Printable View
New Zealand were chosen to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
Bad desicion in my opinion. I think it should have been given to Japan for the sake of developing rugby into more of a worldwide game. Having lived in NZ they don't have large enough stadium capacities to host the competition. Their stadiums are all pretty small, I think the biggest in Wellington holds 40,000.
Should have been given to Japan. Terrible decison imo.
I don't know the specifics of each bid but seems narrow minded decision to send it to NZ again. How many times had it? You'd have thought it would be a black mark when IRB had to take it off NZ last time & give to Australia?
I'm sure facilities in Jaon would have been first rate too.
NZ have only had half of the RWC once, in 1987 (24 years before 2011)! NZ willbe great, but I think it should have gone to Japan.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I think Ireland, Scotland and Wales should bid for 2015 (without England)
Should have gone to Japan, it would have given a massive boost to the game there. As we have seen NZ above all other countries do not need that. Short sightedness of the highest degree.
Shameful decision. Very bad for the game.
I'm a fan of rugby - go to at least one of Ireland's 6 nations away games every year, have been over to the Hong Kong 7's, and go to the occassional club and European game in England. But it dawned on me the other day (literally whilst having a dump...) that only 10 countries in the world take rugby seriously. They are :
England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina and Georgia.
There is a second tier of 5 countries who play rugby, but not to any great level, and their populations have limited interest in the game :
Italy, Romania, USA, Japan, Namibia.
Then there are all the other countries who play it, but it'd be lucky to feature in their nation's Top 10 sports.
If only 10 countries in the world take the game seriously, then rugby is not a global sport ! For perspective, I counted 7 countries who take Baseball very seriously (US, Canada, Venezuala, Japan, Cuba, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico), yet no-one would even pretend that that is a global sport.
So here was an opportunity for the IRB to give the game a massive boost in a huge country and an untapped continent. And what did they do ? Gave it to one of the old guard and their vested interests......
This decision will set 'world' rugby back years....
They could have given it to Japan and every stadium would have been empty. I worked briefly in Japan and there is really very little interest in the game. Good move giving it to the Kiwis IMO- Best team in the world deserve a chance to host.
Plus they have sufficient stadia:
Eden Park- cap 45,000
Dunedin Stadiun - cap 35,000
Eriksonn St- cap 25,000
Lancaster Pk: Must be around 25,000
Westpac Stadium: 35,000
Remember Ireland (a rugby 'superpower') played at Gosford during the last WC/. Cap 18,500. NZ has more than enough capacity for this event.
Plus dcfcsteve- Georgia taking ruby seriously??? You must be joking mate!
Population of Georgia:4,500,000
Number of rugby players: 300 (yep, three hundred)
Number of rugby pitches: 8
I reckon the All Blacks must be sh1tting themselves...
Apart from one.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
Ever heard of the WORLD Series? :D :D :D
Agree re Japan terrible decision. Furthermore NZ does not have the infrastructure to host the tournament, chronic shortage of hotel beds and poor stadia.
I was a bit surprised to see Georgia in your top 10.
Big plans following big decision
18/11/2005
New Zealand has promised to deliver the best rugby World Cup yet -- starting with a $130 million upgrade of Auckland's Eden Park.
No sooner had New Zealand been confirmed as the 2011 World Cup host and the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) had printed off its list of promises to the International Rugby Board and nine bullet-pointed highlights of its bid.
The proposed months are September and October 2011, with 48 matches spread over 11 potential venues, with the prime knockout matches at Eden Park.
Capacity there will increase from 53,000 to 60,000.
NZRU chief executive Chris Moller said planning would immediately swing into action for the Eden Park upgrade, including the all-important question of who will pay for it.
"That hasn't been determined, but we've been making good progress and that should be significantly advanced by today's decision," Moller said.
The extension was not going ahead unless New Zealand won the hosting rights.
Other venues might get "an expansion and upgrade", and all would be "dedicated rugby venues".
Then there was the big issue that cost New Zealand the 2003 co-hosting rights with Australia -- the need to have `clean' stadiums free of advertising and all corporate boxes vacated.
"We learned you need clean stadia, and six years out we were able to confirm we had clean stadia," NZRU chairman Jock Hobbs said.
Moller said the bid had cost New Zealand up to $3.5 million -- split equally between the NZRU and the Government.
Prime Minister Helen Clark had vowed to underwrite the tournament so the IRB would be guaranteed the tournament fee.
Moller said the World Cup would cost New Zealand Stg60 million ($NZ152.05 million) to run.
Another pre-vote talking point was New Zealand's size and infrastructure, which had come through the Lions tour with flying colours.
Moller said there were currently 36,000 hotel beds in Auckland, and even without the World Cup hosting rights, that was expected to rise to 46,000 by 2011.
