A lot of talk at the moment in world cricket is about the ‘associate’ teams, aka non-Test playing nations.
With four non-Test playing nations on display at the 2015 World Cup – UAE, Scotland, Ireland and Afghanistan – many are starting to question whether they should be allowed to play in upcoming tournaments.
Some have suggested that World Cups be reduced to 10 teams, and others have suggested that an expanded tournament would be the best option.
I for one am against reducing the nations, mostly due to what the ICC has stated as the reason behind the reduction in teams. They say it is to improve the skill levels of the non-Test sides and avoid one-sided matches.
So far in this World Cup I believe they have proved that the associate teams can stand up to some of the Test-playing nations. Look at Afghanistan, who pushed Sri Lanka to the brink. They almost won that game and would have if it wasn’t for the late knock by Thisara Perera to steer them home.
Ireland defeated the West Indies and have shown quality against other sides.
The only way for them to improve is to play against the top nations, whether it be in a World Cup or an ODI.
The experience they gain irrespective of whether they win, lose or draw is invaluable.
Seeing how a top team goes about playing is an eye opener, especially for those coming recently into world cricket like Afghanistan and UAE.
I do hope to see the likes of Australia, New Zealand and England start to play against these nations to help them develop.
This is the only way to expand our game into the future.
Alexander Bonacci
Roar Rookie
Yes it can affect the bottom line a bit but if you grow the game in the countries that have teams more interest will come out of it and therefore more of the nation will get into it and will draw crowds. The ICC need to have more teams competing on the world stage before only the cricket tragics will be interested in it as everyone else will go to soccer if they haven't already
Alexander Bonacci
Roar Rookie
Yeah im in total agreeance with you there, i don't have much interest in it because i don't have Pay TV so can't watch it. Plus Australia games have been on a Saturday when I along with many others in the country play local cricket. They have built this up so much but to me has failed to live to they hypes because there isn't alot of exposure.
13th Man
Guest
Absolutely Minnows should be embraced. I really am hoping that ireland make the quarters so they can shove the 10 team WC right up the ICC's (*insert expletive here*).
ak
Roar Guru
Is this really a WC going on??? ICC wants to reduce the number of sides to ten for the next WC. Why??? Why cannot they have 3 matches per day? But no. They will never do that. Why? Because WC is for TV. For advertisements. For commercials. For money. They will lose out on money if they have 3 matches per day. There are 14 sides and one match is going on. What does that mean? That 12 sides are just sitting. How many days have gone since the WC started? More than 20. And how many games has each side played? Not more than 3 or 4. So who is to blame for the WC prolonging ? Associate sides ? Ofcourse not. ICC can certainly arrange more games to be played on a day. In short it is a game of money now. Money talks. Money walks. Not interested in this crap now.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
India wasn't a great money market a few decades ago... just keep that in mind when you discuss the near future without consideration for what may happen further down the line.
Brian
Guest
Wouldn't a minor presence in the USA & Hong Kong be more beneficial then having nothing. Ireland has a larger population then GWS and the AFL are spending millions there. Why wouldn't the ICC develop a cricket team which already exists. In 1930s Football was only played in Europe and South America. The Dutch East Indies & Cuba were both invited to World Cup and duly thrashed. Yet in every World Cup the lesser nations were embraced. Its a shame the FIFA of the1930s had a more global foresight then the ICC of today. Lauding FIFA isn't popular these days but their actions nearly 100 years cemented their sport as global number 1. There is no reason cricket can't grow particularly with so many Indian ex-pats in so many corners of the globe.
Bovs
Guest
The problem with the claim that embracing associate nations is the only way to grow cricket is that the potential fan base in Ireland, Afghanistan, Scotland and the UAE combined is a drop in the ocean compared to the commercial markets already available to cricket. Save for cracking the China, US or German markets (none of which are even remotely close to being international cricket nations) there is no money to be had outside of the current test nations. Therefore, while it's good for the game to have more teams... it's not good for the bottom line. And in the modern world the cricket associations are doing what anyone else would do by merely trying to fill that bottom line.
Rising Power
Guest
In lacrosse, the world championships are decided over less than 2 weeks with 38 nations competing. The top division includes USA, Canada, Iroquois (native Americans have their own team...), Australia, Japan and England. There are a further 8 divisions of developing nations, generally arranged in order of strength. Each division has a round robin of matches to decide their respective rankings. In the top division, the top two teams automatically qualify for the semi finals. The 3rd and 4th ranked teams in the top division then have to play the top two ranked nations from the lower divisions in the quarter finals (so are effectively the 7th and 8th ranked nations..), with 5th and 6th in the top division having blown their chances. The winners of the quarter finals meet the top two ranked nations in the semis and go on to the grand final. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_World_Lacrosse_Championship It sounds complicated but it isn't, and it would give the associates a crack at finals action. If the full member nations are good enough, they will win and get through to the final. Just a thought!