Cricket World Cup – Last chance to see

[barmyarmy]

barmyarmy submitted a new blog post

Cricket World Cup – Last chance to see

Imagine a football world cup where only the top 10 nations in the world were allowed a place. Perhaps Wimbledon with only seeded players in the draw or Formula 1 with only 10 cars on the grid. All sports have big teams and small teams but it seems to be only the ICC that treats those “minnows” with such utter contempt. This is especially ironic considering the regular giant-killings the ICC Cricket World Cup has seen in recent years. Mostly it seems to come down to fear. If the game is expanded and new nations encouraged, they might be better run and beat the “proper” teams, they might want a say in how cricket is run, they might have the temerity to want to play test cricket.


The ICC’s decision to reduce the number of teams at the next Cricket World Cup to 10 sums up their policy towards expanding the game and towards the non-test nations. The organisation increasingly represents a feudal society with the aristocracy of England, India and Australia allowing the land owners a vote but having no intention of extending the franchise further. Merit be damned. Talent be damned. It’s all about entrenchment and protecting vested interests.

Even as this World Cup begins, so do the ill-informed comments of the ex-pros. From the downright disrespect of labelling the sides as “minnows” instead of associates, to questioning whether they belong at all or to assuming that they are all amateurs. With the recent performances of Bangladesh, the West Indies and Zimbabwe there could hardly be a worse time to make the argument about one-sided matches and associates not worth their place. The associates all had to qualify; the full members will just be turning up.

Since Ireland beat England so memorably at the last world cup, they have increased revenues, grown the game and challenged the full nations when they have been allowed to play them (9 games in 4 years if you’re keeping score). The ICC has cut funding, made test status even further off and made it harder for them to qualify for major tournaments.
The sad thing is that cricket desperately needs new markets and new series. Even fans are getting fed up with constant England-Australia-India series and as Tim Wigmore and Peter Miller’s new book The Second XI shows, cricket is being played in non-traditional countries and it can grow if given the chance rather than strangled at birth.
So if you live in Australia or New Zealand, read up the players, get hold of a flag, buy a ticket this World Cup and go support them. It could be your last chance to see unless we all broaden our horizons and start saving cricket from itself.
Continue reading the Original Blog Post.

 

[Slowcoach]

Very disappointing, Minnows causing upsets is what makes the early rounds of the World Cup special, and even just seeing them compete well or a few of their players show their talent is enough.
If we want a boring tournament with the same old teams we see day in day out then we have the Champions Trophy.
Why don't Australia/India/England just decide to ban everyone else from the World Cup, so that they can just have high rating games against eachother for 7 weeks...Australia and India can play a 28 match series at the MCG, that should please the fans.
Stupid.

 

[Karachi]

There may come a day when only 8 teams would play the World Cup. On that day we shall predict that there may come another day when only 3 teams would play the World Cup.

 

[Biggs]

The only real chance to stop this happening is teams like South Africa, West Indies and New Zealand dominating the sport this World Cup. Best thing that can happen is for India and to a lesser extent England and Australia getting knocked out nice and quick. Hopefully at the hands of some lesser teams like Afghanistan, Scotland and Ireland. Watching the Afghan's play India the other evening, they genuinely had them on the run for about 15 - 20 overs. I rate them for an upset this time around... ICC needs to stop protecting the hireachy of 3 or 4 nations and grow the damn sport.

 

[MattW]

The only real chance to stop this happening is teams like South Africa, West Indies and New Zealand dominating the sport this World Cup. Best thing that can happen is for India and to a lesser extent England and Australia getting knocked out nice and quick. Hopefully at the hands of some lesser teams like Afghanistan, Scotland and Ireland. Watching the Afghan's play India the other evening, they genuinely had them on the run for about 15 - 20 overs. I rate them for an upset this time around... ICC needs to stop protecting the hireachy of 3 or 4 nations and grow the damn sport.

It would probably just make them want the format of the next tournament even more - lots of guaranteed matches for India and no risk of elimination.

I think also, they simply don't think viewers will watch. Over here for example Channel Nine are covering the World Cup featuring just the matches Australia is in - sure it's on free TV and that's more than a lot of countries get - but out of all of Australia's matches, all but one is being shown on their main channel. That one? Their match against Afghanistan is shunted off to Gem- so they don't have to reschedule episodes of The Block. That puts it to Channel Nine at the same importance as the Matador Cup matches, pushed off to the side because not many viewers will be interested.

They'll probably be right - that'll be the one match Australia plays that will get the lowest TV ratings, and probably the worst crowd. And they'll no doubt be missing a great game.

 

[Greninja]

Yes This Is Not Right Decision More Teams makes fun

 

[flake]

There is no sense to their arguement. Minnows upset the big teams often these days ! And could you expect Georgia or Namibia to compete with the All Blacks at the Rugby World Cup? no. This new Ceo of ICC Richardson seems to be a real narrow minded guy and seems to be the driving force behind the move to ten teams. Its a no brainer in my mind. The other reason they have is that the tournament is too long. Simple solution to this really ! In the WC each team only has a game every 5 days. This is way too long a break and could be made in to 3 days cutting the overall length of the tournament by 2-3 weeks !! The ICC dont want to help, period.

 

[barmyarmy]

Oh yeah the tournament should definitely be shorter. It's the lack of games the associates actually get against the full members that is part of the problem. The World Cup is about the only time where full members have to play them.

 

[MattW]

Failing a good format, I'd be okay with something like the World T20 tournament - where the 'first round' was treated as a qualification stage for two teams, with a larger pool of nations being able to have the chance directly in front of them, rather than play in a qualification tournament in a different country the previous year to get a spot locked in.

Being able to win in Bangladesh in 2018 doesn't mean you'll be able to win in England in 2019.

 

[Aoun13]

Problem with cricket as a sport is that since its inception its confined to only few nations (mainly those countries which in one way or the other were under British control) and now cricket is turning into some caste system with Big 3 as Brahmins, other top 8 nations are Kshatriyas and Vaisyas while these associates are much like the untouchable caste.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Failing a good format, I'd be okay with something like the World T20 tournament - where the 'first round' was treated as a qualification stage for two teams, with a larger pool of nations being able to have the chance directly in front of them, rather than play in a qualification tournament in a different country the previous year to get a spot locked in.

Being able to win in Bangladesh in 2018 doesn't mean you'll be able to win in England in 2019.

I'd totally disagree with this - all that does is give them guaranteed matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh which is nice and all, but doesn't really help much in terms of development. The way that the big nations don't want to play developing nations is partially because of elitism, and partially because they don't want to be embarrassed by a "minnow" (ugh hate that word)

The World Cup should be sixteen teams; four groups of four with the top two qualifying from each group into knockout quarter finals. Exactly the same format as the Football World Cup, just with half the teams. Hell if that would be too short being back the super eights: you'd then be able to have your guaranteed India/Pakistan if the two teams actually before as you'd expect them too!

e: good article btw Barmy; agree with your conclusions about patronising journalists and the like - although F1 with ten cars on the grid is starting to look like becoming a reality

 

[MattW]

I'd totally disagree with this

As I mentioned at the start, 'failing a good format' - so taking the stupidity of the 10 team format as something that we're stuck with - I'd rather see the qualification for the final two spots happening right up before it like the World T20, rather than as a separate tournament well before the main event.

My ideal tournament would be 4 lots of 4 teams playing each other twice, with only the top team automatically going through, with playoffs between the second ranked teams in the pools for a final two spots in a top 6. Have that top six play each other once, top two then go to a final, and a third place playoff with the middle two.

I don't particularly like tournaments where one bad performance sinks a team - but equally, every game should matter. So only having one out of four places be guaranteed should force competitive matches all the way through, but you'd play enough that the quality sides should get out of the groups.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Ah, I missed that.

That format looks half decent but it might be a little long. Although it'll probably be shorter than what we currently have!

The T20 world cup should really be bigger than the World Cup - I'd push for 24 teams. T20 is a format that can get people into cricket; so having a big competition wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing (especially since you could play games at the same time without much annoyance). Also kill the Champions Trophy, especially if you have a ten team world cup.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

There is so much contradiction and hypocrisy in the ICCs stance and the diatribes that the associates put up with.

First, the 2007 world cup cause widespread dissatisfaction, because Bangladesh and Ireland dumped out India and Pakistan, doing away with the india-pakistan grudge match that's one of the tournaments cash cows. Then of course came the complaints that Bangladesh and Ireland were dead weights in the super 8 league, losing all their matches outside playing each other.

Could it be that it was just a terrible format?

First the initial 3 team group stages were so brief, and being at the very start of the tournament when teams can be caught cold, that they practically encouraged an upset. Both india and pakistan going out might be a surprise but 1 out of the 8 teams having a bit of a shocker really should have been expected.

Then we moved on to the super 8s, a grotesquely bloated method of deciding semi-finalists, the associates were blamed for not putting up enough of a fight in here because this format guaranteed them 7 games.

Their response was to make the initial groups in the 2011 world cup. Increasing the games means you lower the potential for upsets, it's a way of finding the best teams over a set time, so this meant the associates had almost no chance of qualifying upsetting the apple cart. bangladesh and ireland even showed that once again they can pull off an upset, both beating England, but the length of the group stage meant they were ultimately blamed for not being competitive. ICC response, exclude them entirely.

Seems they were damned if they do and damned if they don't. The ICC wants the associates to put up a fight but similarly didn't want upsets to destroy their preconceived tournament plan. If they do better than expected the ICC kicks a fuss because a marquee team doesn't play a marquee game and if they do poorly then they're labeled as a waste of space, both outcomes see them meted out with punishment.

The other problem is in the way the games are marketed and a big part of that is, as barmy mentioned, the use of the term minnows. Realistically, how man drubbings did associates suffer at the world cup? ireland and bangladesh both pulled off good results against full members, and then they played each other in competitive matches. No one was interested of course as the standard of cricket is universally lambasted as not worth anyone's time, so the fact these matches even occur is forgotten.

The final problem, particular to the 2011 world cup anyway, was the timing of the qualifiers. They were decided over a year before the tournament, in the time between then and the world cup starting Kenya and Holland had sunk significantly below Scotland and Afghanistan, maybe if those two had gone instead we would have seen a more competitive tournament.

 

[Dhekelian]

Seems to me the ICC is being pressurised by some body. Probably the Country with the most money?
Cutting to ten teams will in the long view damage cricket and that would be a shame.
One thing about the Football World cup is its success so why shouldn't Cricket copy it?
If there are 32 teams world wide they should be put in 8 groups of four but in the group stages the cricket could be Ttwenty overs then in the knockout stages it could be 40 overs with the final 50 overs. No idea how long this would take but if the tournament is played in a country with a few grounds this shouldn't be an issue.