Moller expected 60,000-plus visitors to New Zealand for the tournament, and "a full spectrum of accommodation and travel options from five- and six-star through to budget".
It promised "unparalleled visitor experiences".
Hobbs said it was guaranteed to be the most profitable World Cup because of skyrocketing television rights which would make up about 60 percent of tournament revenue.
"Should it all be about money? If it is all about money then the tournament will just rotate around four or five countries," Hobbs said.
"It's a professional sport but I think we all believe there's a balance to be struck between the commercial side of the game and traditional rugby values of the game.
"Today was a true test of that belief."
New Zealand's bid said it would also provide the best television coverage, full stadia throughout the tournament, and build on the popularity of breakfast viewing in the Northern Hemisphere from the 2003 tournament in Australia.
A fair point but rugby would be big in places like Fiji, Tonga and Samoa too. If the IRB gave **** about them and gave them some support, they would be much more competitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
Eek-The FAI haven't merged with the IRB have they? Poor decision, would they ever think of the future, and not short term flattery of a nation in no need of more rugby being advertised.
Good decision IMO. japan simply doesn't want the RWC. Its Rugby federation might but no real interest in the country for it.
Yeah, named after it's first sponsor, the newspaper "The World"- FACT. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by gspain
It wasn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
http://www.snopes.com/business/names/worldseries.asp
FACT. :D
Do you honestly expect the rugby world cup to be played in a country with serious stadium infrastructure, like Germany or Japan and no one to go to the games? Georgia is not a top ten rugby nation, Italy, just about, is. Apart from France, Italy and Argentina, the top rugby nations are really big British or ex British Commonwealth countries.
dcfcsteve, you'd rate Georga above Romainia, and you'd have Italy in the lower teir??? I'm so confused, also what about the pacific islands, they breath the game in places like Fiji, Tonga, Somoa etc, also the likes of USA and Canada are begining to take the game very seriously over the last decade, NZ a good decision? Yes, why? As said before they co-hosted in 1987 and are one of the biggest and best forces in world rugby, although they should have hosted it before in turn giving it to Japan this time...
The same was said about the Soccer World Cups in both the US and Japan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoop Drog
The Japanese people have consistently shown themselves willing to support major sporting events in their country. Name me one they haven't....
The stadiums in NZ are woefully inadequate - a point that was accepted by the IRb itself in its summary of the merits of each venue. A bigger issue is the lack of accommodation in the countrey - they're even talking of having people sleeping in Winnebago's !!!
Anyone who thinks the vote that gave NZ the 2011 Rugby World Cup was anything other than a stitch-up is very, very niaive. Ireland, in particular, reneged on a promise to support South Africa in the first-round of voting - which would've seen NZ knocked-out at that stage. To make it worse, Ireland then pushed to have any information on the vote kept secret (incl the total number iof votes cast for each country).
[/QUOTE]
Well - if you'd checked more than just the single page on Wikipedia that gave you the above, you may have found out that rugby is Georgia's second most popular sport (and first in popularity stakes in large chunks of the country). Is that not serious enough for you ? Sh!t doesn't equate with being serious - Ireland are sh!t at International rules, for example...Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoop Drog
And the problem with the above stats you gave is that the Georgians have their own indigenous sport very similar to rugby, so you'll find that in realuity there are many, many more than just 300 people playing rugby there.
Guys, guys, guys,Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra Red
PLEASE read my first post again ! :rolleyes: I did NOT say that Georgia are 'better' than anyone. Or indeed that any team was better than any other team !
I split rugby playing nations into how seriously the sports are taken in those countries. Being sh!t at something doesn't mean you don't take it seriously - look at football in Scotland, or International Rules in Ireland.
Rugby is the second most popular sport in Georgia. Hence why it's people can be considered to take it more seriously than countries like Italy and Romania, where it would struggle to make a Top 5 of sports.....
I neglected to include Pacific Island nations, which was an oversight. Adding Fiji, Samoa etc, however, doesn't really reduce the impact of my point. Rugby is not a 'world' sport. The IRB had an opportunity here to give a significant boost to the game in a major country and continent. Instead they all sold their votes to New Zealand in return for a few money-spinning test games.
Don't be surprised if by 2025 very few additional nations are taking rugby seriously.....
many, many more? Thanks for clarifying that. I have updated Wikipaedia by deleting '300' and replacing it with 'many, many'. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
That's not the same thing mate. Ireland wins about half of the International Rules test series (usually the Aus ones whereby The Aussies normally win in Dublin). And I reckon the Scots are better at football than the Georgians are at rugby- The Scots would do better against Brazil (maybe, worse case lose 3 or 4 nil. Best case win 1 nil or scrape a draw???) at football than Georgia would do against the All Blacks (Georgia would be lucky to keep NZ under 100 points...unless they fielded their 'many, many' players all at once).Quote:
Originally Posted by dcfcsteve