Associate nations fight for World Cup places

Contemplating the next World Cup so soon after the Australia v India Test series is a bit like going for a kebab on the way home from a Michelin-starred restaurant, but for the non-Test nations it is their one chance to grab a slice of the ICC pie and remind the rest of the world that they exist. Naturally, therefore, there is opposition from the minnows to any reduction in the number of smaller nations taking part in 2011.

The Malaysia Sun reported yesterday that several associate members - Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Holland, Bermuda, Scotland, United Arab Emirates, Namibia, Denmark and Oman - have written to Malcolm Speed at the ICC requesting that the chief executive block the plan, sponsored by India and Pakistan with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh's backing, to cut the number of teams at the next World Cup from 16 to 14. It may seem a futile gesture given Speed's general impotence in the face of the India machine (he plays the same passive role in proceedings as a toast-rack does when being stacked with hot crumpets), but you can't blame the minnows for trying.

Given the amount of money India and Pakistan lost by getting knocked out early in the Caribbean, you can understand their desire to change the system whereby one shock result (Pakistan losing to Ireland, India losing to Bangladesh) can see them heading home early - although both those sides lost two of their pool matches - but perhaps a compromise would be for a variant on the 1996 World Cup, with the main tournament featuring 12 teams in two pools of six being immediately preceded by a qualifying tournament for eight associate members to compete for two places in the tournament proper.

(Hat-tip to Andrew Nixon's Beyond the Boundary blog and Cricinfo's Beyond the Test World, both of which give more prominence to the smaller nations than the ICC's own website.)

Comments

[Venkat]

Well well...Its not fair on the big guns to circle upon the minnows...no one is even considering how a few teams performed this time around...

[Andrew Nixon]

Fair comment, but in my comment I was generalising, not necessarily referring solely to Patrick. You see the argument trotted out so often, that you tend to blot out what comes after. By the way I didn't "still accuse him" of using the argument after his comment, I didn't mention it after his comment.

Some people are convinced that Pakistan failed to qualify for the Super 8 for no other reason than their loss to Ireland. The reality of the situation is that had Pakistan beaten the West Indies, they would have gone through even with the loss to Ireland. I guess Ireland are an easier scapegoat.

It's actually quite ironic that Pakistan want a return to the format of the first round in 2003, considering that they also failed to pass the first round then too.

I guess I just think that Ireland deserve a little more respect than they are getting. The ICU get $250,000 a year from the ICC (as opposed to $10,000,000 for Zimbabwe) at the moment (they lost money from the World Cup), their players are mostly amateurs (but are expected to play even more than full members Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) and yet pulled off one of the most unlikely upsets in cricket history. Plus, despite finishing ahead of three ICC full members, they still have to qualify for the 2011 tournament. What other sport gives a team that finished joint last automatic entry into the next World Cup but forces a team that finished eighth to requalify?

Had Pakistan beaten them by 200+ runs, they'd have been criticised. But they're still criticised for having the temerity to beat Pakistan. It this "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude that annoys me the most, and if that sometimes causes me to get carried away (like I probably am here!) then I apologise.

[AKP]

Andrew, I respect you for trying to give assocate cricket nations more prominance, but when you write arguments as badly as you just did, you just make yourself look stupid. I mean, Patrick actually wrote that he acknowledged that Pakistan lost twice, both in the article and in his comment, but you still accuse him of using the so called "one shock result" argument. That looks like someone wanting to see something instead of writting about what is said.

[Peter McGuinness]

My two bob is this:

There are 'Test' playing nations right?

That being the case, Test Matches should be scheduled, marketed and used for what they are. Namely, the ultimate proof of cricketing superiority and prowess.

I absolutely agree with the notion that non-Test playing member nations should receive better representation (however that may be) in the giggle games of ODI and T20. If the game of cricket must be diluted by formulaic, contrived match situations; then these lesser forms should be used to develop emerging nations and prepare them for Test cricket, rather than thrashed as a cash cow of thousands of meaningless quasi-contests between 8 countries.

Test Matches should be a 'Premier League', with places in the top 8 (or 6) earned via a much more broad ranging, but less repetitive ongoing round robin in the lesser forms, between all members. I know I'm in the vast, vast minority but the World Cup is boring to me. And that's coming from someone whose team has 4 of them. I wouldn't trade one Test Match victory over England or India for any of them.

A generation is being brought up to revere sugar coated turds as delicacies. We don't have to turn back the clock and 'un-invent' ODIs and T2Os. We just need to make wise use of them, so that cricket is enhanced world wide and doesn't become a cartoon of 'sports entertainment', designed for a TV time slot at the expense of it's integrity.

[Andrew Nixon]

My preferred format would be one which has a good balance between giving the associates a decent chance of progression, but ensuring that the last eight is more likely than not to feature the best eight teams, whilst keeping the tournament to a reasonable length, perhaps four weeks, and not restricting the opportunities for the so-called "lesser nations".

In my opinion, the best way to achieve this would to keep the first round as it was in 2007, but restructure the second stage. After the first round, the top team in each group gets seeded in the quarter finals. (I think it should be straight knock-out after the first round) The second and third place teams then play-off in a pre-quarter final stage, to reduce the chance of one shock result eliminating a team. Then you'd have quarter finals as normal.

As an example, after the first round of the 2007 World Cup, you'd have Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and the West Indies put straight into the quarter finals, then a play-off stage in which you'd have cross-over matches with (probably) South Africa v India, Bangladesh v Netherlands, England v Pakistan and Kenya v Ireland. Pakistan would have got another chance, and to be frank, if you can't beat England in ODI cricket, you really don't deserve to progress in the World Cup.

Of course, one suspects the favoured format of India and Pakistan would be one similar to this years Rugby League World Cup, where the draw is all but rigged to ensure that the semi finalists are England, Australia, New Zealand and France.

[Patrick Kidd]

Hi Andrew,
As an English cricket-lover, I will happily give up our place in the next World Cup to Ireland, Bermuda or any country of your choosing if it means we can ignore the wretched competition and concentrate on Test cricket instead.

The entire tournament was dire, with only five exciting matches: Ireland vs Zimbabwe, Ireland v Pakistan, Sri Lanka v South Africa, Sri Lanka v England, England v West Indies. Yes, two of those involved an associate nation, but the other 19 games involving them were gross mismatches.

Anyway, what format would you like? Perhaps you are right and we should just play the first round and then go home, giving the title to whichever side gave us the most enjoyment. I'd certainly back that.

And if you read my piece more carefully, you'd see that I acknowledged that India and Pakistan lost two matches. Just because I didn't write it in capital letters as you do...

[Andrew Nixon]

In this far from satisfactory hypothetical format, why do the full members get the automatic spots in the first round proper?

Ireland finished eighth in the last World Cup, ahead of THREE full members, and yet you'd put them in the preliminary round of the next World Cup? Unacceptable.

As for the one shock result argument, please don't trot out that again. Pakistan lost TWICE in the World Cup. If they'd have beaten the West Indies, they'd have gone through to the Super 8 regardless of the loss to Ireland.

Just think back to the World Cup. Which stage had the most exciting cricket? Was it the first round with Gibbs hitting six sixes in an over, the upset win by Ireland, the colourful Irish crowds, Bangladesh's win over India, that remarkable earth moving Leverock catch? Or the long and drawn out Super 8 stage (which lasted twice as long and had more matches than the first round) with its boring matches and crowds that would almost embarrass the County Championship? Or maybe the final with its pathetic umpiring cock up at the end? I know which I enjoyed the most, and be honest, everyone enjoyed the first round more.

Cricket has had an elitist image for far too long, and it needs to shed that. As former associate members who have had to qualify for the World Cup in the past, it really is disappointing to see Sri Lanka and Bangladesh wanting to burn the ladder they themselves have climbed up.

Going back decades into the past, there were those who questioned whether India, New Zealand and the West Indies should join England, Australia and South Africa at the top table. Has the ICC really not got over those Empire days when it was the Imperial Cricket Conference and could keep Johnny Foreigner at arms length?