2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

Hooroo

It's not a competition to see who has the most stadiums, the point is, Ireland have more than enough to cope.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mooshld" data-cid="554576" data-time="1453899762">
<div>
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. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It's actually World Rugby's idea, not mine. I just happen to support it. Of course, nothing's been confirmed yet.

Hooroo

Your argument pretty much just comes down to "The Weather"

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="554583" data-time="1453902339">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'm expressing my opinions. That's what forums are for. It's dismissing opinions with silly insults which is haughty. So, no, there's no hypocrisy at all. Personal experience, you say? I've actually been to Ireland. How about you?

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554585" data-time="1453918038">
<div>
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 .
</div>
</blockquote>
 
No, the reaction to it was childish. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Samoa - as well as South Africa.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554586" data-time="1453918592">
<div>
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 .
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You state this, but my comment about Ireland's 'dreary' weather is dismissed as childish? I see. We can criticize South Africa here but not Ireland. What's going on there??

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554626" data-time="1453934104">I'm expressing my opinions. That's what forums are for. It's dismissing opinions with silly insults which is haughty. So, no, there's no hypocrisy at all. Personal experience, you say? I've actually been to Ireland. How about you?</blockquote>
 
No the Samoa comment was haughty and fairly stupid . You're free within reason to post whatever you want, don't pout when others call you on your bullshit though. 
Were the grounds at the last World Cup slush ? Your rationale about the weather just doesn't really hold up, I might have missed it but I don't recall any of the games having weather as bad as the Sa vs France semi in 1995.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554628" data-time="1453934387">You state this, but my comment about Ireland's 'dreary' weather is dismissed as childish? I see. We can criticize South Africa here but not Ireland. What's going on there??</blockquote>
 
You can criticise Ireland all you want, if you are talking out of your arse though expect to be openly mocked for it though.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="554611" data-time="1453930458">
<div>
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.
 
 
 
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You seem to forget that the first four Rugby World Cups actually featured four team pools and that they were very successful, throwing up plenty of fascinating contests. Things got complicated - and controversial - when the organizers decided to create 5-team pools at the beginning of this century.
 
I didn't compare Ireland to Samoa or Fiji? I simply wanted to know where the line would be drawn on small nation World Cups. Geographically Ireland is half the size of the South Island of NZ. In my view, that would be a massive step backward for a tournament which is growing with every edition. NZ was a minor step backward, and it's time to move on to big and better pastures.

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554626" data-time="1453934104">
<div>
I'm expressing my opinions. That's what forums are for. It's dismissing opinions with silly insults which is haughty. So, no, there's no hypocrisy at all. Personal experience, you say? I've actually been to Ireland. How about you?
</div>
</blockquote>

Yeah Pot Hale, have you even been to Ireland?!??! ;)

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554632" data-time="1453934756">
<div>
You seem to forget that the first four Rugby World Cups actually featured four team pools and that they were very successful, throwing up plenty of fascinating contests. Things got complicated - and controversial - when the organizers decided to create 5-team pools at the beginning of this century.
 
I didn't compare Ireland to Samoa or Fiji? I simply wanted to know where the line would be drawn on small nation World Cups. Geographically Ireland is half the size of the South Island of NZ. In my view, that would be a massive step backward for a tournament which is growing with every edition. NZ was a minor step backward, and it's time to move on to big and better pastures.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The line is drawn on countries that a. do not have the population and b. do not have enough quality stadiums. I thought that would have been obvious. So, Samoa and Fiji have neither the population or enough quality stadiums. Ireland does. Understand?
 
I'd love Ireland to get the RWC, they'd put on a hell of a show and the entire country would embrace it just like NZ in 2011. It would be a big step forward for the tournament.
 
SA... meh.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554627" data-time="1453934242">No, the reaction to it was childish. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Samoa - as well as South Africa.</blockquote>
 
Sure I do . 
I'm beginning to see a pattern here, you assert something and when you get called on it you flail away with irrelevant nonsense to try and shore up your weak ideas- Samoa , US gun crime, the impossibility of playing running rugby in Ireland etc. 
You still haven't explained why Ireland's size is a disadvantage and SAs is an advantage , can you give us more information about that?

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554630" data-time="1453934576">
<div>
No the Samoa comment was haughty and fairly stupid . You're free within reason to post whatever you want, don't pout when others call you on your bullshit though. 
Were the grounds at the last World Cup slush ? Your rationale about the weather just doesn't really hold up, I might have missed it but I don't recall any of the games having weather as bad as the Sa vs France semi in 1995.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You're comparing one game at the 1995 World Cup to well-established general weather conditions in Ireland and talk about others making stupid comments? You use a tournament in England and Wales to illustrate a point about Irish weather conditions and accuse others of talking out of their arse? I can see that you really, really do not like South Africa.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="554633" data-time="1453934788">Yeah Pot Hale, have you even been to Ireland?!??! ;)</blockquote>
 
He's never mentioned visiting Ireland , I wonder why?

Rowan

"You still haven't explained why Ireland's size is a disadvantage and SAs is an advantage , can you give us more information about that? "
 
Basically you'd be staging a 20 or 24-team tournament in two cities backed up by a bunch of towns. Are there enough stadiums? Enough hotels? I seriously doubt it. But in South Africa that would not be a concern at all. It's not a huge country like Australia, where flans would be forced to take domestic flights to follow the games from city to city. In South Africa they could easily bus it. But in Ireland they'd be living on top of each other.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554636" data-time="1453935086">You're comparing one game at the 1995 World Cup to well-established general weather conditions in Ireland and talk about others making stupid comments? You use a tournament in England and Wales to illustrate a point about Irish weather conditions and accuse others of talking out of their arse? I can see that you really, really do not like South Africa. </blockquote>
 
There's that attempt at distraction again , pretty sad behaviour IMHO 
Care to explain why a rwc in the Uk can produce running rugby but one in Ireland wouldn't? 
" really really dislike South Africa " ffs, what a joke

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554641" data-time="1453935578">
<div>
"You still haven't explained why Ireland's size is a disadvantage and SAs is an advantage , can you give us more information about that? "
 
Basically you'd be staging a 20 or 24-team tournament in two cities backed up by a bunch of towns. Are there enough stadiums? Enough hotels? I seriously doubt it. But in South Africa that would not be a concern at all. It's not a huge country like Australia, where flans would be forced to take domestic flights to follow the games from city to city. In South Africa they could easily bus it. But in Ireland they'd be living on top of each other.
</div>
</blockquote>
And yet lil' ole NZ managed to host a WC.... with less facilities. Was a real hit too

mariner4life

I've got it, the only logical choice is...
 
 
...Russia. First, it's a big country. And it has lots of people. And they have football stadiums. And it's ticks the "grow the game" box. And Russia would be one of the 4 new shit teams.
 
As an added benefit they would pay heaps of money to the IRB delegates, and their team would be alright thanks to state sanctioned doping.
 
 
Of course, not a great tournament for the gays. Or the darker skinned players. But the country is really big.

hydro11

Are those GAA Stadiums good enough to cope? They look a little rustic to me. They would probably need a bit of money spent on them.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554641" data-time="1453935578">"You still haven't explained why Ireland's size is a disadvantage and SAs is an advantage , can you give us more information about that? " 
 
Basically you'd be staging a 20 or 24-team tournament in two cities backed up by a bunch of towns. Are there enough stadiums? Enough hotels? I seriously doubt it. But in South Africa that would not be a concern at all. It's not a huge country like Australia, where flans would be forced to take domestic flights to follow the games from city to city. In South Africa they could easily bus it. But in Ireland they'd be living on top of each other.</blockquote>
 
Why are you saying two cities and a bunch of towns when it's already been pointed out that that is not true?

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa