The Kenyans have met Test-strength opposition just once in the past two years, apparently. Hardly enough meaningful cricket to enable them to compete properly at the ICC’s flagship event.
The Canucks, as the Toronto Star labelled the Canadian team, had their loss reported in the newspaper – nice to see.
Rick Westhead, the Star’s South Asia correspondent dealt with the story, and handled it well.
He did linger, however, on the fact that it took five hours for Canada to get to have a bat, timing the start of the match from the coin toss.
“They will be challenged to collect the three wins necessary to advance into the event’s second round,” Westhead wrote.
“When a Sri Lankan marksman beat the veteran John Davison, crashing the ball into the wickets, you could sense the wind being sucked out of the Canadians’ sails.”
In the end, Westhead almost judged that the television commercials between overs and wickets falling were the ultimate highlight of the day.
Over at Nairobi’s Daily Nation, Firdrose Monda said the Kenyans were already denying “rifts” in the team (never a good sign two days into a tournament, surely) after the New Zealand loss.
“Even Kenya’s most skilled batsmen looked uncomfortable and out of place,” Monda wrote.
“We’ll work on it,” was captain Jimmy Kamande’s response.
The ICC’s decision to eliminate the Associates in 2015 and revert to 10 Test-only nations will be a disaster for cricket as an international sport.
Why even have the ICC pour money into promoting cricket in far-flung countries if they have nothing to aspire to?
The buzz of being at a World Cup shouldn’t be denied on performance – if it was, FIFA might as well rub out more than two-thirds of its own World Cup qualifying games.
However, in the eyes of the ICC, world cricket stops at rung 10 of an already sawn-off ladder. That’s not going to mean a true World Cup worthy of the name when the team planes touch down in Sydney and Auckland in four years’ time.
The ICC in fact has altered the World Cup format no less than six times in the past 30 years. Is any other international sporting body that mad? In the same period (1975-2010) the FIFA World Cup has changed three times – and grown each time, too.
The cricketing version has gone from eight teams, to nine, 12, 14, 16 and now it’s back to 14.
The cull to 10 will make the ICC’s own investment in developing cricket world-wide look completely irrelevant.
If the ICC insist on 10 countries, at least offer a window to the second-tier nations via a play-off series between the bottom two ODI-ranked sides and the best six Associates – the top two from that qualifying tournament could each have a place at the big table.
Sure, cricket may never be as big as rugby union or the world game, but it will hardly be memorable either if 10 countries play alone, year-in, year-out.
One onlne poster to CricInfo.com put it well all the way back in October when the idea was first mooted – yes, FIFA could arrange a World Cup containing just the top five teams from Europe and five from South America, but it doesn’t.
Why? Because it wouldn’t be a World Cup!
Funktapuss
Guest
1992 World Cup staged in Australia was the best ever tournament. You had only 8 teams, everyone played each other, you had a semi, then a final. An idea to include the lesser lights would be to stage qualifiers during the 3 odd years leading up to a Cup. Have everyone play everyone home and away and the top 6 or 8 play the finals.
Prium Md
Guest
How come it is a world cup when only 10 teams play? makes no sense. More Teams should be given opportunity, and if India get knocked out against these teams, how can they be called minnows? If these countries are never given the opportunity to win, how are they going to win? Cricket is a game, it is not all about India. So the ICC should grow up and think again.
Fly on the Wall
Guest
As I have posted here before, it doesn't matter so much how many teams you have as long as the games mean something - otherwise you get boring round matches and betting corruption. Copy the hockey format from the Olympics: 12 teams in 2 pools of 6 5 round robin games top 2 in each pool play crossover semis winners to meet in final tell me a system that delivers a better outcome - you are pretty much playing for your life every game. Now THAT would generate interest in each match. While I cheered wildly when India were eliminated early in 2007, the loss of them and Pakistan took a lot away from the tournament and led to lopsided second round games - further prolonging the ridicule of the hopeless ICC. It's ludicrous for a 16-team tournament, or a 12-team one, to then move to an 8-team second round. Where is the urgency to win each match? Adopt my system and deliver a World Cup to remember !
Wombat
Guest
Rugby, Basketball and Soccer matches don't go for 8 hours Captain Snooze. ZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Brendon
Guest
So when Australia beat Japan 91-3 at the 2007 Rugby World Cup that was competitive? When in basketball the USA beat Germany 106-57 at the 2008 Olympics that is competitive? Or when Portugal beat North Korea 7-0 at last years FIFA world cup that was competitive? Yet somehow lopsided matches in cricket world cups are a TERRIBLE thing ...
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Patrick, We did that last time, and India and Pakistan got knocked out in the first round. Thus, we try again ..,
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
To be fair, Australia have played Bangladesh reasonably often - and, personally, Im not at all upset that when Bangladesh tour Australia the matches tend to happen in Darwin and Cairns. The key for developing cricketers is matches against good competition, not against the best, and this means A-tours.
Patrick Adams
Guest
I suggest that the first round of the World Cup should be made up of four groups of three teams. The top two teams in each group go through to the quarter-finals. That way the so called minnows get to compete against the best teams and the first round need last no longer than a fortnight. The ICC should also ensure that the "A" teams of the top countries tour the top countries in the second tier. That way the ICC Associate nations will get to play regularly against first-class cricketers.
djsinnema
Roar Rookie
This decision, despite going against everything a World sport governing body strives to do, would never surprise me. The ICC is run by some of the most corrupt sports organisation in the world, Yes even more so than FIFA. The BCCI has much of the Board by the short and curly s, and has been moulded into its make profit at all costs thinking, to its own detrament. Their control of the ICC is best displayed by them shutting out John Howard from the presedency. Put Simply Blame India
Timmuh
Roar Guru
No doubt the BCCI played a big part in the decision, but don't ignore that Cricket Australia would have been quite vigorous in supporting the move as well. CA don't want low gate takings in 2015 (and as hosts presumably take a slice of the broadcast pie). And Australia has probably treated Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and even Sri Lanka worse than any other nation has since those three got promoted from Associate status - cancelling tours or just not scheduling them.
Matt F
Guest
it's an appallingly short sighed desicion based upon potential short-term tv rights losses if India et al were to crash out early again rather then the long term benefits of growing the game. the 2 main reasons the ICC have given is that it improves the quality of the tournament by reducing the number of thrashings and it will shorten the length of the tournament. the first reason is wrong because the only reason Ireland and Bangladesh got so far in the 2007 tournement, and kenya in 2003, was by beating bigger teams. also let's be honest the only exciting part of the disaster that was the 07 tournament were the group stages and only because of Ireland! Sure there are some heavy beatings but history says there will be one upset at least this tournament. the second reason fails because supposedly the 2015 tournement will contain 48 matches, the current one contains 49. Not really a big reduction there.... however i do agree that 14 and 16 teams is a few teams too many. reduce it to say 12 and let the best minnows compete. basing it off your qualifying idea i would make it a 12 team competition with the top 8 ranked teams getting automatic qualification and the next 8 teams having to qualify. make the qualifying stage 2 groups of 4 playing each team in their group once and the top 2 from each qualify. then keep the world cup in it's current format but with 6 teams per group instead of 7. this would cut down the number of matches, give the best of the minnows good experience and ensure that one bad match isn't the end of a tournament like in 2007. however if the icc is serious about growing the game (which it seems they clearly aren't) then it needs to guarentee the best minnows far more frequent matches against the top sides. kenya made the semi's in 2003 but were basically ignored afterwards, same with ireland in 2007. continous exposure to top-level cricket following the respective world cups may have seen these teams much stronger then they currently are. 4-5 games against the best teams every 4 years does nothing
Brian
Guest
The trimming down to 10 teams is driven by one factor, having a format that guarnatees 9 games involving India against somewhat reasonable oppossition. 2007 was a ICC disaster (TV money wise) because India went home so early. The ICC has absolutely no vision for the game and has also cannabalised its own WC product by holding a Champions Trophy every second year. The problem for the associates and others with cricket's best interest is that as long as the Indian economy grows by over 8% p.a. the ICC will continue writing up TV deals that surpsuss its previous one - irrespective of how terribly they run the game! The 2000 deal for ICC events was $500m, In 2007 it was $1.1b. It should also be remembered that Kenya came 3rd in the 2003 World Cup. They also beat the WI in 1996 and on performances have far outperfomred Bangladesh at World Cups. But their ommission in 2015 will be one of just many ICC wrongs.