News today that only the 10 Test playing cricket nations will be represented at the 2015 Cricket World Cup in Australia and New Zealand is a knee jerk reaction to criticism about the length of the 2007 and 2011 tournaments, and again shows just how narrow sighted the ICC are.
The decision seems so much like a bad joke that I had to check the date to make sure I was not being sucked in by an April Fool’s Day hoax. It is even more of a joke that it is not such a hoax.
For the record, the following nations are Test playing nations: Australia, New Zealand, England, West Indies, Pakistan, India, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
From the most recent Cricket World Cup, the following nations will miss out: Ireland, Canada, the Netherlands and Kenya.
At the outset, my view is that the failure to include Ireland as a full cricketing nation as well as it not being in the next World Cup is a disgrace. Nothing less. The sooner Ireland is placed on the track to becoming a full cricketing nation, the better.
That said, what should be done about the 2015 World Cup, aside from including Ireland as a full cricketing nation?
I come back to the theme of a previous post. Teams such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe were once (and some would say in the case of the last two teams still are) “minnows” or associate teams.
The story of Sri Lanka’s rise from “minnow” to being one of the powerhouses of the game is a great story and is instructive as to why the ICC’s decision is just so wrong.
Sri Lanka’s initial exposure to international cricket was in the 1975 World Cup (they lost all three games they played). Then they did not play in another international tournament until the 1979 World Cup (where they won their first game against India and had a match abandoned as well as losing one game).
After the 1979 World Cup, Sri Lanka began playing in Test match cricket on a limited basis in the 1981/82 season and played in a limited number of one-day tournaments in the meantime.
In the 1983 and 1987 World Cups, the Sri Lankan team failed to record a victory from 10 games. In 1992 the results of the Sri Lankan team started to improve with two victories and a no result the positives from six games of cricket played.
Before the Sri Lankan team won the 1996 World Cup it had won thre games from a total of 22 played at World Cups. Importantly during this period Sri Lanka was offered and maintained Test status and started playing cricket regularly. There is no need to continue to expand on Sri Lanka’s results since 1992 – they are one of the dominant forces in the game.
Why shouldn’t the current associates be given a chance to emulate what Sri Lanka has done with its chance? If at any point in those formative years up to and including 1992 the ICC (and its predecessors) had have made a decision like the present one, what state would Sri Lankan cricket be in now?
Is it possible that names such as Sangakarra, Malinga et al would have been lost to cricket?
Equally, questions need to be asked as to why Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, as Test playing nations, receive an automatic chance to play in the “big show” when their respective results are no better than, for example, Ireland.
Zimbabwe, the country and the cricketing team, are not worthy of a place in the “top 10” cricketing nations in the world.
The ICC has always gone against public and moral opinion and kept them in the game (albeit with a reduced role) for no cogently explained reason. It can’t be about money, because playing Zimbabwe could not be making anyone any money.
The inclusion of the Bangladesh team presents even more of a conundrum because they have been playing Test cricket regularly but they are not, let’s be honest, competitive. Equally the reasons for Bangladesh’s inclusion in the “top 10” are clear – Bangladesh has a fanatical base of supporter, a large TV market and form part of the all conquering Asian bloc of international cricket. Whether one likes it or not the Bangladesh cricket team is in the “top 10” to stay.
So in the current “top 10” we see two minnows of the game who will be at the next World Cup. Frankly, Zimbabwe do not deserve to be an automatically selected team for the next World Cup by any measure.
Setting aside the problems with the regime in Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe cricket team is a minnow by any measure and, indeed, has not played a Test match since 2006 and has only been involved in a limited number of limited overs matches in recent years.
It is abundantly clear from this decision that the ICC wishes to limit the number of teams at the next World Cup to 10 teams.
If 10 teams is the maximum (I for one do not believe that 12 teams would be out of the question, but will focus on the 10 team scenario for the moment) then the answer must be for their to be a qualifying tournament before the World Cup to be held with each of the associates, including Zimbabwe, Ireland and the Netherlands playing off for the final spot in the “top 10”.
Any tournament that includes a team of Zimbabwe without at the very minimum allowing teams like Ireland and the Netherlands to compete with it for the last spot in the tournament is, simply, a joke and the sooner the ICC reconsiders this ridiculous decision the better.
Brendon
Guest
While I agree with the sentiments about moving to a 10 man world cup maybe the writer of this article should remove his head from 2007? Bangladesh has improved immeasurably in the past couple of years and beat your beloved Ireland in this world cup and finished higher than them in the group stage and only missed out on the finals due to NRR. Zimbabwe easily accounted for Kenya and Canada in group A. Nothing sums up the problems with Australian cricket than the outdated ideas and opinions frmo this article. Close your eyes and tap your heels together three times and think to yourself "its not 2007 anymore"
vaguely
Roar Pro
While I completely agree with the premise of the article, I have issue with how you argue the point. You give seven or eight paragraphs outlining how Sri Lanka is a shining example of how a team can go from minnow to super power but in the next breath seem to imply that Bangladesh doesn't deserve to be there, even though they are probably the team most likely to follow in Sri Lanka's footsteps. You give commercial and political reasons why Bangladesh are included but forget the main point: they are more competitive than the rest of the minnows. What have Ireland, Canada and the Netherlands done? I know Ireland beat an out of form England in the World Cup but that's all I can think of. Bangladesh have beaten (at the time) world champions Australia; they have won against India; and they have beaten lesser teams, too (such as Ireland). The fact the Zimbabwe is still playing cricket shows the corruption of the ICC, the fact you seemingly dismiss Bangladesh shows your own bias. What about other 'modern minnows' such as the West Indies? They are about as competitive as Bangladesh, do they deserve a place or should they have to play a qualifying match against Bermuda? We shouldn't be arguing if the current teams deserve their place, the ICC should keep the 'expanded' competition.
Fool
Guest
FIFA has something like 202 nations competing for 32 World Cup slots. IRB has 20 odd slots for the 100 odd listed rugby nations. So there is quite a gruelling qualifying campaign for teams outside the top 8 rugger nations. This tournament has the same problems as cricket does. It needs to be 16 nations max. Soccer is a game where a bunch of people who have never actually played the sport could be instantly competitive against a superpower of the game by just parking the bus in front of the goals. That is the beauty of the sport. You cannot do that in the super technical games like rugby and cricket. All up, I stand by cutting World Cup back to 8. I would even get it back to 6 if I was the ICC head honcho. It is just a rubbish tournament and I didn't bother watching a lot of it and I am a cricket head. Imagine the not really interested brigade. The situations we have now is the equivalent of making the AFL finals a final 16. Canada, Netherlands are never going to be test match nations. They load their squads with ringers. What the hell is the point in that? It does not get the locals interested at all, it develops bupkuss!
Russ
Guest
Fool, why do FIFA and the IRB include minnows? In the last 12 tournaments, 7 teams have won the football WC, 9 have made the final. Half the teams arrive there with no chance of winning, but it remains the highlight of those players careers, and for their supporters, as it does for every player in the cricket world cup. Both those sports offer a world cup place to 1 in 5 or 6 of their members, even if most have no chance of qualifying. Cricket not only offers a place for 1 in 12 of its members, it has done away with qualifying. That is a disgrace. Football's WC is also bigger, which means a team only needs to beat a team ranked 9-16 to make the second round; every team has something to play for. But it also means that of the 64 games played, only 5 involved two of those 9 finalists. Whereas cricket will get some 39 games between its top 9 sides. Does that make cricket better? No. Because 98% of the cricket played already involves the 10 full members, so why on earth would I want to watch them play more of it? The glamour of a world cup is that it involves the world. You are right, that cricket ought to have a qualifying series involving the best sides; it also ought to have regional championships. But cricket is, and will no doubt remain, an elitist sport dedicated to the few, and watched by just as many. Finally, '92 had 9 teams, with a week to play in the groups stages 3 had failed to qualify, and 2 were already through, which made the majority of the last few fixtures pointless. It occupies an exalted place largely because in those days few of the teams were regularly visible to the watching public (RSA especially), it had coloured uniforms for the first time, and the semis and final were good games. A 10 team world cup between the same-old teams, where 3 have little chance of making the semis will be an elongated farce.
Fool
Guest
Personally, I think an 8 team World cup is more than sufficient. You have everyone play everyone once, the top four play off to see who plays in the final, exactly like the greatest Cricket World Cup ever staged in 1992. What is farcical, and I cannot believe everyone is getting so wound up about it, is having minnows playing in the supposed biggest cricket tournament. Mind you, I do not think the World Cup is that big a deal nowadays. It is not even on free to air in Australia to give you an idea how small the tournament has become. A better idea and a way to include the best of these minnows is to have a qualifying series spanning the 3 years leading up to it. So you will have Ireland playing all say the top 12 teams home and away over the 3 years. The minnows then get to develop EVERY year and they do not dilute the competition and interest for the big Cup. My idea is to just copy the soccer world cup idea to give everyone a real go at it.
Russ
Guest
Quite right Chris, so why does the ICC continue to deny top class cricket to its weaker full members and associate nations?
Chris
Guest
Your use of Sri Lanka as an example is flawed. They improved by playing regular top class cricket, not by participating in a World Cup every four years. The World Cup should be a showcase of the top teams in the world going at it. I fully support the reduction of number of participating teams, just not how the ICC has done it. The teams have to be there on merit - so the two logical options are to use ODI rankings, or have qualifying matches. To give entry to a ODI tournament based on your Test status is laughable.
Wall-Nut
Guest
I think it's clear what is happening, ODI is reduced 20/20 expanded. I know several of you wont like that! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
M1tch
Roar Guru
Let's hope these nations get their own world cup before, during or after the 'main' world cup. We need these countries to play as many matches a year to build and get stronger.
Redb
Roar Guru
Is the problem the minnows lack of progress or the drawn out format that is 50 overs. Which needs the revamp?
Brett McKay
Guest
nice one shumpty - I'll c&p this from today's other thread: I'm not sure what's more ridiculous, that the Associates WON'T be able to qualify for 2015, or that they WILL be able to for 2019....
jamesb
Guest
how 'bout a 12 team world cup with 2 groups of 6 and with the world cup finishing a week earlier
sledgeross
Guest
Peeeko, I supose you could compare Ireland to New Zealand then. There are quite a few "Irish" players playing County or decent league cricket in the UK (yes, you could even grab anyone with a gaelic surname!) The interest and passion is there for Ireland, they are better run, and have a better pool of talent than the other minnows.
peeeko
Roar Guru
whilst not disagreeing with your idea, i think you can not assume that since Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have improved hugely over the last 30 years then countries like Canada, Ireland etc will do the same. Bangladesh has a huge population and are formerly part of Pakistan and thus have a cricketing heritage in their country. likewise Cricket is Sri Lanka always had a big presence on the local sporting scence unlike in these other nations. the canadian team are simply immigrants from the sub continent which leaves the team with limited appeal nation wide. Ireland is similar to Australia in that there is an abundance of competing codes, soccer, rugby, hirling and gaelic football all big sports. I think what needs to be done however is that the tournament has to be re organized not changed by culling teams. Basically the tournament "started" with a knockout stage of quarter finals everything before that it was a sideshow. maybe a plan is to play smaller pools, knock out the minnows, form into larger pools and then have knockout. i think however this format may have been dropped as in the 2007 world cup India and pakistan were knocked out early on.
Intotouch
Guest
This is absolutely terrible for cricket in Ireland! Government funding of sports is being cut, they will very likely lose sponsorship and have great difficulty attracting new sponsors. In one stroke the green shoots of the sport in Ireland have been stomped out. All this when the Irish team IS RANKED TENTH and deserve on merit to go to the next world cup! (Zimbabwe is ranked below this yet will be included) It is an unbelievably unjust and shortsighted decision at the worst time for cricket in Ireland. I can see a lot of people turning from the sport over this. Well, they may very well make good hurlers.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Hear hear. :D
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
could not agree more
Whites
Guest
Yes. It is a joke. The ICC is up there with FIFA in terms of credibility. Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are full test nations because they always vote the way India tells them. To paraphrase the great social commentator Homer Simpson's comment about beer. India is both the cause of and solution to all crickets problems. The world cup is designed endless mess to make sure India gets to at least the semi-finals. It should be kept simple. 16 teams. 4 groups of 4 play each other once. Quarter-finals. Semi-finals and Final. 6 games. Done.