2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa

First topic message reminder :



The Rugby World Cup should return to South Africa in 2023, and the tournament should be expanded to 24 teams.

The other three candidates are Ireland, France and Italy. Were any of these successful, that would mean a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere, even though it is the Southern Hemisphere which overwhelmingly dominates.

It would also entail a return to the Six Nations for the fifth time in just ten tournaments, which is a little ridiculous for a sport with over one hundred affiliated member nations and self-professed global pretentions.

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.

France, meanwhile, hosted the World Cup as recently as eight years ago, and was also a co-host in 1991 and 1999.

That leaves Italy, to my mind the most attractive of the European bids, as it is a newcomer to the heavyweight ranks with a large number of registered players. However, World Rugby might want to go with a more established rugby playing nation for its 10th World Cup. Japan is already facing problems as it prepares to stage the 2019 event, with its new Olympic Stadium having now been removed from the venue list.

As for South Africa, it has the biggest and best rugby-purpose stadia in the world - with the possible exception of England, which has just hosted the event for the second time. It has the second largest number of registered players (also behind England), and it is the second most successful rugby playing nation after New Zealand.

By the time 2023 rolls around, an entire generation will have grown up since the last time the tournament was held in South Africa. This, even though the 1995 installment was one of the most successful and spectacular World Cups to date.

So if New Zealand, Austrlalia and England can all host it twice, and France can be involved as either host or co-host on three occasions, why on earth shouldn't it return to South Africa in 2023? Why does World Rugby appear to have lost faith in the republic, having overlooked it for both 2011 and 2019?

It's time to break the cycle. The World Cup can not continue to return to Western Europe on every second occasion. That is a myopic approach and anathema to the globalization cause.

But it does need to return to the Southern Hemisphere in 2023 for what will be the first time in 12 years. Moreover, it needs to return to the African continent, one of the hotbeds of international rugby development in recent decades.

This leads me to my final point in South Africa's favour. World Rugby officials have raised the possibility of an expanded tournament, and this is undoubtedly overdue. Again, with its vast array of rugby-purpose stadia, South Africa's credentials are unsurpassed as a potential host nation for a 24-team World Cup.

The last - and only - increase in teams was from 16 to 20 in 1999. This appears to have been successful, judging by the improved performances of the fringe teams in New Zealand and England.

In fact, no centuries have been recorded since 2003, while Japan's stunning victory over the Springboks this year suggests the days of foregone conclusions is World Cup rugby may be drawing to a close.

That said, a lot of work needs to be done in the interim if the additional teams are going to be genuinely competitive. One of the biggest obstacles to the game's global development is the stratification of its international competitions.

Not only are the elite championships closed-shop, but there is little interaction between the top teams and the emerging nations in between World Cups. How on earth are the up-and-comers supposed to be competitive in the big exam if they have been denied the lessons to prepare in between?

New Zealand and Australia should be playing annual tests with the Pacific Islands and Japan, as should the Six Nations with their Eastern European neighbours. South Africa ought to engage Namibia in a 'Bledisloe Cup'-style annual trophy match, and Hong Kong and Korea should be playing in the Pacific Challenge tournament, alongside the Pacific Islands B teams and Argentina's 'Pampas,' with a possible view to future inclusion in the Pacific Nations Championship.

In addition to this, would it not be a fairly straightforward exercise for Six Nations teams to stop in for tests against Namibia and Uruguay enroute to South Africa and Argentina, respectively - as well as the Pacific Islands while touring New Zealand or Australia?

By the same token, how about the Southern Hemisphere teams playing Georgia, Romania or Russia on their Autumn tours to Europe? Argentina might even take on Spain or Portugal.

If rugby is to more forward, it needs to expand its World Cup, and this can only be successful with a more integrated international rugby calendar.

fa0019, if someone's car broke down in Ireland, the last thing you would think of is that if someone approaches you, they might murder, r*** or rob you! It might seem normal enough for you to take precautions - that is just not the case in most, if not all EU countries.

I know of 2 families who had bought property in South Africa to retire to, but have sold it because of the security situation.

ssible Ireland team for Saturday's match against England.

Payne unlikely to recover would allow Stu McCloskey to earn his first cap at inside centre and move Henshaw to his more natural position at outside.

McCarthy's loss through injury gives another possible new cap to Connacht's Ultan Dillane, most likely on the bench with Donncha Ryan starting alongside Toner.

Tommy O'Donnell, the Munster open-side could give way to a third newbie, Leinster's young Josh van der Flier.

Earls in for the injured D Kearney. Ross and Healy recovered from injury.

If this comes to pass, it would make for a refreshing change in the back line. And a bit more solidity up front in the scrum.


15 Rob Kearney (Leinster)
14 Andrew Trimble (Ulster)
13 Robbie Henshaw (Connacht)
12 Stuart McCloskey (Ulster)
11 Keith Earls (Munster)
10 Johnny Sexton (Leinster)
9 Conor Murray (Munster)
1 Jack McGrath (Leinster)
2 Rory Best (Ulster, capt)
3 Mike Ross (Leinster)
4 Donnacha Ryan (Munster)
5 Devin Toner (Leinster)
6 C J Stander (Munster)
7 Josh van der Flier (Leinster)
8 Jamie Heaslip (Leinster)

Replacements: R Strauss (Leinster), C Healy (Leinster), N White (Connacht), U Dillane (Connacht), R Ruddock (Leinster), E Reddan (Leinster), I Madigan (Leinster), S Zebo (Munster).

Sin é wrote:fa0019, if someone's car broke down in Ireland, the last thing you would think of is that if someone approaches you, they might murder, r*** or rob you! It might seem normal enough for you to take precautions - that is just not the case in most, if not all EU countries.

Crime is obviously an issue that needs to be taken into consideration, but the fact the entire case against South Africa hosting another World Cup continues to revolve around this 13 pages and hundreds of posts into the discussion is really only an indication of just how much weaker the other bids are on face value. None of them can match South Africa in terms of infrastructure, stadia, passion, experience and both geographical and environmental suitability. In fact, crime levels notwithstanding, South Africa is probably the ideal nation in which to hold a Rugby World Cup - ahead of any other. & at the end of the day, crime was not a factor at the FIFA World Cup and previous Rugby World Cup held in South Africa, not at any other major event held in the republic, and neither has it prevented Durban's selection as host of the 2022 Commonwealth Games.

Interestingly, the proposed bid by Ireland for the 2023 RWC is based on an all-island bid using stadia on the island. It is not proposed to use any other external stadia. The terms for the upcoming bids state that any bid must state in advance which stadia will be used.

A list of the proposed stadia has been set out earlier in this thread that Ireland would propose to use in its bid.

The total attendance capacity for these stadia is in the region of 537,000.
In comparison, the total stadium capacity attendance for RWC 2015 in England was 612,000

In short, there is sufficient capacity stadia. The 13 stadia proposed to be used in Ireland are spread uniformly through the island, with particular concentrations in high-volume tourism areas.

