2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

Turtle

If those are the countries that have bidded, then I'd prefer South Africa to host it

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="554444" data-time="1453858007">
<div>
"Should it go to Ireland, that would also mean, technically-speaking, that the United Kingdom were involved to some degree in hosting the event for the fifth time, given at least a few of the games would be staged north of the border."
 
I read this and said to myself....... okay be patient. 
 
Then I read this: "I have no doubt Ireland, if awarded the event, would ship some of the games to Britain. They're promised a single-nation tournament, but we've heard that before, and Ireland is just too small. Of course, once they secure the event (supposing they do), there will be nothing anybody can do to stop them doing an about-face."
 
Why would you have no doubt that Ireland would ship some of the games to Britain?
 
They've promised a single-nation tournament? No, they've promised an all-island, dual nation tournament, given that the rugby structure is based on an all-island basis. 
 
Ireland is just too small? For what? Landing planes?
</div>
</blockquote>
beating New Zealand
 
I would really like someone new to get it, preferably Argentina, but Italy would be good too. But if SA can put together a decent bid, then no reason they shouldn't hold another one. 
 
I actually wouldn't care if they kept the 20-team format for a while yet. I would prefer they made more of a 2nd tier comp for the other emerging nations to play in, with the winner getting a guaranteed spot in the main cup.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554382" data-time="1453813489">
<div>
Argentina didn't bid. I personally think SA had a better case than NZ in 2011 and England 2015. NZ were actually axed as co-host just 8 years before they hosted it. England has been involved in hosting - and co-hosting - it before. I have no doubt Ireland, if awarded the event, would ship some of the games to Britain. They're promised a single-nation tournament, but we've heard that before, and Ireland is just too small. Of course, once they secure the event (supposing they do), there will be nothing anybody can do to stop them doing an about-face. No doubt Wales would end up playing its World Cup games at home yet again.
 
Re expansion: A 24 team tournament could actually be played in a shorter time-frame than a 20-team format. That is because 4-team groups can be completed in just over a week with 3 simultaneous rounds. 5-team groups require 4 rounds with unequal scheduling, and require almost 3 weeks to complete. So, even with the extra round of sudden death games, a 24-team tournament would be quicker. It would also entail just 4 more games, 52 instead of 48. I also had my concerns in 99 when the event was expanded from 16 to 20, but one of the beneficiaries was Georgia, & just look at how they've come along - nearly beating Ireland in 2007 and picking up 2 wins last year.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but in an interview Jock Hobbs talked about the South African bid and he said said their presentation and plan was so amateurish he felt embarrassed for them.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Wurzel" data-cid="554390" data-time="1453833567">
<div>
Rowan, your "2023 SA World Cup" bid got shot to pieces by anyone and everyone on the T2 Forum last weekend so you've turned to a Kiwi-centric rugby message board in the hope to find some anti-European allies.
 
You are quite bizarre.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I just read this thread, his posts reminded me of someone formerly of Levin.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554471" data-time="1453868669">I just read this thread, his posts reminded me of someone formerly of Levin.</blockquote>
 
Carlos Spencer is a ferner?

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="554473" data-time="1453869259">
<div>
Carlos Spencer is a ferner?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
No, unfortunately. 
 
A man with a penchant for sewing machines .

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554475" data-time="1453869611">No, unfortunately. 
 
A man with a penchant for sewing machines .</blockquote>
 
You've lost me

mooshld

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="554389" data-time="1453833109">
<div>
No offence but you're a crazy person if you don't think playing top tier teams on a consistent basis is a huge help for any team, even Italy. The idea that teams are just going to magically become world beaters in complete isolation is laughable. Argentina started their progression into where they're at now by getting their players into European domestic competitions and giving them a taste of top flight rugby and they've come on leaps and bounds since being included in the Rugby Championship, getting their first ever win against SA just last year.
 
Increasing the number to 24 teams increases the length of the tournament a whooping ONE week, while getting rid of the bullshit midweek short turnaround games. It'd be worth it even without increasing the number of teams.
 
Also, did you watch the 2015 RWC? I can't remember that many pumpings.
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That wasn't what I said at all. What I said is that increased exposure to tier 1 teams is no guarantee to improve the quality of rugby. Example Italy and Argentina, One has much more exposure yet has not really progressed the other has recently had more exposure and has progressed massively. So it must be something else that is causing it. I don't know what it is but there is more to it then just regular games against better opposition. 
 
Oh and in the last world cup
 
Aussie beat Uruguay by 65-3
Saffers beat USA 64 - 0
Argentina beat Namibia 64 -19
 
All of those are hidings, considering the tier 1 teams did not even roll out their top teams.

booboo

NZ beat France 62-13 ...

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="554444" data-time="1453858007">
<div>
"Should it go to Ireland, that would also mean, technically-speaking, that the United Kingdom were involved to some degree in hosting the event for the fifth time, given at least a few of the games would be staged north of the border."
 
I read this and said to myself....... okay be patient. 
 
Then I read this: "I have no doubt Ireland, if awarded the event, would ship some of the games to Britain. They're promised a single-nation tournament, but we've heard that before, and Ireland is just too small. Of course, once they secure the event (supposing they do), there will be nothing anybody can do to stop them doing an about-face."
 
Why would you have no doubt that Ireland would ship some of the games to Britain?
 
They've promised a single-nation tournament? No, they've promised an all-island, dual nation tournament, given that the rugby structure is based on an all-island basis. 
 
Ireland is just too small? For what? Landing planes?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Too small to host a 20-team rugby World Cup - obviously. Geographically it's about half the size of New Zealand's South Island. There are only two major cities, including Belfast in Northern Ireland. & if the tournament is expanded, as World Rugby itself has suggested it may be, then forget it. That's why I have no doubt Ireland would ship some of the games to Britain - possibly as many as half, were it expanded.

Rowan

"I actually wouldn't care if they kept the 20-team format for a while yet. I would prefer they made more of a 2nd tier comp for the other emerging nations to play in, with the winner getting a guaranteed spot in the main cup. "
 
They already have. It's called a repechage tournament.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554470" data-time="1453868264">
<div>
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but in an interview Jock Hobbs talked about the South African bid and he said said their presentation and plan was so amateurish he felt embarrassed for them. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Well, Jock Hobbs was a Kiwi, so we can take it in that context. I actually knew the guy. RIP.

jegga

Why is its geographical size a disadvantage ? Surely that would be an advantage for fans following their team? 
Also you said a Ireland is too small wet and cold, I think South Africa is too big dry and hot .

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mooshld" data-cid="554500" data-time="1453883960">
<div>
That wasn't what I said at all. What I said is that increased exposure to tier 1 teams is no guarantee to improve the quality of rugby. Example Italy and Argentina, One has much more exposure yet has not really progressed the other has recently had more exposure and has progressed massively. So it must be something else that is causing it. I don't know what it is but there is more to it then just regular games against better opposition. 
 
Oh and in the last world cup
 
Aussie beat Uruguay by 65-3
Saffers beat USA 64 - 0
Argentina beat Namibia 64 -19
 
All of those are hidings, considering the tier 1 teams did not even roll out their top teams.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
& Japan beat South Africa

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554514" data-time="1453886823">Well, Jock Hobbs was a Kiwi, so we can take it in that context. I actually knew the guy. RIP.</blockquote>
 
What context? Can you explain how the SA bid was better?

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554518" data-time="1453887009">
<div>
What context? Can you explain how the SA bid was better?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It's just a better country to stage it in, with bigger and better stadiums, much larger population & TV market - almost on the same time zone as the British Isles, better weather conditions, and a whole lot more to do for the travelling fans.
 
"Why is its geographical size a disadvantage ? "
 
Would you stage it in Samoa then?

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554520" data-time="1453887182">It's just a better country to stage it in, with bigger and better stadiums, much larger population & TV market - almost on the same time zone as the British Isles, better weather conditions, and a whole lot more to do for the travelling fans. 
 
"Why is its geographical size a disadvantage ? " 
 Would you stage it in Samoa then?</blockquote>
 
So you don't know how the SA bid was better than NZs then? Probably best you stop claiming it then. 
The Samoa comment is silly, it makes your argument look even weaker.

mariner4life

Who is this retard?

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554520" data-time="1453887182">It's just a better country to stage it in, with bigger and better stadiums, much larger population & TV market - almost on the same time zone as the British Isles, better weather conditions, and a whole lot more to do for the travelling fans. 
 
"Why is its geographical size a disadvantage ? " 
 Would you stage it in Samoa then?</blockquote>
 
Pffffft, if you've been to one Safari you've been to them all

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="554527" data-time="1453888781">Pffffft, if you've been to one Safari you've been to them all</blockquote>
 
Don't forget the endless opportunities to be the victim of a serious crime as well . 
I don't think it sends a particularly good message to SAs union giving them a rwc considering their idiot behaviour .

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa