- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
In recent weeks there have been countless arguments going on at workplaces, on internet forums and in the comments of sport websites like this one about the pros and cons of having a 10-team World Cup in 2019.
In recent days we’ve seen irrefutable evidence as to why reducing the amount of participants in the next instalment of the World Cup is a stupid, selfish, money driven decision which there is absolutely no doubt will be a detriment to the game as a whole.
The ICC have long been known as wanting to keep the status quo in terms of the positions of cricketing nations. The big three (which Australia are a part of) comfortably control cricket – led by the BCCI – and seem very happy with this arrangement.
Adding full members would only cause trouble when it came to voting on ICC issues and scheduling games that on paper wouldn’t look like blockbusters.
But the World Cup has always been a bastion of hope and a chance to stand up for the little guys. Associates, minnows, whatever you wish to call them, have had moments in the sun that are up there with many of the big finals the tournament has provided.
From Kenya’s arrival to the semi-finals in 2003 to Ireland’s defeat of England in 2011 (the former admittedly a perfect storm of luck, politics and some good form), these are some of the fondest memories for many cricket fans.
Even things like Dwayne Leverock’s famous catch for Bermuda or the mere fact that Afghanistan, even with all the turmoil and strife they’ve suffered as a nation, are deservedly here playing in a World Cup, are fantastic and are vital parts of a rich tapestry that make a world cup competition worthwhile.
The ICC seem to be thinking two simple things here – the new format allows more ‘blockbuster’ games of which they believe are a higher quality.
It will also mean that something like the financial disaster of 2007 in which India and Pakistan both bowed out can further be avoided via tournament structure.
The quality answer has proven to be a ridiculous one in the recent days. Even in the first four gamesm the closest one was between South Africa and Zimbabwe. While the Zimbas are a full ICC member, they are most definitely one of the teams who would have their spot placed in jeopardy in a ten-team tournament.
Ireland then defeated the West Indies in what is becoming a regular upset of a Test nation for them at a World Cup after defeating Pakistan and England.
They cruised until the late overs where their lack of experience began to show, but they got the job done. This is a side who have worked their tails off to be granted ODI status and earn a place in this tournament.
They’re also a side who have played a paltry nine ODIs against the top-eight nations in the two years leading up to the tournament. Their captain William Porterfield’s thinly veiled vitriol of their standing is well founded.
There’s no doubt the West Indies are in trouble both off and on the field, but today’s thumping of Pakistan means that credit cannot be taken away from Ireland for the victory any longer.
New Zealand have put on two scintillating bowling displays to have teams out for under 150. One was against an associate nation playing their third World Cup while the other was against the oldest Test nation in cricket.
The associate, Scotland, made New Zealand work for their victory as they limped over the line with seven wickets having fallen in half of their allocated 50 overs. The Test nation, England, allowed the fastest world cup 50 of all time to be struck and the chase was over in less than half the time it was against Scotland.
The two most inexperienced associates (Afghanistan and the UAE) have also both put in respectable efforts so far in their games. It was striking to see how much Bangladesh’s victory against Afghanistan meant to them after Afghanistan had defeated them in an ODI the year before.
It was fantastic to see Hamid Hassan charging in with war paint and a headband on the world stage, in front of many people who would never have seen his side before. Both of those teams may well not make the 2019 world cup.
The quality argument doesn’t sit well when the majority would far prefer a good, tense contest over a side blowing another away. The big games so far have mostly been just that. India versus Pakistan was possibly the most watched sporting event in history – incredible in atmosphere and as an event but the credit has to go to the fans for the spectacle.
The cricket petered out and was hardly enthralling.
The argument that teams should have to do more to qualify doesn’t work either. 16 teams currently have ODI status and 14 of them are in the tournament. Canada and the Netherlands are not included in that 16 and that’s not even to speak of rising nations like Nepal and Namibia. Associate sides grind away in multi-year leagues to slowly move up divisions to even get the opportunity – if they can achieve ODI status given how rarely it is given out then the majority of sides deserve to play.
Some will say that there’s only a small pool of teams who can realistically win the tournament regardless of how many are in there and this is no doubt true. But much like the FIFA World Cup, the journey is often just as important as the destination. This is doubly true for the smaller nations who are not a realistic chance of taking home the trophy.
The scheduling and format has been talked about at length by many. The group stage seeming relatively pointless and overly long is by design and easily fixable with better organisation. Even playing two games every day would make a big difference.
Most of all is the romanticism associated with the associate nations being given an opportunity. We’ve already had plenty of moments this tournament from the sides outside of the top eight and will no doubt have many more before the tournament is over.
A ten-team world cup signifies a desire for a bland, homogenised product, doing the bare minimum to not be the exact same thing as the Champions Trophy. It’s embarrassingly short-sighted from the governing body of a sport that so many people and nations love. There is no way it is a decision that helps cricket grow.
There’s still the T20 world cup, but teaching a nation of young cricketers to only play the shortest version of the game is never going to create a strong base of versatile players to choose from if they ever were to move up to the longer forms.
There’s genuine anger from some but the general feel is a pervasive sense of hopelessness. If two associates are to qualify for the next world cup it will be at the expense of the weaker Test nations who desperately need the funding boost and exposure. There is absolutely no harm in having some games that are lopsided on paper or involving teams from nations with smaller fan-bases.
Such is the nature of a world cup. You get the emotions (both high and low) of a whole sporting nation involved in your tournament.
The ICC have to ask themselves – do we want a true world cup or a status quo cup, keeping the insular nature of cricket at the forefront of its biggest tournament?
Ed Joyce, Ireland batsman: “In the long run, if the game has to go worldwide, then we have to get away from talking about associates and affiliates and full members. We don’t want to differentiate ourselves from Scotland and Afghanistan. We want them to come with us. We want the game to grow and everyone to compete on a level playing field”
Phil Simmons, Ireland coach, said something similar, “It’s hard to understand what we get from getting promoted (up a divison in the World Cricket League). If you want us to improve, then you need to give us more games. That’s why we keep making lots of noise.”
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.