As already known, Ireland would have to do upgrading of their stadia facilities for a RWC in commomon with other bidding countries.

This cost is absorbed into the planning/operational costs of the bid and would have no impact whatsoever on the bid selection criteria or the financial out-turn for World Rugby.

Ireland would easily cope with an influx of rugby tourists at the shoulders of the high season - given the prominence of tourism in the economy and the tourism infrastructure that currently exists.

The time of year that a RWC would be held in Ireland would be approx 2nd week Sept- 3rd week Oct. Temperature highs for that time of year would range from 17 celsius to 12/13 celsius. Daylight hours would be approx 10/11 hours per day.

Italy and France's bids would be worthwhile examining in more detail to see their facilities and infrastructure.

You've posted that same message several times now, but failed to address the corrections and qualifications I made after you posted it the first time:

Rowanbi wrote:The Home Unions do not vote as a block.

On RWC hosting rights, generally they do.

he total attendance capacity for these stadia is in the region of 537,000.  
In comparison, the total stadium capacity attendance for RWC 2015 in England was 612,000
The total stadium capacity attendance at South Africa's Soccer World Cup was 520,000

Firstly, the 2010 FIFA World Cup was held in 10 stadiums, and match attendances averaged just over 50,000. The 2015 RWC in Britain used 13 stadiums, also averaging just over 50,000 per match. Ireland are expected to use 12 stadiums for the RWC, should their bid be successful. I wasn't aware official lists of venues had been presented by any of the bidders at this early stage. There was a report in the Irish Independent about the stadiums the IRFU would likely use. I've just added up the total attendance and it comes to 468,000. I've also just counted up the total attendance of South Africa's dozen largest rugby & football stadiums, and that came to 664,000. These would certainly require less upgrading than Ireland's collection of mostly Gaelic and hurling venues.  

Any bid must state in advance which stadia will be used.

England named their stadia AFTER being awarded the hosting rights for 2015, including the controversial choice of Cardiff.

Depending on which stadia were selected in South Africa, travel would be more dispersed and elongated for fans moving between venues.  In contrast, the 13 stadia proposed to be used in Ireland are spread uniformly through the island, with particular concentrations in high-volume tourism areas.

This is how Donald Trump would describe it. What it really means, is that the pools could be comfortably staged in different provinces, and that fans would only need to travel to other centers for the play-offs fixtures (quarters, semis, 3rd & final). In most instances this could be achieved comfortably enough by bus or train. In fact, the distance from Joburg to Pretoria is about the same as from Auckland to Hamilton (under an hour's drive), from Joburg to Bloemfontein about the same as from Auckland to Napier (400kms), from Joburg to Durban about the same as from Auckland to Wellington (500kms), from Joburg to Port Elizaberth about the same as from Auckland to Christchurch (without the Strait), and from Joburg to Cape Town about the same as from Auckland to Dunedin (also without the Strait). So really South Africa is no more difficult to get around than NZ is. &, really, who is going to want to stay in the same spot for five weeks or so anyway? Meanwhile, in Ireland, the whole tournament would have to revolve primarily around Dublin and its major rugby and Gaelic stadiums in order to be profitable. Which is why I suggest the fans would be climbing all over the top of each other and the hotels and other service industries would be overwhelmed.

The time of year that a RWC would be held in Ireland would be approx 2nd week Sept- 3rd week Oct.   Temperature highs for that time of year would range from 17 celsius to 12/13 celsius. Daylight hours would be approx 10/11 hours per day.


According to the Irish meteorological service the average temperatures in Dublin for September and October are 14 and 11, respectively, there are 4 and 3 hours of sunshine, a 60% chance of rain 80% chance of wind, and only a 20% chance of a sunny day. Belfast, of course, has worse weather than Dublin. Ok, no problem for the players, of course, but not much fun for the fans, and certainly not conducive to the entertaining style of running rugby. The average temperature in Cape Town, for example, during the same period is 21 & 23 degrees, respectively, with only a few days of rain likely. Perfect weather not only for watching rugby, but for getting around and exploring the many wonderful attractions the republic has to offer.

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:fa0019, if someone's car broke down in Ireland, the last thing you would think of is that if someone approaches you, they might murder, r*** or rob you! It might seem normal enough for you to take precautions - that is just not the case in most, if not all EU countries.

Crime is obviously an issue that needs to be taken into consideration, but the fact the entire case against South Africa hosting another World Cup continues to revolve around this 13 pages and hundreds of posts into the discussion is really only an indication of just how much weaker the other bids are on face value. None of them can match South Africa in terms of infrastructure, stadia, passion, experience and both geographical and environmental suitability. In fact, crime levels notwithstanding, South Africa is probably the ideal nation in which to hold a Rugby World Cup - ahead of any other. & at the end of the day, crime was not a factor at the FIFA World Cup and previous Rugby World Cup held in South Africa, not at any other major event held in the republic, and neither has it prevented Durban's selection as host of the 2022 Commonwealth Games.  

You've not really been paying attention then.

Sin é wrote:fa0019, if someone's car broke down in Ireland, the last thing you would think of is that if someone approaches you, they might murder, r*** or rob you! It might seem normal enough for you to take precautions - that is just not the case in most, if not all EU countries.

I know of 2 families who had bought property in South Africa to retire to, but have sold it because of the security situation.

But would they fix your car for free?

The reason I state this is that in essence much of what goes on in SA is a little inflated. The fear of crime can be just as bad as crime itself.

[quote="fa0019"]

Sin é wrote:fa0019, if someone's car broke down in Ireland, the last thing you would think of is that if someone approaches you, they might murder, r*** or rob you! It might seem normal enough for you to take precautions - that is just not the case in most, if not all EU countries.

I know of 2 families who had bought property in South Africa to retire to, but have sold it because of the security situation.

But would they fix your car for free?

They might … this is a paragraph from the Lonely Planet on Ireland.

Tá Fáilte Romhat
On the plane and along your travels you might hear it said: tá Fáilte romhat (taw fall-cha row-at) – 'You're very welcome'. Or, more famously, céad míle fáilte – a hundred thousand welcomes. Irish friendliness is a tired cliché, an over-simplification of a character that is infinitely complex, but the Irish are nonetheless warm and welcoming. Wherever you meet them there's a good chance a conversation will begin, pleasantries will be exchanged and, should you be a stranger in town, the offer of a helping hand extended. But, lest you think this is merely an act of unfettered altruism, rest assured that the comfort they seek is actually their own, for the Irish cannot be at ease in the company of those who aren't. A hundred thousand welcomes. It seems excessive, but in Ireland, excess is encouraged, so long as it's practised in moderation.

Read more: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/ireland/introduction#ixzz41Dc2vmON

Ireland was ranked No. 5 in Lonely Planet's recommended countries to visit last year (2015).

The reason I state this is that in essence much of what goes on in SA is a little inflated. The fear of crime can be just as bad as crime itself.

The last thing people want to do when on holiday is to be worried about their safety.

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:fa0019, if someone's car broke down in Ireland, the last thing you would think of is that if someone approaches you, they might murder, r*** or rob you! It might seem normal enough for you to take precautions - that is just not the case in most, if not all EU countries.

Crime is obviously an issue that needs to be taken into consideration, but the fact the entire case against South Africa hosting another World Cup continues to revolve around this 13 pages and hundreds of posts into the discussion is really only an indication of just how much weaker the other bids are on face value. None of them can match South Africa in terms of infrastructure, stadia, passion, experience and both geographical and environmental suitability. In fact, crime levels notwithstanding, South Africa is probably the ideal nation in which to hold a Rugby World Cup - ahead of any other. & at the end of the day, crime was not a factor at the FIFA World Cup and previous Rugby World Cup held in South Africa, not at any other major event held in the republic, and neither has it prevented Durban's selection as host of the 2022 Commonwealth Games.  

So, if SA is so perfect, how come SA has not hosted the World Cup since 1995. Its not as if SA hasn't been bidding for it every time. How come Japan, France and England were preferred?

Sin é wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:fa0019, if someone's car broke down in Ireland, the last thing you would think of is that if someone approaches you, they might murder, r*** or rob you! It might seem normal enough for you to take precautions - that is just not the case in most, if not all EU countries.

Crime is obviously an issue that needs to be taken into consideration, but the fact the entire case against South Africa hosting another World Cup continues to revolve around this 13 pages and hundreds of posts into the discussion is really only an indication of just how much weaker the other bids are on face value. None of them can match South Africa in terms of infrastructure, stadia, passion, experience and both geographical and environmental suitability. In fact, crime levels notwithstanding, South Africa is probably the ideal nation in which to hold a Rugby World Cup - ahead of any other. & at the end of the day, crime was not a factor at the FIFA World Cup and previous Rugby World Cup held in South Africa, not at any other major event held in the republic, and neither has it prevented Durban's selection as host of the 2022 Commonwealth Games.  

So, if SA is so perfect, how come SA has not hosted the World Cup since 1995. Its not as if SA hasn't been bidding for it every time. How come Japan, France and England were preferred?

Well, first of all, I don't think those are the exact tournaments SA bid for. Secondly, I think it mostly comes down to horse-trading among the core committee members, with South Africa perhaps the most isolated of the 8 foundation members. Beyond that, we have to look at things on a case by case basis. NZ, Japan & SA vied for 2011. Japan were the bookies' favorite, because SA had hosted just 10 years before this decision was announced, while NZ had stadium issues and had also been axed as a co-host to Australia in 2003. SA was then one of about 10 nations which bid for either the 2015 or 2019 World Cups. Somewhat unsually the hosts for both tournaments were named at the same time. SA were certainly among the favorites for one or the other, but the European block obviously voted for England (France having quite probably come to some kind of agreement with them as they went head-to-head for 2007). Japan receiving the 2019 edition conveniently diverted attention from the 2015 decision. South Africa is the current favorite to host 2023, according to various sources, including Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_World_Cup_hosts#2003:_Australia

The crime issue can be easily overcome as shown in Brazil, Bangladesh etc The real issue is the anti white movement in South Africa being pushed by the ANC.

"The number of farm murders, or "plaasmoorde" as it is called in Afrikaans, is staggering. Over the last decade, it is estimated that at least 3000 Boers have been killed. Estimating the number of murders is necessary because the ANC has banned crime statistics from being compiled, claiming they scare off foreign investment."

"What is known is that the ANC celebrated in 100th year anniversary with a song led by President Zuma himself. “Dubula iBhunu” or "Shoot the Boer" was a line in the lyrics of an apartheid-era song, "

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/180781/gruesome-reality-racist-south-africa-arnold-ahlert

Lets not forget these "quotas" they want to bring into the pro teams.

The real issue is the anti white movement in South Africa

Dylann Roof might agree with you about that.

Do they still have trouble in Ulster during the Orangemen's Parade, btw?

Rowanbi wrote:The real issue is the anti white movement in South Africa

Dylann Roof might agree with you about that.

Do they still have trouble in Ulster during the Orangemen's Parade, btw?

Yup but there certainly aren't thousands of farmers being killed. Stone throwing is about the height of the action in Ulster.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:The crime thing can be easily overcome as shown in Brazil, Bangladesh etc The real issue is the anti white movement in South Africa being pushed by the ANC.

"The number of farm murders, or "plaasmoorde" as it is called in Afrikaans, is staggering. Over the last decade, it is estimated that at least 3000 Boers have been killed. Estimating the number of murders is necessary because the ANC has banned crime statistics from being compiled, claiming they scare off foreign investment."

"What is known is that the ANC celebrated in 100th year anniversary with a song led by President Zuma himself. “Dubula iBhunu” or "Shoot the Boer" was a line in the lyrics of an apartheid-era song, "

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/180781/gruesome-reality-racist-south-africa-arnold-ahlert

Lets not forget these "quotas" they want to bring into the pro teams.

Read this late late but felt I needed to reply to this asap. "The real issue in SA is the anti-white movement". The only people who say this, who believe this really have to look in the mirror. I'd challenge anyone to see the numerous street children and still think the same. Many whites who leave South Africa simply don't like the fact that african people now dominate politically. These persons have been used to having an underclass below them doing the menial jobs; garden boys, food packers, car parkers, maids and servants. Many still do. I have never had and won't let my wife get one either.

About 4000 white farmers have died in the last 20 years. Have a guess how many Africans have died in that time.

The naive think that oh well they have their freedom what more do they want? preferential treatment.... baaa! Think about it like this, you're thrown in prison for a serious crime you didn't commit and lose decades of your life, the best years, an education, a chance of a family the lot. Then you get out, you find someone doctored evidence.... and after that the lawmakers say, well you now have your freedom, why you still mad? Every single one of us would have a vendetta to the grave and sue all those responsible for everything they had. Africans have their freedom but they're still living poor lives, poverty most here can't even imagine whilst many whites drive around still in their BMWs and gated communities (hold my hand up) and only through privilege received from the old days be it directly or indirectly from their ancestors.

Many whites have suffered from violence, that is undeniable and a modern tragedy but just as many left because they were unwilling to give up their "lord of the manor" status.  Generally those who dislike it the most are uneducated whites, those who got heavily inflated status simply for the colour of the their skin. Now the pecking order has been revised they are back to being chavs as we'd say in the UK. They're easy to spot in the UK too, generally they're the worst kind of saffa; the arrogant, overweight, over opinionated chap who returned to the UK on some sort of ancestral visa and works joe jobs only, because that's all they can muster. Its a terrible advert for SA.

Boere dominate farming in SA and therefore a lot of those who die in these situations are white. But lets not pretend whites are now dying in droves compared to africans. African murders still heavily heavily outweigh those on white's. its not to say that means its better but the truth of it is... outside of SA, in the west a white person being murdered sells newspapers, another black person being murdered isn't even worthy of a footnote. You mention crime can be overcome such as in Brasil... I'd say hands down Brasil and Rio in particular is more dangerous than SA. Ask anyone comparing Rio and Cape Town and I'd bet you'd struggle to find anyone saying Rio was safer.

This doesn't however mean SA can't and should not be able to put on a successful RWC. Should France not be allowed to host RWCs now that it is unfortunately experiencing a spate of terrorism acts mainly targeting civilians? How many of you have complained about France hosting Euro2016?

SA have proved that tourists come to little risk both at the RWC and at all other times. I challenge anyone here to not come to SA on holiday and say its one of the best holidays you'll ever experience in your life. Its a great country and tourists experience little problems.
The FIFA world cup is a bigger tournament, has fans from far more countries, most non English speaking with a bigger stage and it did well, very well in fact. Anyone saying SA can't or still has to prove it can or whether or not SA can cope with extra fans is delusional.

There is no problem with SA's bid, I believe its a good bid and its time the RWC came back to SA (one of the 3 major regions of rugby in the world). They have near 1MM registered players and have the biggest average attendances in club rugby. Rugby in SA is as big as rugby in the whole of Europe excluding England. Double the size of AUS & NZ in all rugby indicators (who have hosted 3 RWCs).

I don't attack Ireland's bid. I don't think they can't put on a show, a good show but they haven't come close to putting on a show of this magnitude and that is a big ask in itself. What is the biggest tournament they've hosted? I see in rugby terms it was probably the U19 JRWC in 2007. They're not even on the 7s circuit (although I assume that is because they decided not to have a 7s team). I know gaelic games is big in Ireland so maybe they host big tournaments in those sports, I don't know. If WR are convinced I'm sure it won't be a problem.

The RWC is the 3rd largest tournament in the world after the Olympics and the FIFA world cup. Japan itself can put on big events but its still a risk and I'd say its best to cover them with a cash cow 4 years after. For me SA is a sure hit.
Fans here from outside of SA are quite frankly resorting to pretty remarks (probably through deep insecurities about their own bid) oh... look at farm attacks on whites, look at crime, oh they've hosted it before... we haven't (although there have been 4 hosted within a stones throw of our shores, the recent RWC probably had more Irish fans in a rugby game since the old standing stadium days and also inc. the 91 tournament where Ireland were co hosts (Ireland played all bar one of their matches in Dublin and had they beat AUS they would have played their SF there too).

Why don't people cut the crap out. Some (ok 1) pro SA bid blogger(s) is admittedly turning the gears but I think its below the belt for many to attack SA on side issues and some of the comments on here are frankly shameful. I would have only expected to have heard them out of the mouths whom even Nigel Farage would say... "easy on mate".

Couldn't agree more fa0001.  Well said.

You'll have noted the one person in your corner - so to speak - is also the person who wrote the OP and took the stance of taking cheap and inaccurate shots at other bids.  And he's never been in SA and once spent an overnight in Dublin and sees himself as an 'expert' on both countries on this basis.

A troll's recipe that was inevitably going to attract some strong reactions.  Just as was planned and has been done on other rugby fora with the exact same topic.  

I've no problem with SA bidding for RWC at all. Nor do I have with Ireland, Italy or France going for it either.

So these "quotas" are just for integration then? Is the same being done in soccer to help bring more white people into the national team? I homestly cannot believe that people are just shrugging their shoulders at these quotas as if it's nothing.

fa0019 wrote:

Read this late late but felt I needed to reply to this asap. "The real issue in SA is the anti-white movement". The only people who say this, who believe this really have to look in the mirror. I'd challenge anyone to see the numerous street children and still think the same. Many whites who leave South Africa simply don't like the fact that african people now dominate politically. These persons have been used to having an underclass below them doing the menial jobs; garden boys, food packers, car parkers, maids and servants. Many still do. I have never had and won't let my wife get one either.

About 4000 white farmers have died in the last 20 years. Have a guess how many Africans have died in that time.

The naive think that oh well they have their freedom what more do they want? preferential treatment.... baaa! Think about it like this, you're thrown in prison for a serious crime you didn't commit and lose decades of your life, the best years, an education, a chance of a family the lot. Then you get out, you find someone doctored evidence.... and after that the lawmakers say, well you now have your freedom, why you still mad? Every single one of us would have a vendetta to the grave and sue all those responsible for everything they had. Africans have their freedom but they're still living poor lives, poverty most here can't even imagine whilst many whites drive around still in their BMWs and gated communities (hold my hand up) and only through privilege received from the old days be it directly or indirectly from their ancestors.

Many whites have suffered from violence, that is undeniable and a modern tragedy but just as many left because they were unwilling to give up their "lord of the manor" status.  Generally those who dislike it the most are uneducated whites, those who got heavily inflated status simply for the colour of the their skin. Now the pecking order has been revised they are back to being chavs as we'd say in the UK. They're easy to spot in the UK too, generally they're the worst kind of saffa; the arrogant, overweight, over opinionated chap who returned to the UK on some sort of ancestral visa and works joe jobs only, because that's all they can muster. Its a terrible advert for SA.

Boere dominate farming in SA and therefore a lot of those who die in these situations are white. But lets not pretend whites are now dying in droves compared to africans. African murders still heavily heavily outweigh those on white's. its not to say that means its better but the truth of it is... outside of SA, in the west a white person being murdered sells newspapers, another black person being murdered isn't even worthy of a footnote. You mention crime can be overcome such as in Brasil... I'd say hands down Brasil and Rio in particular is more dangerous than SA. Ask anyone comparing Rio and Cape Town and I'd bet you'd struggle to find anyone saying Rio was safer.

This doesn't however mean SA can't and should not be able to put on a successful RWC. Should France not be allowed to host RWCs now that it is unfortunately experiencing a spate of terrorism acts mainly targeting civilians? How many of you have complained about France hosting Euro2016?

SA have proved that tourists come to little risk both at the RWC and at all other times. I challenge anyone here to not come to SA on holiday and say its one of the best holidays you'll ever experience in your life. Its a great country and tourists experience little problems.
The FIFA world cup is a bigger tournament, has fans from far more countries, most non English speaking with a bigger stage and it did well, very well in fact. Anyone saying SA can't or still has to prove it can or whether or not SA can cope with extra fans is delusional.

There is no problem with SA's bid, I believe its a good bid and its time the RWC came back to SA (one of the 3 major regions of rugby in the world). They have near 1MM registered players and have the biggest average attendances in club rugby. Rugby in SA is as big as rugby in the whole of Europe excluding England. Double the size of AUS & NZ in all rugby indicators (who have hosted 3 RWCs).

I don't attack Ireland's bid. I don't think they can't put on a show, a good show but they haven't come close to putting on a show of this magnitude and that is a big ask in itself. What is the biggest tournament they've hosted? I see in rugby terms it was probably the U19 JRWC in 2007. They're not even on the 7s circuit (although I assume that is because they decided not to have a 7s team). I know gaelic games is big in Ireland so maybe they host big tournaments in those sports, I don't know. If WR are convinced I'm sure it won't be a problem.

The RWC is the 3rd largest tournament in the world after the Olympics and the FIFA world cup. Japan itself can put on big events but its still a risk and I'd say its best to cover them with a cash cow 4 years after. For me SA is a sure hit.
Fans here from outside of SA are quite frankly resorting to pretty remarks (probably through deep insecurities about their own bid) oh... look at farm attacks on whites, look at crime, oh they've hosted it before... we haven't (although there have been 4 hosted within a stones throw of our shores, the recent RWC probably had more Irish fans in a rugby game since the old standing stadium days and also inc. the 91 tournament where Ireland were co hosts (Ireland played all bar one of their matches in Dublin and had they beat AUS they would have played their SF there too).

Why don't people cut the crap out. Some (ok 1) pro SA bid blogger(s) is admittedly turning the gears but I think its below the belt for many to attack SA on side issues and some of the comments on here are frankly shameful. I would have only expected to have heard them out of the mouths whom even Nigel Farage would say... "easy on mate".

Great post, FA0019. When we consider that most of the major rugby playing nations (and their governments) more or less supported South Africa throughout the Apartheid era (or most of it), it seems a bit rich that they would now turn their back on them on the pretext of "racism against whites." Much of what is occurring in South Africa in terms of crime and racial conflict is of course the legacy of Apartheid. White rule may have ended a quarter of a century ago, but it did so in name only. Foreign interests retained control of the mines, banks and monopoly industries, and no economic democracy has followed. Whites have by and large been permitted to hang onto the wealth they accrued during the Apartheid era, while no compensation has ever been paid to the countless non-whites who continue to suffer from the effects of white rule to this day. The ANC has been in bed with the Europeans and Americans all along, engaging in a policy of self-enrichment rather than investing the nation's vast wealth in the majority of the population.

The main difference between our views is my outright opposition to Ireland's bid. However, I have expressed my reasons for this without unduly belittling Ireland or ridiculing it in any way. My only concern here is that World Rugby stage its showpiece event in the best location possible for both the tournament and the game of rugby itself - notably in terms of continued international development. So I think I am being perfectly realistic that a small nation tournament (Ireland is about half the size of New Zealand's South Island) in a country with only two major cities and one major rugby stadium, in what are likely to be fairly inclement weather conditions, is not the best option in accordance with the above-stated objectives. Neither is returning the tournament to basically the same relatively small geographical region (France & the UK combined are smaller than SA) every eight years when other nations on other continents are champing at the bit to stage it.

Most of the attention in the British & Irish press has been on the Irish bid, which is understandable, so I decided to present the case for South Africa (see opening post). What I received in response was basically a blitzkrieg attack on South Africa due to its crime rate, and an attempt to write off the republic entirely due to this one factor. Constructive discussion was always going to be difficult from there.

The problem is SA don't have anything to really differentiate like ireland and Italy do. A new host is going to be very tempting.

Tell me Rowanbi, did you think the weather was inclement for the 2015 rugby world cup?

Rowanbi wrote:The main difference between our views is my outright opposition to Ireland's bid. However, I have expressed my reasons for this without unduly belittling Ireland or ridiculing it in any way. My only concern here is that World Rugby stage its showpiece event in the best location possible for both the tournament and the game of rugby itself - notably in terms of continued international development. So I think I am being perfectly realistic that a small nation tournament (Ireland is about half the size of New Zealand's South Island) in a country with only two major cities and one major rugby stadium, in what are likely to be fairly inclement weather conditions, is not the best option in accordance with the above-stated objectives. Neither is returning the tournament to basically the same relatively small geographical region (France & the UK combined are smaller than SA) every eight years when other nations on other continents are champing at the bit to stage it.

You seem to thing that South Africa's large geographical size is some sort of advantage. I cannot see the geographical size of a country as being particularly relevant but if anything a small country is better as it makes transport between the venues easier.

Sin é wrote:Tell me Rowanbi, did you think the weather was inclement for the 2015 rugby world cup?

No, it seemed fine. I wasn't there, of course, so I'm not sure how the fans themselves found it. But Ireland is generally a few degrees cooler, and definitely wetter, than the south of Britain - around which the tournament revolved. Again, no problem for the players, but no fun for the fans, and not really conducive to spectacular, running rugby either.


You seem to thing that South Africa's large geographical size is some sort of advantage. I cannot see the geographical size of a country as being particularly relevant but if anything a small country is better as it makes transport between the venues easier.

I think SA's about perfect for the world's third biggest sports event, especially with talk of expansion doing the rounds. I've already demonstrated that South Africa is as easy to get around as New Zealand is. Indeed, it is significantly easier to get around by road due to the multi-lane express ways connecting the major centres. They also have very good train services - and there is no strait dissecting the nation to get across.

I've also suggested that, if long distances were considered a problem, the pools could be staged in different provinces, thereby restricing the need to make a trip of more than a few hours to the knock-out rounds. By then I imagine fans following the entire event will be itching to move on and see a different part of the country (if they haven't already). In Ireland they'd be climbing the walls after 6 weeks, especially if it happened to be a particularly wet autumn season.

Furthermore, by your method of evaluation, we should probably dismiss the idea of the US or Argentina ever hosting it, as they're both a lot bigger than South Africa...

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:Tell me Rowanbi, did you think the weather was inclement for the 2015 rugby world cup?

No, it seemed fine. I wasn't there, of course, so I'm not sure how the fans themselves found it. But Ireland is generally a few degrees cooler, and definitely wetter, than the south of Britain - around which the tournament revolved. Again, no problem for the players, but no fun for the fans, and not really conducive to spectacular, running rugby either.

So everyone thought the weather was great then (as it was). Perfect weather conditions for playing rugby.


Rainfall at Dublin Airport & London last year.

Sept: 56.6 / 49mm
October: 49.1 / 71mm

So you will see, Dublin had less rain than London last year and that didn't prevent running rugby (not that South Africa indulge in it too much). While running rugby might suit South Africans who are used to the high altitude, it puts all other teams at a disadvantage. I'd imagine it would encourage a lot of kicking for penalties as well as the ball travels further.

As mentioned, more than once, the statistics I looked at showed a 50% chance of rain in London at that time of year, 60% chance in Dublin, and 74% chance in Belfast. There were also less sunshine hours in Ireland, while temperatures were a few degrees lower (than London). Those were general statistics, not specific to one year or season.

Speaking of Argentina (ok, it's a tenuous connection, but a brief mention was made earlier), the Jaguares just won their debut match in Super Rugby !!!

Hmmm...

"And lastly the North-West University (NWU), which has 2 main campuses, one in Mafikeng and one in Potchefstroom. Last night the Mafikeng's administration building was set on fire, and at the Potch campus a group is stating that the NWU must boycott the Varsity Cup because their team isn't black enough and if they continue to participate they will arrive at matches in numbers and disrupt the matches.

What it basically boils down to, is the ANC (the Ruling Party), is losing ground ahead of the municipal elections later this year. Now they are attempting to gain votes by using violence and racism as a tactic to get people to vote for them. The EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters), which are a relatively new party, led by Julius Malema (who was once President Zuma's lapdog), has openly talked about his killing the Boere, and the Afrikaner and it's language. They are disrupting everywhere, parliament, universities, municipal buildings and the streets. Trying to get the people not to vote for the ANC. There are even rumours that the EFF is being funded by the USA and trying to invoke a regime change. "

The publication of a damning report on Ireland's public services was delayed until after polls closed last night.
Officials in the European Commission decided to hold back the lengthy and often critical report so as not to influence voters.
Although highlighting the strength of the economic recovery, the 89-page report criticises the lack of funding in education, the high cost of childcare and pointed to problems in housing, the increase in poverty and income inequality and the inadequacy of public transport in Dublin.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/eu-delays-releasing-damning-report-on-ireland-34491135.html

Speaking of Africa, I see both Kenya & SA have beaten NZ at this weekend's Las Vegas 7s. Is that the first time Kenya have beaten the Kiwis ??

From today's Cape Times: Wonder who this was . . .

A former Springbok rugby player has been accused of attempting to murder a man who used to work for him, and who continues to live on his wine farm in the Western Cape.

Police confirmed on Sunday that a case of attempted murder has been opened against the former Springbok.

Johannes Bitterbos, who worked on the farm until three years ago when he was fired, claims he was knocked over by a quadbike driven by the former Springbok on Saturday afternoon.

Bitterbos said he fell to the ground after he was knocked down.

He claimed he would have been driven over again but managed to roll out of the way.

Bitterbos said he has bruises all over his body.

Witnesses then phoned the police, who called an ambulance.

A group of about 20 farmworkers went to the police station to help Bitterbos lodge a complaint.

On Sunday, a group of about 30 farmworkers picketed outside the farm, demanding the former Springbok hand himself over to the police.

A representative of the farmworkers, Alvina Abrahams, said it was sad that he had not yet been arrested.

“We want justice for our people. If the victim had been a white person, he would have been locked up a long time ago,” she said, adding that the farmworkers want the station commander of Wellington police station investigated.

“We say enough is enough,” said Abrahams.

Police spokesperson Frederick van Wyk said an attempted murder case was opened for investigation.

He said there had been no arrest as yet and the investigation is continuing.

The Cape Times tried repeatedly to get comment from the former Springbok, but he was not available at the time of publishing.

From watching a bit of the South African teams play in Super rugby their crowds seem to be way down ( just going by tv) I was honestly shocked to see how empty the stadium was for the Bulls and Cheetahs, especially given how it's the first week. Is there something up there?

Not sure, could be many reasons, but I've been saying all along that the inclusion of a Japanese team would destroy both the meaning and crebility of this hitherto Southern Hemisphere regional championship. Glad to see the Jags in there, but thus far I'm struggling to muster any real interest this year ...

Croke Park (Ireland 82,000 stadium) is the first and only carbon neutral stadium in the world. Good to see the Irish doing what they can for our planet.

Rowanbi wrote:The publication of a damning report on Ireland's public services was delayed until after polls closed last night.
Officials in the European Commission decided to hold back the lengthy and often critical report so as not to influence voters.
Although highlighting the strength of the economic recovery, the 89-page report criticises the lack of funding in education, the high cost of childcare and pointed to problems in housing, the increase in poverty and income inequality and the inadequacy of public transport in Dublin.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/eu-delays-releasing-damning-report-on-ireland-34491135.html

While we would all here in Ireland prefer if we could put more funding into education, etc. etc., its worthwhile noting that Ireland is average in the EU, and well above average in the rest of the world.

And talking about housing - worth noting that an Irish charity has built 25,000 houses in the townships of SA. They did this with using Irish volunteers. About 2,400 per year travelled out to SA to build these. They are now building schools. Read all about it here.

https://www.melloneducate.com/

Indeed, Ireland was the only EU country that did not have full diplomatic relations with South Africa until 1993. However, international rugby contacts with the republic were maintained during the Apartheid era, much to the majority non-white population's chagrin.

Sin é wrote:Croke Park (Ireland 82,000 stadium) is the first and only carbon neutral stadium in the world. Good to see the Irish doing what they can for our planet.

It isn't. The way Croke Park was built means it is the most dangerous stadium in the whole world.

Recently people with machine guns were allowed into the stadium and fired on the crowd, killing some of them. Nearly as bad as South Africa.

And Outspan oranges - what about them, eh?

Looks like Kearney will be out for the weekend so Payne probably will take the 15 shirt.

Payne for the full inquisition from media on whether he would or not:

"By Jove we threw everything we could at Jared but he never cracked.
The odds of Jared Payne playing his first Ireland game at fullback were slashed considerably when Rob Kearney's hamstring issues flared up on Monday afternoon.

The Ulster back is in line to take over the No.15 jersey against Italy, with Stuart McCloskey and Robbie Henshaw continuing in midfield.

We caught up with Payne before learning of Kearney's hamstring injury [he sat out training today] but, still, we pestered him about playing fullback.

Payne smiled and answered each question dutifully but he was giving little away. Asked if Joe Schmidt should give McCloskey-Henshaw another whirl, Payne said:

"Yeah definitely Joe would be silly not to look at it again. They were pretty impressive in that environment, so I’m sure there’ll be another chance to see them at some stage."
Skillful and evasive yet honest. Classic Payne.

Would fullback be an area for a player to shine against Italy?

"Ah, that’s a tough question. They are going to be tough, they have some very good outside backs... I don’t know about shining at 15, you’d have to be pretty tight on your field positioning and defensive work to keep them quiet."

How about coming back in at 13 to negate the threat of Michele Campagnaro?

"I might do, Joe will have his own ways of dealing everything. Whoever marshals him will have their work cut out and it will be tough."

Finally, we lost the rag.

Q: "Jared, are you playing full-back at the weekend?"

A: "If you pay me enough I'll tell you."

That's above my pay-grade.

Darcy's column this week laid it on the line for Joe & Co all the same. starting with a question:

"...who wouldn’t want to know what was said in the Ireland changing room to spark that second half reaction? That revival came from someone saying something specific.

