- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
A competition without the competition is no competition at all.
Okay, that might be stretching it a bit too far, but the quickly approaching World Cup threatens to underwhelm when it should really be doing the polar opposite.
The 50-over game’s marquee event, a tournament that has provided more than its fair share of captivating entertainment over 10 instalments will do little in keeping the wolf that is Twenty20 cricket from the door.
Opinion, if it isn’t already firmly ground in the ‘two types of cricket is best’ camp, is getting close to it and that is where we’re heading.
It might not necessarily be a bad thing. After all, if that’s where the demand is lying then the supply will inevitably follow; yet if there no desire for the one-day international game it would’ve surely gone to the wall by now.
The problem, as was the case four years ago on the sub-continent, is a format seemingly designed with little or not thought whatsoever as to what a tournament requires to grab the public’s attention.
Reading a preview of England’s visit to the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff for their Six Nations opener on Friday evening, the journalist in question made reference to the Rugby World Cup in a few month’s time.
More specifically, he pointed to the group that contains England, Wales and Australia and the fact one of those heavyweights will not make it as far as the knockout stages.
A genius you do not need to be to work out that the group games will have something riding on them, an essential element of any tournament worth its salt.
Compare this to the cricketing equivalent and you’ll see exactly where I’m coming from.
One glance at Group A, inhabited by Australia, Bangladesh, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Scotland, and it’s very quickly apparent that the four quarter-finalists are more or less banged on.
In the other group there is the possibility that West Indies could have a fight on their hands to trump Ireland and Zimbabwe but I wouldn’t hold out any hope of that coming to pass.
So to all extents and purposes, of the 49 fixtures that will make up the schedule, barely 10 will have any real meaning.
If England – I’ll use them as the example to save any readers from pointing out their general one-day averageness – get the better of Afghanistan, Scotland and Bangladesh, and possibly only two of that trio, then they will be in the last eight.
Where’s the underlying peril in that set-up? If it was, say, only the top two advancing to the semi-finals then there would be a far greater edge to proceedings. But it’s not, and there are four weeks worth of games that might as well not happen.
Purely in terms of a balanced event, the 1992 World Cup, with every team playing each other, has been a high point yet to be emulated.
I’m not daft enough to expect this kind of purity of thinking on a consistent basis but there must be a better way of ensuring all those with an interest – players, spectators, sponsors, broadcasters – maintain just that.
The top three through to a ‘Super Six’ round, three groups of five with a couple from each progressing, eight or nine teams playing a round-robin; all would offer more competition.
I have nothing against the Associate nations qualifying the chance to dine at the top table but being cannon fodder in an elongated format is almost patronising.
If a greater number of teams are going to participate then split them up in such a way that an upset could do more damage than merely providing a short-lived embarrassment to the big boys.
Or go back to a smaller pool of nations, with a qualifying competition to prevent a complete fell of elitism, and go from there. It really shouldn’t be that difficult.
There will be plenty worth watching and writing about over the next month and a half, there always is, but it should be about so much much.
A trick is being missed. By a distance.