World Cup 2011 - Hosts being announced on Thursday

Downtime

The IRB will announce the hosts for the 2011 World Cup on Thursday. It is between Japan, New Zealand and South Africa. Personally it think that it would be great for the game if Japan got it.

What thinks you?

Amz

New Zealand

As far as promotion of the game etc. goes Japan would be the best bet, but I'm not sure how commercially viable such a decision would be.

Liam90

South Africa

well i want NZ to get it but im sure Japan will

RuggieBear

don't want nz or south africa to get it

PJG

would like south africa to get, just cause the viewing time would be good.

ruck-it

New Zealand

In order of preference - Japan, SA, NZ

Japan - develop the game, great infrastructure, proven capable of holding it (held soccer so rugby not a bother)

SA - Time Zone thing works out well so can't argue with that

NZ - Can't see the benefits, rugby mad country but that makes the fact their stadia are small even worse.

Downtime

New Zealand

PJG wrote:

would like south africa to get, just cause the viewing time would be good.

Goddamit - never thought of that.
Don't fancy those 7am hungover starts

Liam90

South Africa

im not to sure about South Africa getting it, they still aren't a stable Country

daveirl

New Zealand

This post has been deleted.

Liam90

South Africa

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

yeah but i have seen alot of crowd trouble in sporting events overthere, like things thrown from fans and pitch invasions, thats why they have huge spiked fencing around the stadiums at the bottom of stands, which they won't be able to have at the world cup

PJG

A world cup and loins tour in S africa in the last ten years without any trouble. Any they have come a long way since then.

Sangre

New Zealand

Japan all the way despite the time difference!

Need to promote the game and they have a great infrastructure

Crash

wouldnt mind a trip to japan now... :P

finlma

Liam90 wrote:

yeah but i have seen alot of crowd trouble in sporting events overthere, like things thrown from fans and pitch invasions, thats why they have huge spiked fencing around the stadiums at the bottom of stands, which they won't be able to have at the world cup

There's no spiked fencing, I've never seen crowd trouble there or pitch invasions. Care to provide examples of these? They held one of the most successful rugby World Cups and that was 10 years ago. They can only improve on that.

Still Japan should get it for the sake of developing rugby.

Downtime

New Zealand

And New Zealand it is...http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/EN/Home/News/051117+dk+rwc2011.htm

The least popular choice on boards.ie

ruck-it

New Zealand

Farce, the venues are tiny and there wasn't enough accomodation for 25,000 Lions supporters let alone 100,000 people.

Skitbra

I'm disgusted. Is that the only way New Zealand are going to win it I wonder. Maybe they won't bottle it in front of the home crowd.

Mungaman

Skitbra wrote:

I'm disgusted. Is that the only way New Zealand are going to win it I wonder. Maybe they won't bottle it in front of the home crowd.

Your dead right SKitBra we won't bottle it because we'll be defending it and you wanna start praying..... Ireland probably won't even make the world cup by then at the rate your going.:D

Huge plan in place for more accomodation and bigger stadiums. I'm not sure why everybody wanted Japan? Its a very pricey pint there lads and accomodation aint cheap either. South Africa had it 10 years ago and as one of the top nations in world rugby I think its only fitting that New Zealand will be hosting after 24 years.
You'll all be made welcome especially the Irish. Hopefully by that stage all this anti New Zealand cr*p will be over. Apart from the rugby you may even have a good time;)

Amazotheamazing

New Zealand

Everyone wanted Japan because the game needs to expand, this decision effectively promotes the closed shop system. Added to this is the fact that NZ struggled to accomadate the Lions tour (in terms of infrastructure, I'm sure the tourists had a great time). How does the game benefit by holding it's showpiece tournament in NZ? NZ shouldn't need home advantage to win back to back titles, Brazil seem to get by winning the Football World Cup whereever it's played.

Personally I'm disappointed, and would have been had SA got it too. The RWC should be about showing off rugby to the world, not about promoting tourism in one of the big 8 countries. At least NZ have admitted it's the last time they'll hold it, or was that more whining from the most persecuted country in the world?

Liam90

South Africa

im really happy NZ got it, now that i think of it im not to sure Japan would of been the right choice as you are are you suggesting it would, because in games with crappy teams in the group stages there will be empty stadiums because people from there countrys won't travel all the way just to see there team play and you can't have empty stadiums in the rugby world cup and in NZ even in them games the stadiums will be full and now that Mungaman is saying there are planes for new stadiums and accomadation, NZ is defenatly the right choice, and guys i really don't know what you problem is with NZ.

Royale with Cheese

Liam90 wrote:

im really happy NZ got it, now that i think of it im not to sure Japan would of been the right choice as you are are you suggesting it would, because in games with crappy teams in the group stages there will be empty stadiums because people from there countrys won't travel all the way just to see there team play and you can't have empty stadiums in the rugby world cup and in NZ even in them games the stadiums will be full and now that Mungaman is saying there are planes for new stadiums and accomadation, NZ is defenatly the right choice, and guys i really don't know what you problem is with NZ.

I think they came across the same problem in the football world cup and combatted it by assigning a team to a certain region, e.g. they just told one city to support England or Cameroon etc. I think it worked as well.

Amazotheamazing

New Zealand

Liam90 wrote:

and guys i really don't know what you problem is with NZ.

It isn't anti-NZ, I'm pretty sure they'll do a great job hosting it. It just that I was pro-Japan. Perhaps it's just me but I'm tired of the same 8 teams being the only teams worth playing. Is it wrong for me to want to see teams like Romania, Canada, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga come up to (at least) Ireland's level? It is undeniable that Italy and particulary Argentina have improved in the last few years, and both are rapidly coming to Ireland's level. To me, holding the RWC in Japan would have been a signal to these teams that the IRB is on their side.
Also, as Japan had guaranteed so much money to the games there would have been more money availible for the minnows, it is unlikely that NZ will raise as much money for the game itself, not to mention the already existing facilities in Japan.
Japan has apparently over 100,000 registered players (most through companies?) so I doubt empty stadia would have been a problem.

Again, I'm sure NZ will do a great job, but Japan could have given rugby so much more.

daveirl

New Zealand

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

New Zealand

This post has been deleted.

Amz

New Zealand

Aww bless ...

Japan were dead right with their comments of passing the ball between friends. The world cup should be used as an oppertunity to promote the game to a much wider audience. I think the IRB made a poor decision here.

RuggieBear

Amz wrote:

Aww bless ...

Japan were dead right with their comments of passing the ball between friends. The world cup should be used as an oppertunity to promote the game to a much wider audience. I think the IRB made a poor decision here.

I totally agree.....

****ing blazers.

finlma

Should have gone to Japan for the sake of developing rugby into a worldwide game.

I lived in NZ for a year and they're well enough equipped for the WC as long as some improvements are made. They're a lovely bunch of people and will host a great WC.

The 1 problem I have is that NZ winters are as harsh or even harsher than Ireland and the games will be played in really bad conditions in June/July and will make for less attractive rugby. There might even be snow in Dunedin and Invercargill.

Sangre

New Zealand

45,000 stadium for the RWC final?

Boo-urns.

Liam90

South Africa

you guys have got to realise that the world cup is 7 years away, there will be improvments and you guys were not on the IRB judging panel so you can't say New Zealand was the wrong choice because you did not see the proposal, yes the winters are harsh that can make a game scrappy but can also make the game more exciting. Im from Invercargill and it very rarely snows i haven't been back there for 5 years so unless the climate has changed and it now snows in winter, there wont be any.

in 2011 you guys will be surprised on how good New Zealand was at hosting it. you just wait

Liam90

South Africa

Sangre wrote:

45,000 stadium for the RWC final?

Boo-urns.

stadiums are being extended and maybe new ones built

daveirl

New Zealand

This post has been deleted.

Liam90

South Africa

they are extending eden park to 60,000 plus other extensions like they are extending the homestead stadium in Invercargill and also New Zealands bid had the best Television coverage for the world cup

Big Ears

Liam90 wrote:

also New Zealands bid had the best Television coverage for the world cup

As in we have to get up at 7:00am to watch a game , Japan should have got it , boo-urns .

daveirl

New Zealand

This post has been deleted.

Liam90

South Africa

theres lots of info on www.allblacks.com

vorbis

fuking disgrace. Then again what else would you expect from the IRFU.

Endurance Man

South Africa for the win . We have got some really great venues, and the weather is great.

daveirl

New Zealand

This post has been deleted.