mariner4life

More passionate? Than the Irish? Now i know you're on the troll

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Wurzel" data-cid="555135" data-time="1454108707">
<div>
The reason so many of the games at the business end of the 2011 RWC were played in Auckland was because of...
 
<img src="http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1298891438/116/4715116.jpg" alt="4715116.jpg">
 
... please jog on Rowan. You've made an absolute fool of yourself on two forums this week. And the more you post the more you embarrass yourself.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yes, very sad. I had family in the region and they felt it. They've since moved back to the North Island. But the reason why the business end of the tournament had to be staged mostly in one city bears no relevance to how the revised format was received by fans abroad. The question that was put to me related to the popularity of the 2011 World Cup from the outsiders' perspective.
 
"So your "widely held opinion" boils down to Paul Ackford getting jetlag? You have no evidence other than the tenuous things I've quoted above to back up your rather bold claim? No links to articles from people saying it was the worst ever? "
 
I read a great deal, and not only on the net. It would be impossible to keep track of it all. n any case, I'm merely expressing my views and observations here. I didn't realize that it was obligatory to back up every comment with links to articles, statistics and quotes, etc. I mean, no one else seems to be doing much of that.

Derm McCrum

If Ireland hosted the RWC in the same timeframe as France in 2007, then it could begin on 7 September in theory and finish on 20 Oct approx.
 
The venues would be based around the island of Ireland. Mean temperatures vary from coast to coast - but it is perfectly temperate weather and very suitable for rugby.
 
There's plenty of places to stay - 700,000 stayed in October 2015.
 
Easy international access through a number of airports. Modern roadway network with train and bus between cities and towns. 
 
Nationwide community sporting network through GAA that can easily put in place a hosting town programme for every team. 
 
World Rugby could decide to award it to a nation that hasn't hosted it before. Having 2-3 pool games doesn't really count as hosting. Equally, they might view Italy's bid in that light.
 
We'll just have to wait and see.

jegga

Let's all accept you were lying about it being widely held to be the worst rwc and move on shall we? If the opinion was that widely held the evidence would be easy to find.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="555143" data-time="1454110431">
<div>
More passionate? Than the Irish? Now i know you're on the troll
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think that's a fair comment. South Africa dominated world rugby through most of the amateur era and remains a super power in the sport. Success breeds fanatacism and passion. I'm sure the Irish fans are passionate about their rugby too, but not to the same extent. Probably most of the fans who'd go to a World Cup game or any other major international match would never be seen on the sidelines of a club rugby game - nor even have a favorite club to support.

Rowan

" If the opinion was that widely held the evidence would be easy to find."
 
So why don't you disprove it for us? Should be easy enough to find the evidence to back up your claims to the contrary. In fact, you've failed to back up pretty much all your comments on this thread with the links to articles, statistics and quotes, etc, you apparently find so vital.

hydro11

Italy can't really host a World Cup because of the Serie A. All their big stadiums are used for football at that time. The RWC would have to start earlier to accommodate Italy.

pukunui

This is like watching a politician being interviewed. Making bold statements based on dubious data and clearly influenced by an agenda, totally ignoring any well constructed counter points or interrogation of their claims then deflecting and shifting the goal posts and repeating the dubious basis of their point. 
Well Rowan, I wouldn't vote for you and I would have tuned out pages ago if there was actually some rugby to watch or talk about.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="555149" data-time="1454111320">" If the opinion was that widely held the evidence would be easy to find." 
 So why don't you disprove it for us? Should be easy enough to find the evidence to back up your claims to the contrary. In fact, you've failed to back up pretty much all your comments on this thread with the links to articles, statistics and quotes, etc, you apparently find so vital.</blockquote>
 
Is that a joke? You claimed it was widely held to be the worst rwc but couldn't find a single thing to back it up now you're telling me I have to prove that you're wrong?

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa