Is Cricket guilty by Associates-on?

Zimbabwe does have a four team First Class competition. Whether they would be better off fielding those sides, or just two sides, in the South African comp is another issue. Canada has played in the West Indian ListA competition, Ireland and the Netherlands have both played in come comp in England, though not the County Championship, again it was only limited overs and I don't believe it was the main ListA comp (may even have been just a knockout comp). Scotland may have played in it as well. As for individuals, there is nothing stopping them from playing in other nation's FC competitions. There are limits on imports in some nations, but generally they can move. Its how some of the English team qualify for England, the trick is if they qualify for a Test nation and their nation achieves that status they should be allowed to move back without having to re-qualify for their home nation.

As you state yourself, games take a full day to complete. That is the reason why there are not two games a day. When two matches involving full members are on, the BCCI (and ICC and other national bodies) do not want to split the television audience. The answer, as you state, is to better organise the Associate schedule. The ICC tournaments are of enormous benefit to the second tier of Associates, and of some benefit to the best Associate nations; but the leading Associates also need to be playing against professionals regularly. Inb my mind, that means having the Netherlands tour South Africa and play Western province and the like; having NSW tour Ireland; with a smattering of "A" games and when competitive on a regular basis in those matches (and in the 18 months or so leading into a WC, which should keep Associates) having limited overs games - and first class games - against some full nations. Going in with just a couple of WC warm up games immediately prior to the tournament, and maybe one or two limited overs games some years for some teams (teams often play an ODI game in Ireland on a tour to England now), isn't enough. Its not enough to really get tjhose sides ready for a WC, or to give them the necessary competition to be granted Test status. If, for example, Ireland can get some competitive draws over four days against New Zealand A, Tamil Nadu, Queensland; they will have done more to prove worthy of Test status than most nations ever did. This type of approach allows the leading Associates to gradually build up the level of competition, and be better prepared for a WC that they should not be excluded from. T20 is no substitute, and can easily lead to bad cricket habits. They need first class experience, and full 50 over games, if they are ever to step up. But that costs money, with limited future cash payoff, so it won't happen.

Russ, You should follow my Tigers more closely ;) In the '07 World Cup, they got winning practice against Scotland, and delivered wins against India and South Africa. Prior to this World Cup, they cleaned up Zimbabwe 3-1 and then New Zealand 4-0, and they showed that they've had winning practice by closing out a game against ireland that they probably should have lost.

Ian, quite true, and I'd imagine you'd agree, has been one of the biggest difficulties for Bangladesh. They went from a side that was accustomed to winning most games against limited opposition, to a side that might win one game per year against strong opposition. If they'd continued to play a mix of strong and weak opposition then might have known how to turn some of those close test losses into victories, and take advantage of the good positions they have found themselves in from time to time. It was notable that Ireland, who are accustomed to closing out games, were fairly composed at the death against England, although they bottled it in the previous game.

Speaking of Associates, Canada did pretty well against Pakistan - they got them out for an acceptable 181, and were then a very nice 3 for 100 and change before Afridi cut loose with the ball. Learning how to win is the toughest part of being a developing cricket nation.

Firstly, I have to say that your article Ben was very well written. I enjoyed reading it, also with the comments, some great discussion. I have been thinking of the situation of the associates (eg: Ireland, Scotland, Zimbabwe and Kenya) and Zimbabwe, who I believe will be playing Test cricket again this year which I believe is a good move for the game of cricket. Why not have associate countries play in domestic cricket? I don't think Kenya or Zimbabwe would be strong enough to have their own first class competition but get them into South Africa's one. They wouldn't have to be called Kenya but they could have a city based team (for example: Nairobi) and the best players from Kenya along with the national team players could strengthen the national team, same with Zimbabwe. Even encourage players from Kenya or Zimbabwe could play for the South African teams, maybe have scholarships so that up-and-coming players could get First Class experience. I believe a system like this would be brilliant, providing it would be implemented right. The same could be done for Ireland and Scotland. There are some exciting times for cricket ahead (especially with Ireland beating England last night!) providing the ICC focuses on the real formats of the game.

Brian,Ireland have actually beaten bangladesh three out of the last four occassions before their loss in this WC. Having just beaten England overnight and Pakistan in the last WC they have shown they are ahead of where Bangladesh were in the same period of their development. As far as "importing" players go I was serious but they need to spend a three four year qualification period.

Brian, I don't agree with the way nations are elevated, it involves too much second guessing, when other sports let teams rise and fall on merit. But given the process, perhaps the ICC weren't wrong on Bangladesh and Kenya. The former has a large populace and rapidly emerging cricket culture that feeds off India. The latter had a generation of strong cricketers and no infrastructure or administrative stability that has seen them decline as their players aged. Now, arguably Kenya could have built up those things with full membership and the money that entails, but maybe not too - they have had numerous issues with corruption. Worth noting on Ireland too, given the age of their key players, you can more or less guarantee they'll remain at this standard or better for the next decade - something you couldn't have said of Kenya in 2003 who had already peaked (or Bangladesh or Zimbabwe when they got full member status). That matters, in terms of them being competitive while they build up their next generation of cricketers.

As a further note why are associates not allowed to pick players ignored by their national sides. Dirk Nannes did a great job bowling for Victoria the other day but its fair to say Australian cricket supporters (never mind International) would have prefered to see him bolwing the last few overs of the Netherlands match against England to see what might have been. It would also help if countries were fast-tracked based on merit rather than politics. Bangladesh are only now after more than 10 years of full status better than Kenya & Ireland. The 2003 Kenya side should have been supported much more than they were. Kenya beat the West Indies in 1996 and made the semis in 2003, yet somehow Bangladesh were given full status.

Vinay, you can't be serious. If Australia start importing spinners, should India start importing West Australian batsman for WACA Test matches? If the BCCI flung $1m a year contract past Mitch Marsh in order to win the 2015 World Cup and increase their TV audience, would you still feel the same way? What about the next few Pakistani or West Indian bowlers, they would be even cheaper

Wrong. The Isle of Man doesn't have a national football team which you would be able to class as a full international side, as it plays in a regional FA competition. The Isle of Man does however have a international cricket team.

The decision to exclude the Associate nations from the 2015 World Cup, but allow extra places at the World Twenty20 tournament will effectively kill off the longer version of the game at the second tier level. Whilst the purists don't like to see mismatches at the highest level, they don't care what happens at Twenty20 level. But, (whisper it) that's the future of the sport. Look at the popularity of the IPL and full-house signs at the Twenty20 matches around the world and compare it to the empty stadia at four day or five day domestic and Test matches. Eventually everyone will realise that these versions of the game are unsustainable. Steps are in place to set up a franchise system in North America, on the same lines as the National Hockey League, whereby each city will have it's own Twenty20 cricket team. How long will it take something similar to happen in England where the cricket is restricted to a long outdated County system? People have pride in the city they live in, but outside Yorkshire and Lancashire nobody cares about their county. In the long-term forcing the Associate nations to play the shorter game will be the best thing for them, because in 10-20 years time, that's all there will be. So let the elitist fools at the ICC exclude the Associate nations from the outdated unsustainable versions of the game. I know who will get the last laugh.

While the associates' performances at the world cup have been disappointing, so have the performances of some of the test nations. A couple things come to mind which make these one-sided matches seem worse than other sports: 1. ODI cricket goes for a whole day (surprise, I know) compared with most other sports which only go for less than a couple hours. This means that in other sports there is less time to fully highlight the differences in skill levels. There is less time for observers to become bored or outraged. 2. The current world cup design is so drawn out that only 1 game (or sometimes 2) gets played per day. If you have a couple lopsided games in a row, the tournament loses all momentum. Again, there is more time for the audience to stew. 3. We are sending out mostly amateurs to face full time professionals. The associates may be lucky to play 2 games a year against test nations. They get the smallest fraction of ICC money compared with test nations. They are mostly playing in totally unfamiliar conditions to what they are accustomed. WHAT DID PEOPLE EXPECT WOULD HAPPEN?!? Solutions to these issues: 1. Games are too long? Only let associates play T20. Not the best solution in my book, but that is the approach the ICC is planning to take. 2. World Cup format is too drawn out? Please ICC, give us a tournament which doesn't take months to finish! Surely we could have had 2 games per day in the opening round! Nobody can maintain the interest in such a drawn out beast as we are facing, regardless of the results. Or give us smaller pools where lopsided results would be over relatively quickly, long forgotten once the finals are upon us. 3. Associates are up against huge odds? Give them a chance! Give them decent funding to allow more professional players. Give them assistance with coaching and facilities. Give them a look in at playing test nations, at playing in different conditions. What is the point of giving them ODI status if they do not get considered in the future tours programme? Please, rather than kicking them out, invest in the associates. It is the only way cricket can grow!

Vinay, what sort of "intervention" did you have in mind? I think you can trace the decline of West Indies and New Zealand cricket to when they stopped playing county cricket - or to be more precise, when international cricket became so prevalent they lacked the time to play county cricket, and their young players were drafted directly into the test arena from weak first class competitions. I don't mind putting money into China and the USA. The actual amounts being spent are tiny compared to what full members receive, and the pay-offs from even miniscule market penetration are huge. US cricket has been a continual disappointment however; they have a playing base and watching public as big as several full members, yet the organisation drifts from crisis to crisis, bedding in with any entrepreneur who wants to skim the cream of that interest without building anything of value. Hopefully this partnership with New Zealand will bear fruit, for both countries, but I have my doubts. As a complete aside, there is probably significant potential for first class teams from southern nations (that is, everyone but England) to organise and play competitions (T20, obviously) in Europe or the USA in June/July, funded via global tv deals (Europe is very well placed to broadcast into India) and including a mix of associate players to give a local flavour (and help development). There is probably also a number of sporting clubs that would be willing to play cricket under their banner (brand) as a way of gaining market penetration in India, who could then promote the cricket league locally through their existing fan-base.

Brett, maybe, Sri Lanka won their first WC match in 1979, but were still comparatively weak (struggled to beat Zimbabwe) in 1992. Bangladesh won their first WC match in 1999, and are still comparatively weak in 2011 (struggled to beat Ireland); plus they started from a (much) lower base than Sri Lanka, although they have played significantly more games. I think Bangladesh have improved a lot in the past 3 years - my test ratings and the ODI ratings of the ICC indicate as much, but 2015 will be a better comparative point with Sri Lanka's WC win. I'd love to see all the top associates playing test cricket, but cricket needs reform of its schedule and finances before it can or should happen. Any team lumped into the FTP as Bangladesh was will face the same undeserved opprobrium. That, and the current system of endless, pointless tours is killing interest in all but the most glamorous contests. The best case scenario, as I've argued many times, is for two years in four to be set aside for bilateral tours, one year for "qualifiers" that let the weak teams test themselves against the strong, and one for a tiered championship.

Brett,you raise an important point in that existing Test playing nations like West indies and New Zealand have been left to their own devices when intervention was called for. I would try to preserve cricket in as Russ says "existing cultures" before running off to China or USA. Pakistan is a problem entirely of its own politics and culture.Last I knew their 10 million share from the 1996 WC was still unaudited. Till they change as a country it will oscillate from the sublime to the ridiculous. Perhaps the events in Egypt and Libya will be the catalyst for change.

Russ, that's all very true, and I should clarify that I'm not expecting Bangladesh to have won a CWC by now. But my point is that they're barely improved at all in the same time SL rose to the top. Perhaps their ascent is begining now, they certainly have some handy players, but then they struggled to beat Ireland last week. On Ireland, they're probably best served to take to Test cricket well, given the number of Irish players with experience playing in England. Ed Joyce has now requalified, and it would just be great to see the likes of Eoin Morgan playing for their native countries rather than having to cross borders. Ryan ten Doeschate might be able to earn a living in T20 comps now, but it would be a shame if he ever had to turn his back on the Netherlands to play more international cricket...

Brett, I'd say there are two reasons why Bangladesh haven't "developed" at the pace of Sri Lanka. Firstly, most importantly, because you shouldn't expect them to, and this goes for other countries too. The first ten test teams became test teams because they had the strongest cricketing culture (for lack of a better word); each team added, was, in general, not quite as good as the team that proceeded them. They have, by definition, weaker cultures, smaller playing pools, and a weaker ability to compete over the long term. Bangladesh have a big population and at some point will be a real power in the game, but it would be naive to expect Ireland or Scotland to perform better than New Zealand, on the average, with whom they share a similar sized population and national income. But nor should that matter; football has no problem finding room for teams like the Danes, who periodically produce a generation of pronounced excellence, but otherwise perennially teeter on the edge of world cup qualification. It is worth noting here too, that Kenya's so called "decline" is no different to Australia's; Tikolo, is the best player Kenya has ever had, but he is not the force he was, much like Ponting is not. Secondly, and this applies especially for associate results, the test teams are probably a lot better than they used to be - or at least, they ought to be. Until the late 90s most first class competitions weren't professional, now most are; teams have analysts who hunt through video footage looking for weaknesses and devising tactics; discipline specific coaches and improved fitness; academy programs for juniors, and so on. For a time Australia was ahead of the rest of the world on this, and it benefited them beyond the talents of their personnel; Bangladesh, being relatively poor, are behind the curve on these developments, and so their improvement is masked by improvement in others. The associates, even four years ago could surprise a top team at a world cup; now it is them being surprised, by tactics (none of the associates have opened with a spinner yet), and their inferior preparation and coaching is hiding the improvement in skill that has otherwise occurred.

Ben, nice article, it's hard to disagree. I take a similar view to Vinay, that the handling of Associates hasn't been that flash, but by the same token, handling of the lower-ranked Test nations isn't that much better. For eg, in the same amount of time that Bangladesh have had ODI status (roughly 20 years), Sri Lanka had gone from minnow to World Cup winners. Why are Bangaldesh still stuggling?? Why hasn't the same development and time been given to them as it was for SL in their early days (SL came to Australia for a triangular OD series against India in the mid-80s, from memory)?? I happen to agree with Peter Roebuck, we should have more Test teams by now. Ireland have a very good case for promotion, and what might become of cricket in continental Europe if the Netherlands were given a crack too?? Cutting back to 10 teams for the 2015 CWC, and leaving T20 as the development format is just plain wrong. That's like saying billy carts are where you can earn your F1 stripes...