I could venture an educated guess who was at the heart of it. And it’s not Joe Schmidt. That alone is hugely encouraging. For all the leaders we have lost – O’Connell, O’Mahony, O’Brien, O’Driscoll even – there remains a core group of men striving to fill the void.

The reaction at Twickenham, initially at least, was comparable to the second half against Northampton in the 2011 Heineken Cup final. It needed to happen on Saturday to inspire a complete turnaround after England owned 62 per cent of first-half possession, while we had just 3 per cent of territory in their 22. Poor English execution and last-ditch Irish defence meant we only trailed 6-3.

I vividly remember returning to the Millennium Stadium changing room, 22-6 down but I can’t tell you if Joe spoke. I know Johnny did. Brian did too. Both struck a chord. The team went back on to the field knowing that all we had to do was our specific jobs and we would win. Johnny certainly convinced us that the deficit was not insurmountable.

This was a different scenario – and Ireland still lost – but it wouldn’t take a genius to presume that Johnny spoke at half-time on Saturday. Rory Best has never been one to just throw words about, especially as captain, so I imagine he also contributed. I’d also like to think Conor Murray is growing into a leadership figure – we certainly see it in his play – but the Munster captain, Ulster captain and the Leinster vice-captain were also in that room. These are leaders that others are clearly willing to follow.

The three new caps also made this 21-10 defeat a valuable experience. Their performances when exposed to Test rugby give this tough campaign an unquantifiable value long into the future.
More than any other player something changed in Josh van der Flier after half-time. He had been solid up to then, seemingly determined not to give up any penalties over the ball, when he could have been more of a nuisance, but that will come over his next few caps as he begins to trust his instincts from now on.

By the end of this game, van der Flier looked every inch an international openside wing-forward. I’m not comparing him with Richie McCaw, but he plays the same type of game around the breakdown and when it comes to ball-carrying. There’s that same unrelenting engine too.

The timing for his disallowed try was spot on: he ran an ideal arc, straightened at the perfect moment before carrying two men over the line. Romain Poite really should have trusted his own judgment or at least not fully abdicated responsibility by asking the television match official if it was a “try, yes or no?”. I don’t think a single English person in the stadium would have complained if Poite had the confidence to award that score. It was a try.

Stuart McCloskey also impressed me enough to be retained in the starting XV or at the very least the match-day squad for the rest of the tournament. If I was being hypercritical of him – it’s my old position so I can’t help it – he could have dropped and hit better into tackles, making more impact with his 110kg frame, but I think he made the right decisions on wrap-around plays, passed when he needed to, carried when he had to and in the second half he played like an international 12 must.

There was, however, a crucial lack of organisation in midfield. Either Robbie or Stuart – or ideally both of them – must take more responsibility if Ireland are to score more tries. By this, I mean overruling calls as they are about to happen because they see space to attack out wide.

An example of this happened on 47 minutes, following England’s restart after Murray’s try. With James Haskell in the sinbin this was the moment to build up a two-score lead before defending with our lives.
Keith Earls caught the restart and jinked outside the Ireland 22. Murray then found Jamie Heaslip who went out the backline to Sexton who passed to Rob Kearney and on to McCloskey, who had positioned himself to run through George Ford. Play had gone all the way over to the right touchline when Murray fed Heaslip for another carry into traffic. That was the moment when the overlap wide on the left was wasted. The centres needed to overcall here.

The ball did go wide on the very next phase with Earls grubbering up the wing and Mike Brown being forced into touch for decent territorial gain, but it could have been much more than that. That’s the learning curve: Robbie and Stuart must be able to think two, three phases ahead despite the ferociously physical and fast-paced events happening in front of their eyes. That’s what being an international centre is all about.

One of them needed to yell at Johnny: “We need the ball now!” Johnny would then call to Heaslip, who doesn’t even have to think, he just passes. Heaslip made the correct decision because he wasn’t given another option. Chris Robshaw and Dylan Hartley were defending very tight with four Ireland players, backs besides CJ Stander, and Earls on the outside. The extra phase gave Jonathan Joseph enough time to get back into position so Earls could only kick.

Currently, Johnny seems to be organising the majority of attacking plays but a second voice, further out at crucial moments, could have opened England’s defence.

There was another opportunity on 68 minutes when Johnny chipped despite an extra green jersey on the outside. Again, a voice from a different perspective and Johnny doesn’t need to think, he just needs to pass. The end result in that situation was Danny Care catching the ball and Ford drilling it into Ireland’s 22 where Simon Zebo had to start again.

Knowing when to do this is a skill in itself. In my first Six Nations (2004) Rog knew not to overload me, he just let me run at defences, but by the time we went on tour to South Africa that summer he was done mollycoddling. I always liked to live in the moment on a rugby pitch, I was an instinctive player who was comfortable playing what I saw in front of me.

“That’s perfectly fine so long as you break the gainline every time,” said Rog. “This is big boys stuff now. If you want to be an international number 12 you must start thinking two, three phases ahead of the play, both for my sake and for our attack to evolve.”

Almost like a golfer reconstructing his most reliable shot, I found this to be a really tough adjustment. Instead of a simple catch and pass/run, I had to figure out my best position to make an impact or run a decoy two or three phases later, and all the while keeping an eye out for numerical disadvantages so I could demand the ball off our forwards (who don’t respond to niceties).

This should never be to the detriment of Robbie or Stuart doing what they do best: beating defenders. If it’s on, you go for it every time but it’s about seeing the opportunities against well-organised defences. Learning that lesson proved the making of me as a player, because while playing fast and loose made me effective from schoolboy level and all the way up to the Six Nations in 2004, come the following season defences had me worked out.

This will happen to Ultan Dillane soon enough: opponents will notice that he has a powerful step into contact and prepare accordingly, but on Saturday he caught us all unawares with a beautiful 15-minute cameo that got him on par with the statistics of players who played the full 80.

He’s clearly a warrior but there is also a brain at work. He ran at the space between players – a subtle difference – that allowed him to break the line. His acceleration into contact also guaranteed quick ball off the recycle. There was a skip pass thrown in there too and he displayed composure well beyond his years. He looks the ideal impact man against Italy and Scotland. We need a few more like him.

The story of Ireland in this Six Nations is now largely established and cannot be rewritten. For all the endeavour and honesty in performance, the desired results have not followed.

Billy Vunipola ensured England won this game – Seán O’Brien was sorely missed – while George Kruis’s defensive lineout ensured Ireland could not win this game. There is no point wondering what Paul O’Connell would have done as he has retired but a victory at Twickenham, or in Paris, without O’Brien, Peter O’Mahony and Iain Henderson truly would have been a remarkable achievement.

And yet Ireland were only denied a grandstand finish by poor refereeing. England are not as impressive as they are being made out to be. Our defensive effort dared them to execute under pressure and they were unable.

I do feel we would struggle to beat them if we played them this week but in that one-off game, for those 80 minutes, there will be regrets. Ireland, for the third time in this Six Nations, got into a winning position but couldn’t take that final leap.

England are unmistakably on an upward trend now – the World Cup can in time be seen as their 2007 moment – but that doesn’t mean Ireland are in serious decline. Not at all. I played in a Leinster side that seemed destined to be forever branded “nearly men” (and a few other less complimentary nicknames) until we beat Munster and then Leicester to win the 2009 Heineken Cup. For ten years we won only one trophy despite a hugely talented squad. So I know all about losing games we could have – and should have – won.

On returning to Twickenham, such a magnificent stadium, I was reminded of the enormity of representing your country. Dillane, Van der Flier and McCloskey embraced that as much as anyone else. Seeing three new Ireland players, all with promising futures, is heartening, even in defeat, but we must beat Italy and Scotland. By any means necessary.

The remaining two matches shouldn’t be seen to be about development, they’re about reaching the base expectation; Ireland have set a tradition throughout this century where the absolute minimum return is two victories in the Six Nations. Scotland have looked a good team at times this year and Italy, not unlike us, have been close to every opponent. I would like to think the experience of the final 20 minutes in our last three matches will stand to us, but we must turn the almost moments into points. That’s the next step for Ireland.

Are you talking to yourself Pot or just sending this thread towards another direction?

whocares wrote:Are you talking to yourself Pot or just sending this thread towards another direction?

Well I'd be more than happy for you to join it, but I don't think you're Italian, are you?

On the other hand, if you're French, what's your chances against the Scots this weekend, then?

I'd sure like to see Italy or Italy/France host the 2027 World Cup. I see they're planning a high-speed railway between Lyon & Turin now, which would really help tie southern France and northern Italy together. I believe it's scheduled to open in 2026 - just in time for RWC XI

Some comments about Ireland bid by IRFU CEO, Philip Browne:
--------

WHERE bidding for the 2023 Rugby World Cup comes in the hierarchy of priorities for Lansdowne Road is a debate in itself, but it’s a pitch that unspools rapidly and embarrassingly if not whole-heartedly engaged with. Street wisdom says South Africa is favourite on the principle of ‘your turn’. The southern hemisphere won’t have hosted an RWC since 2011. However the IRFU CEO and his Board has put together an aggressive and savvy bid team. Unturned stones won’t be a problem.

“It’s still way too early to judge where we are in the pecking order. South Africa and France — who have both run RWC’s and Soccer World Cups, and Italy, which has hosted Soccer World Cups and European Championships, are there, so we are up against it.

“But the advantage of being a small country is that we can really make things happen if we work hard at it. The most encouraging thing is both Governments, north and south, have fully embraced the project. There is no divisive elements at play at all. Completely the opposite in fact.

“World Rugby look for a legacy, both for the sport and the country: Is there a compelling merit behind your bid? We’ve got a very good team, run by Kevin Potts here at the IRFU (project manager). We have Deloitte Sport UK, would have been involved in a number of successful bids, including the 2012 Olympics and the consultancy involved in the last three successful Olympic bids. We’ve as good a team as we could have.

“This is being done in a very serious manner. We are well placed, therefore, to put a good bid together.”

The Bid documentation process will be issued by RWC in May. Strictly speaking, the Union doesn’t yet know the final criteria, but they have more than a fair idea. At this stage, it’s down to the bed linen. A pre-qualification phase of basic criteria will be dealt with by the autumn and the full bid has to be submitted by May 2017. World Rugby make their decision by September-October of next year.

“So it’s not that far away,” he says.

Sepp’s shenanigans in FIFA issues has raised the bar of the process in terms of transparency and open dialogue. “From our point of view, we have to be able to show to the rugby community 1) we have the stadia, 2) the physical infrastructure to get people around the country.

“Most people going to a rugby match are coming to Dublin and that it is two hours from Cork, Limerick, Galway and Belfast by motorway, and there is ferry ports in Dublin, Belfast, Rosslare, Cork as well as airports all over the country. The Government are making a financial commitment, but the reality is that it is still going to cost the IRFU a seven-figure sum, even if we are unsuccessful. It’s an opportunity we either grasp or we let it go. It provides an opportunity to showcase the game. We will need around 40 training grounds so that will create an opportunity for investment in the club game in terms of upgrading.

“From a national perspective, across the island, it’s potentially a game-changer in terms of portraying around the world what Ireland in the 21st century is about. That opportunity? You just couldn’t buy it. And then there is extremely significant tourism benefits. We are talking about 400,000 people coming into the country.”

To that end, next year’s Women’s World Cup in Ireland is being seen, and used, as a dry run. “We have made a big commitment to that. It’s a great showcase for the women’s game. We will be under some scrutiny from World Rugby. We may not win the 2023 World Cup next year, but we could lose it. We have a full time project manager and that’s his sole job.

“You apply to host the World Cup, you are looking at legacies, and we will full engagement from every stakeholder, including the public and the supporters. What does it leave rugby as a sport? And what does it do for the the country. It is, in many ways, a no-brainer.”

Yes, Italy could certainly use another four years to get their house in order. 2027 seems more appropriate for them - perhaps with France as a co-host.

Why would the organisational side of things need to get their house in order?

The national team is underperforming, given their substantial resources and regular exposure to top level rugby, which would tend to indicate a lack of progressive thinking within the national administration itself. A top half finish in the 6 Nations some time over the next several years (before the 2027 host nation is announced) would generate a great deal more confidence in an Italian bid, not because these decisions are based on national team performance, but because it would indicate the Italian administration has got their act together.

So you would discount a bid if the team is underperforming on the pitch? How exactly would the orginisation of a tournament be impacted by team performance. England weren't great this last world cup yet the organisation was top notch.

Many countries could put on a top notch RWC whilst also generating oodles of money for World Rugby. So this whole thread is really about splitting hairs, isn't it?

Indeed. In all intents and purposes any of them should be able to host a successful tournament,

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you would discount a bid if the team is underperforming on the pitch? How exactly would the orginisation of a tournament be impacted by team performance. England weren't great this last world cup yet the organisation was top notch.

England just won a grandslam. I wouldn't discount any nation's bid solely on the performance of the national team. That would be a very minor factor indeed, even though I do think it reflects to some extend the quality of administration in place. & you will also note that I did not discount Italy's bid at all; conversely I recommended they receive the 2027 tournment. But I did suggest the extra four years might be beneficial to them, and one of the reasons for that is that national team has not made a great deal of progress in spite of the vast resources at Italian rugby's disposal, and in spite of regular exposure to top level rugby. This season notwithstanding, the Azzurri have improved since joining the competition, but not at a rate we might have hoped for, and after 16 years they have still yet to find the top half of the table.

What specifically in relation to the organisation structure around holding the WC does Italy need to improve on then please? On the pitch doesn't affect that at all so should be quite easy for you?