2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="555104" data-time="1454083376">
<div>
And? My anecdotes are just as worthy of filling space here as your opinion. And at least they have the benefit of being based on experience, whereas yours is based on Google, ignorance and hot air.
 
And it wasn't just an anecdote. There was an insult in there that could be construed as being aimed at you. Do you want me to point it out so you can report it?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Well, my brother often goes on surfing trips to Durban and loves the place. A few of my friends have been there and done safari tours and all, and loved the place as well. None of them got shot or robbed or anything.

rotated

Another concern with hosting in South Africa is the current issue with pitch invaders with villainous intentions. I've only seen two pitch invaders make contact with players during a test and both were South African - the most recent being in this past RWC against Samoa. This is a clear trend which is googleable. I'm not sure we can even guarantee the safety of the players and officials on the paddock, let a lone off.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="555036" data-time="1454056389">
<div>
Aaaaaargh! Fuck it. Memory is a bastard. And what's more I do need to check my maths. Sorry Rowan.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
No need to apologise. :)
 
Yes, France hosted as recently as 2007 and are probably only bidding this time to strengthen their case for 2027. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they ended up co-hosting with Italy. I only hope that Italy would be the senior partner in such a venture, though I suspect they would have to be the junior. Btw, previous Italian bids included the French city of Marseille among the proposed venues.
 
"Another concern with hosting in South Africa is the current issue with pitch invaders with villainous intentions. I've only seen two pitch invaders make contact with players during a test and both were South African - the most recent being in this past RWC against Samoa. This is a clear trend which is googleable. I'm not sure we can even guarantee the safety of the players and officials on the paddock, let a lone off."
 
 :mocking: Grasping at straws there, I think. That would easily be dealt with. & there have been plenty of pitch invasions elsewhere, including NZ:

Football cancellation in Europe because of terrorist threat: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/11/17/news/football-match-cancelled-due-to-bomb-fears-326875/'>http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/11/17/news/football-match-cancelled-due-to-bomb-fears-326875/</a>
Football cancellations in Ireland because of terrible weather: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35333560'>http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35333560</a>

Derm McCrum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="555105" data-time="1454084902">
<div>
April 2000. Dublin. Stayed in the Times Hostel, I think it was. Very chilly, not much above zero, but no rain as I recall. It was just a weekend trip I was working just out of Douglas on the Isle of Man at the time.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yep - it was the coolest April since 1989. Temps ranged from 8-15 in Dublin. And it would be fair to say that you have little or no personal experience of the country. 
 
South Africa and Ireland are both popular tourist destinations, as evidenced by their growing tourist numbers each year. Each has its own attractions. The size of cities and places is not really relevant in the context of Ireland - particularly when the plan is to spread the games around the country as opposed to all in one place. 
 
You have your view on the quality of the stadia in each country. Clearly South Africa has more of them. But it's not just about how many, it's also where they are located, facilities and resources around them, and ease of access for people moving around. 
 
The "creaking old stadiums" that you've referred to are listed in an earlier post of mine. Most of them have been or are currently being re-developed within the last ten years, simply because the demand and market is there for them. There is an inevitable amount of facilities upgrading to be done to number of them for media, catering, etc, but all entirely achievable, budgeted for, underwritten, and capable of being completed within time. I think you'll find that some of the stadia in South Africa are also "old", but they have had similar upgrades over the years.
 
In terms of capacity, the stadia used in England ranged from Sandy Park 12,300 to 5 stadia in the 30-40k capacity, 3 in the 50-53k range and 3 in the 70-90 range.
 
Ireland doesn't have the same spread clearly. However, Croke Park, which has been used Six Nations tournaments previously, would host opening and finals stage matches with Lansdowne Road taking some of the other big matches. There are a couple of other 50ks, 30-40ks, and 25ks. All of them suitable for use. The numbers have to stack up.
 
It's fair comment to say that Ireland could well turn around and say that they are going to use the Millennium stadium in Wales in order to drive up numbers. But the financial proposal submitted has to stack up on an all-island basis first with the resources and facilities that are here, not elsewhere. During the assessment and feasibility stages, partnerships with other nations, notably Scotland and Wales in a putative Celtic RWC bid, were considered and dropped. We'll have to wait and see what happens, but I know there is a strong determination that it will only be hosted in Ireland, and nowhere else, despite the inevitable vote-trading that happens around these bids. 
 
PS The European surfing championships have been regularly held in Ireland around Bundoran on North-West coast - best times being Sept-Dec. No one gets shot or robbed - or eaten by sharks even. :)

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="555110" data-time="1454088624">
<div>
Yep - it was the coolest April since 1989. Temps ranged from 8-15 in Dublin. And it would be fair to say that you have little or no personal experience of the country. 
 
South Africa and Ireland are both popular tourist destinations, as evidenced by their growing tourist numbers each year. Each has its own attractions. The size of cities and places is not really relevant in the context of Ireland - particularly when the plan is to spread the games around the country as opposed to all in one place. 
 
You have your view on the quality of the stadia in each country. Clearly South Africa has more of them. But it's not just about how many, it's also where they are located, facilities and resources around them, and ease of access for people moving around. 
 
The "creaking old stadiums" that you've referred to are listed in an earlier post of mine. Most of them have been or are currently being re-developed within the last ten years, simply because the demand and market is there for them. There is an inevitable amount of facilities upgrading to be done to number of them for media, catering, etc, but all entirely achievable, budgeted for, underwritten, and capable of being completed within time. I think you'll find that some of the stadia in South Africa are also "old", but they have had similar upgrades over the years.
 
In terms of capacity, the stadia used in England ranged from Sandy Park 12,300 to 5 stadia in the 30-40k capacity, 3 in the 50-53k range and 3 in the 70-90 range.
 
Ireland doesn't have the same spread clearly. However, Croke Park, which has been used Six Nations tournaments previously, would host opening and finals stage matches with Lansdowne Road taking some of the other big matches. There are a couple of other 50ks, 30-40ks, and 25ks. All of them suitable for use. The numbers have to stack up.
 
It's fair comment to say that Ireland could well turn around and say that they are going to use the Millennium stadium in Wales in order to drive up numbers. But the financial proposal submitted has to stack up on an all-island basis first with the resources and facilities that are here, not elsewhere. During the assessment and feasibility stages, partnerships with other nations, notably Scotland and Wales in a putative Celtic RWC bid, were considered and dropped. We'll have to wait and see what happens, but I know there is a strong determination that it will only be hosted in Ireland, and nowhere else, despite the inevitable vote-trading that happens around these bids. 
 
PS The European surfing championships have been regularly held in Ireland around Bundoran on North-West coast - best times being Sept-Dec. No one gets shot or robbed - or eaten by sharks even. :)
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Coolest April since 89? Just my luck! But I have provided figures from the Irish meteorological servce which indicate both Dublin and Belfast are generally quite cool and wet in May as well.
 
Yes, my only point about the stadia is that South Africa has more - and much of it rugby-purpose. I'm not saying Ireland couldn't host it. They certainly could. But what kind of a tournament would it be? That's my main concern, and I've already expressed the reasons why, without going over it again. & even if we were to consider the bids entirely equal on merit, then it really comes down to whether World Rugby wants to rotate its tournament around the continents, or just send it back to France & the Home Unions on every second occasion. It comes down to whether South Africa should receive it again almost 30 years after doing such a fantastic job the first time, or whether the British Isles should be involved in hosting it for a 5th time, just 8 years after England - while Ireland would be involved for the third time. It comes down to whether it is staged in the world's 2nd largest rugby community, and a nation which has won two World Cups to date, or whether it is staged in the world's 7th largest rugby community, and a nation which has never made a World Cup semi-final.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="555098" data-time="1454069740">Almost everybody else here has been saying the 99 format was a shambles. I didn't think it was bad.</blockquote> 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="555097" data-time="1454069622">So now we're down to personal anecdotes.</blockquote>

rotated

Out of interest Rowan what were your feelings about South Africa hosting the soccer world cup in 2010?

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="555113" data-time="1454094413">
<div>
Out of interest Rowan what were your feelings about South Africa hosting the soccer world cup in 2010?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Imagine a rwc with crowds blowing zuluvulvas constantly? Awful

Rowan

<div> </div>
<div>
"Almost everybody else here has been saying the 99 format was a shambles. I didn't think it was bad."
 
 
Yes, that was my opinion. I didn't give you a personal anecdote. That would've been to regale you with reminiscences of my trip to Cardiff for the 3rd-place playoff.
 
 
 
</div>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="555113" data-time="1454094413">
<div>
Out of interest Rowan what were your feelings about South Africa hosting the soccer world cup in 2010?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
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.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="555116" data-time="1454096085">
<div>
 
<div> </div>
<div>
"Almost everybody else here has been saying the 99 format was a shambles. I didn't think it was bad."
 
 
Yes, that was my opinion. I didn't give you a personal anecdote. That would've been to regale you with reminiscences of my trip to Cardiff for the 3rd-place playoff.
 
 
 
</div>
 
 
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Have you managed to back up your claims about 2011 being considered by outsiders to be one of the worst ever yet?

taniwharugby

Personal anecdote about their experience vs their opinion...well normally the latter is driven by their experiences, so they are related.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="555109" data-time="1454086322">
<div>
 
 Football cancellation in Europe because of terrorist threat: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/11/17/news/football-match-cancelled-due-to-bomb-fears-326875/'>http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/11/17/news/football-match-cancelled-due-to-bomb-fears-326875/</a>
Football cancellations in Ireland because of terrible weather: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35333560'>http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35333560</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You were derided on the t2 forum for using terrorism to score cheap points, fortunately I don't think anyone here can think less of you.
 
As to the second point.

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.

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa