2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

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 .

hydro11

I get that we have to expand the game but I don't know if a 24 team World Cup is the right way to do that. I would like to keep it as a 20 team World Cup but everyone has to qualify. That way you would give the developing nations the chance to play the top tier nations more than once every four years. What we need to do now is to make sure that a team like Georgia has the opportunity to become like Argentina. I think that is more pertinent than expanding to 24 teams. In saying that, we will probably have to expand the tournament at some stage. I just don't think we will be there yet in 2023.

jegga

Anyone have any theories why Argentina has progressed and Italy are still fairly rubbish after 16 years in the 6n? They don't really do much for the theory that playing top teams on a regular basis helps lift a team, they aren't short of cash either or shy about poaching players .

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554513" data-time="1453886732">"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.</blockquote>
 
No. 
The repecharge is to find the last, lowest level of qualifiers after the automatic qualifiers and then the reginsl qualifiers. 
I agree with Mariner. Definitely scope for a second tier tourney running parallel with the Cup knockouts. 
No need for 24 teams.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="554543" data-time="1453891651">
<div>
No. 
The repecharge is to find the last, lowest level of qualifiers after the automatic qualifiers and then the reginsl qualifiers. 
I agree with Mariner. Definitely scope for a second tier tourney running parallel with the Cup knockouts. 
No need for 24 teams.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Something similar to the sevens with a plate comp? 24 teams is too many, there'd be some real dross there.

booboo

<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>
 
Weird post. 
Ireland has some pretty good stadiums. 
Lower crime rate too. 
Travelling around South Africa is more of an issue. A logistical challenge. 
Ireland has sufficient good quality stadiums and will have plenty upgrades if yhey win the bid. 
TV audience within the host country is irrelevant. SA has same time zone as Europe so rights will be the same regardless. 
Reagarding attractions for travelling fans - that is an issue in itself. Fans will HAVE to travel rather than jump on a Ryanair (or whatever) flight for an overnighter. 
Population is Samoa's issue not geographical size. I'm wrong - that wasn't weird it was silly. 
Don't get me wrong. I'd have no objection to SA hosting. And am not advocating Ireland. As I said above I'd be happy with SA Ireland or Italy of those bidding. Would love to go to that WC. Just some of your points are a little tenuous.

antipodean

Ireland is near major European transport hubs, could utilise GAA stadiums and hasn't yet hosted. <blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554544" data-time="1453891769">Something similar to the sevens with a plate comp? 24 teams is too many, there'd be some real dross there.</blockquote> That's the only way you could introduce worse teams and not have enormous floggings. We also need to see if the 2015 RWC was an aberration in terms of score differentials.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="554549" data-time="1453893028">
<div>
Ireland is near major European transport hubs, could utilise GAA stadiums and hasn't yet hosted. 
That's the only way you could introduce worse teams and not have enormous floggings. We also need to see if the 2015 RWC was an aberration in terms of score differentials.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Who are likely to be the next four teams? I don't think we need to introduce worse teams.

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa