With the ICC World Cup in progress and debate raging about the format of future World Cup tournaments, there are many opinions being thrown around. Mostly these relate to whether we should have 10 teams or 16 in future tournaments.
There is also a debate as to the format of the tournament. Should we have pools of teams or a round robin format? How long should the tournament take? Should there be a qualifying stage or not?
Arguments supporting the inclusion of more teams centre around the notion of growing the game worldwide and giving the ‘associate’ countries more opportunity and experience.
Arguments for a smaller number of teams focus on the length of the tournament and the quality of the matches being played.
So let’s have a look at some statistics and see if we can draw any conclusions.
The table below is taken from the Cricinfo website and shows the One Day games played by each country over the last 12 months. It includes games already played in the current World Cup tournament.
I have broken down the games into those played against ‘Test’ nations, ‘associate’ nations and ‘other’ matches. The ‘other’ games are tour matches played against state or regional teams or ‘a team’ matches.
| Country | 50 ov Matches | Vs Test | Vs Assoc | Vs Other |
| Australia | 22 | 21 | 1 | |
| Bangladesh | 20 | 16 | 2 | |
| England | 30 | 27 | 1 | |
| India | 24 | 20 | 3 | |
| New Zealand | 24 | 23 | 1 | |
| Pakistan | 20 | 20 | 0 | |
| South Africa | 29 | 28 | 1 | |
| Sri Lanka | 40 | 37 | 3 | |
| West Indies | 14 | 13 | 1 | |
| Zimbabwe | 22 | 17 | 5 | |
| Afghanistan | 33 | 8 | 15 | 10 |
| Ireland | 24 | 3 | 9 | 12 |
| Scotland | 25 | 4 | 10 | 11 |
| UAE | 26 | 3 | 12 | 11 |
| Canada | 11 | 0 | 7 | 4 |
| Kenya | 15 | 0 | 8 | 7 |
| Netherlands | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
| Nepal | 18 | 0 | 18 | 0 |
| USA | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| Hong Kong | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| Papua New Guinea | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
We can immediately see that the Test nations rarely ever play against the associate nations. Indeed most of the matches played between Test and associate nations have been played in this World Cup or in warm-up matches.
Test nations play around 20–30 one day games per year, with West Indies playing surprisingly few games and Sri Lanka playing by far the most.
Looking at the associate nations, we can see that the four countries playing in the current World Cup also play 20–30 One Day games per year. They have all played at least three games against Test nations and have also played a large number of ‘other’ games.
The third group of countries play less often with Netherlands, a previously strong ‘associate team, only playing eight games.
It is obvious that the stronger associate teams play more matches and against better quality opposition so the theory that associate teams need more experience to improve definitely holds water. They are stronger for the experience of playing better quality opposition but also, I believe, significantly stronger for the ‘other’ or tour games they have been able to play.
What makes it possible for these teams to play more often? Proximity and money.
Proximity to other countries is the biggest factor. Ireland and Scotland are next door to one another so can play each other more regularly. They are also next door to England and can play against England relatively easily too.
Further, it is a quick and logistically easy diversion for teams playing England to hop across and play a couple of friendly games against both Ireland and Scotland while on tour.
Kenya and Namibia also enjoy close proximity to South Africa and Zimbabwe, making tours and tour games easier.
For Afghanistan and the UAE, they are near neighbours to Pakistan and India, giving them similar advantages to Ireland and Scotland. With Pakistan currently playing all of their home matches in the UAE this should also grow the game in that region. However, Afghanistan has security and logistical issues to deal with. Money is the other big factor.
The governing body of each country needs money to finance the game domestically and to hold tours. In wealthier countries such as UAE, Ireland and Scotland, this is less of a problem.
They have quality cricket being played at home or nearby, growing the public’s interest in the game. Touring would be less expensive. The other countries it would seem need much more of a helping hand from the ICC.
The players in associate countries are often amateurs and need to take time off work in order to play and tour. In wealthier countries, this would again be less of a problem.
So what conclusions do I draw from this?
1) Associate teams need to play more often and against better quality opposition in order to improve.
2) Tours to other countries, or visits by other touring Test nations, are vital to grow the game’s popularity and provide better playing experience.
3) Tours to England should have mandatory components of two to three matches in Ireland and two to three in Scotland. South Africa tours should include two to three games in Namibia and Kenya. India tours should include two to three games in Nepal.
4) The money, drive and long-term vision must be provided by the ICC for points 1,2 and 3 to be possible.
Over to you Roarers. What conclusions can you draw?
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.
RCB have suffered a massive HEAD-ACHE after Travis Head smashed the fastest century by an SRH player in just 39 balls, as they amassed…
A brutal century by Travis Head has blasted Sunrisers Hyderabad back into the Indian Premier League play-off places in another match for bowlers to…
The Indian veteran came to the crease inside the final over before casually despatching three balls over the rope to get Chennai over the…
With only two wickets in four games leading into the game, the Aussie paceman finished with 3/28 as his Knight Riders recorded an eight-wicket…
The bowler conceded that the ball never touched his hand - but it seemed like the on-field umpire didn't believe him.
There was no communication between the Rajasthan players until they let their frustration out at each other when the ball went to ground.
