To slightly alter one of Shakespeare’s most famous lines: ‘to include or not to include, that is the question’, with the include referring to the Associate nations currently doing their utmost to cause a few bloody noses in Australasia.
After every decent showing from the non-Test match countries or every limp showing from the big boys – in fact after every game whether it’s a relevant point or not – the question of the 10-team 2019 World Cup is raised.
Ireland beat the West Indies so why aren’t they guaranteed a place next time?
Scotland against Afghanistan was closer than New Zealand against England/West Indies versus Pakistan, but they might never be seen again.
UAE were thrashed by India but they won’t improve if they don’t play.
You’ve probably got the picture by now. All of the above can be prove a point just as all of the above can do the opposite. Think of the old adage about statistics.
Anyway, the 10-team format pencilled in for four years time has rattled enough cages – so much so that a petition has been launched to encourage the ICC to change their minds.
Isn’t that what happens when governments introduce unwelcome legislation?
I may be in the minority and playing devil’s advocate to some degree but the 10-team format isn’t the demonic piece of work that many imagine.
In a purely sporting context, an everybody plays everybody format is preferable to the one currently being ground out.
The 1992 edition of the tournament has yet to be bettered for that reason and I’d much rather watch games that have something riding on them than a fortnight of filling in the calendar.
That said, I can see the argument for an expanded event to give those in the second tier a bite of the cake, but it’s the instantaneous judgements reached that rankle.
A couple of good performances shouldn’t be the cause for promotion just as a couple of shabby ones shouldn’t equal demotion. The issue is how the 10 teams are decided.
As there is no structure to the one-day international game outside of the World Cup and Champions Trophy, a definitive rankings system is nigh on impossible to formulate.
England play Australia more than enough but not Pakistan. Australia haven’t faced New Zealand for goodness knows how long but are always up against India.
Ireland rarely play anybody and there is more where that comes from. The result is an unbalanced league table that tells you next to nothing other than who is in good form.
This might not be a problem if only so many countries had official ODI status, leaving the others to battle it out in a qualifying tournament for the remaining spots at the marquee event.
But the 2019 competition, I think I’m right in saying, will use the rankings to determine eight of the participants with the other two having to qualify.
If the playing field is so uneven with regards to the number of games being played by individual nations and the opposition lined up, it stands to reason that the qualifying criteria must contain certain flaws. If this is where the Associates feel hard done by then they can hardly be blamed.
Were the ICC to put in place a schedule whereby every official ODI-playing nation played the same number of games in a qualifying period, against the same opposition to everybody else, culminating with the World Cup finals – then the 10-team format wouldn’t create half the controversy.
Of course, this is just throwing a proposal out there with only small thought for the logistical arrangements needed to make it happen, but there is no reason why it couldn’t be attempted.
Those with the financial and historical clout shouldn’t be awarded a free run just as those doing their utmost to compete don’t deserve to be treated as unwelcome guests.
There is a solution to the discord out there, it merely needs a desire to make it come to fruition.
josh
Roar Rookie
Sure in 2014 for ODIs Afghanistan has played 14 ODI games U.A.E 7 Scotland 7 Ireland 5 Australia played 18 This doesn't include for the associate nations, the Division level (List A) games they play.
Shane
Guest
As Australia is co-hosting I am sure that we would have input in the scheduling. And really it is not that far to fly from Auckland to Perth and we are only playing Afghanistan. However fully agree with the concept of 16 teams in four groups of four. The more the merrier.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
FIFA doesn't have more than 6 countries that can win it
raz
Guest
Flat decks?? This world cup and aussie pitches are the definition of the world flat dead concrete slab pitches.
raz
Guest
Ohh we ve got a conspiracy theorist ,world cup must be fixed eh??
Johnno
Guest
Conor Strong teams. I'd hardly call Bangladesh and Zimbabwe strong! More like 8 strong teams, maybe even 7 now, west indies have been very average, South Africa put 400 on them the other day.
Alec Swann
Expert
Conor You're probably right but I'd be amazed if the ICC change their tune. If it is going to be 10, a more coherent way of getting the 10 participants needs to be considered.
Alec Swann
Expert
Spruce Moose The intention was to put across an argument for the game as a whole and not from an English angle so you'd have to enlighten me on the elitist and insecure accusations. If England, as you allude to, were to fail to qualify then they wouldn't play in the tournament, that's a fairtly straightforward concept.
slane
Guest
And yet football isn't the number one sport it any of those countries you mentioned. Not a single Asian country can expect a win during the world cup and celebrate each win like it is the a final. Once again I think you are underestimating the populations of these Asian countries. 5 million Australians tuning in to the Asian Cup final is great for Australia, it means one 5th of the population were keen to watch football. Meanwhile only 30million Chinese(2% of population) and 4.5million Koreans(10% of population) tuned in. So not only does that mean that football isn't all that popular in Asia, it means it is more popular in Aus than elsewhere.
Sleemo
Guest
The problem with the ten-team comp is that it eliminates a great deal of opportunity for the "minnows" to get there and have a crack. And the reverse problem that if they do get there they will be cannon fodder for basically the entire length of the tournament. I can think of two better formats than this. Firstly, the 1999 World Cup format. Two pools of six (5 rounds) going into the Super Six (3 more rounds), semis and final. 10 rounds all up. The Cup was over in five weeks, teams played every three or four days, and with four decent teams in each pool plus points against other qualifying teams carrying through, there were some great matches. Very few were dead rubbers. And with the two lesser-light full members (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh), there was still room for two minnows (that year, Scotland and Kenya). I would use this format but make the two lowest-ranked of the 10 Test nations qualify against the minnows. It won't take too long in the tournament either - 5 rounds with a game every 3-4 days is much quicker than seven rounds. The other format is a variation of the 2007 format. 16 teams in four groups of four. Two top-line teams in each pool and two lesser lights. Three rounds of that, then the top two from each going into a super-fours format (two groups). Three more rounds of that, then semis and a final. Eight rounds all up, so with games every 4-5 days the Cup will be over in a month or so. Better than the drawn-out freak show we have now. And whose idea was it to give Australia's first three games a week of space, send them to Auckland for the third of these and then have their fourth in Perth four days later? Great scheduling that.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
1. Money is directly linked to the ability to promote and grow the game. And yes, those 3 bring in more than everyone else by a truckload. 2. You said Australia couldn't win outside their own shores too, which is demonstrably false. 3. This WC is not the WC being talked about with regard to a 10 team format. The 2019 world cup in England is, and who knows who makes the final of that, England is as close to neutral ground as you can get (if only because the hosts themselves are not very good).
Johnno
Guest
slane A few urchins playing cricket on every street corner, is hardly test-cricket. Where do these street-kids have access to high-perfromance cricket academies like the one in Brisbane, or the one Dennis Lillee at the Madras rubber factory set-up coached at. Same in the Windies, lots of kids in Jamaica or Trinidad just won't get the coaching elite-level needed. Talent there in India,indies,Pakistan, Bangladesh, but facilities are poor for the overwhelming majority. Tendulkar,Ganguly,Lara etc, all had good coaching, went to good schools etc.
Statistic Skeptic
Roar Pro
Didn't say it was sports participation, it's just population. This google image search: https://www.google.com.my/search?q=cricket+india&biw=1070&bih=815&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=35r2VIu6CMr28QXOr4DQDA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=street+cricket+india Might cast some doubt on your opinion though...
Lazza
Guest
China, Japan, Korea and then all of West Asia and South East Asia like Football? Did you not see the Asian Cup? We had 16 fully professional teams that can compete and won't embarrass themselves. The only place left is South Asia and with the Indian Premier Football League starting the game could begin to take of there in a few years. Some of the biggest TV ratings for the EPL and FIFA WC come from India. All they need is a competitive team and the sport will explode in popularity.
Lazza
Guest
If you have a few amateurs playing in a pub league then that is NOT a Cricket country. The comparison with Australia in the FIFA WC is misleading. While we are “minnows” on the World stage we have a fully professional team that can compete with the powers of the game.
Conor
Guest
Which wold cup other than FIFA has more than 6 countries that can win it?? Cricket does quite well to have around 10 top teams and 100 member countries. The massive populations in Asian countries are a huge bonus. The comparison with league is poor, Im not sure how you compare 10 strong countries with 2 states of Aus and Nothern England. Also the numbers arent about participation, its about following the sport
slane
Guest
Johnno, when is the last time you travelled to India? There are urchins playing cricket on every street corner.
slane
Guest
I can see you like perspective, Lazza, so I'll give you another one: The largest of those 10 nations who are 'decent' has a population larger than all of Europe and South America combined. So the next time you want to talk about the 'World Game' you should remember that two thirds of the worlds population live in Asia and most of them don't really care about football. So whilst football is the number 1 sport in Europe, Africa and South America; those continents aren't exactly 'big potatoes' population wise.
Johnno
Guest
stastic skeptic India 1.2 billion national population is misleading stat for sports participation. Hundreds of millions of Indian's don't have access to cricket or field-hockey such is the poverty in India. Cricket to play at a decent level and field-hockey are middle-class sports in India. Same issues with Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Statistic Skeptic
Roar Pro
India Population - 1.25 billion England - 53 million; Pakistan - 182 million; Sri Lanka - 20 million; Bangladesh - 156 million; Afghanistan - 30 million; Australia - 23 million; South Africa - 53 million; Ireland - 4.5 million; NZ - 4.5 million; Scotland - 5 million; UAE - 9 million; Zimbabwe - 14 million; West Indies - 39 million Rest of World at CWC 2015 = 593 million So India is roughly twice the combined population of the other 13 countries at CWC 2015