Post
by TheLyontamer » Fri Feb 13, 2015 7:24 pm
I totally see where you're coming from, LK. And I agree. The format of the tournament is terrible. Two groups of fourteen makes no sense, and I can only assume that the point of this is to maximise commercial revenue. It would be very possible to include minnows in a tournament AND make it more compact. Surely a system of three or four groups would work, with the top two from each qualifying.
What frustrates me is the fact that the Associates aren't getting any better due to the ICC actively hindering their progression. I personally don't care much for a ten-team tournament. There are so few big teams in cricket, and they already play each other so often anyway, that I wouldn't find a tournament which only includes those nations very interesting. As well as that, when I can see so much potential for the likes of Ireland and Afghanistan to join the big boys, it disappoints me that the exclusive club of full members has such little interest in developing our cricket. Of course it's all got to do with money, but I am so fed up of watching England vs Australia after the ten Test matches and countless ODIs that they've played in the last eighteen months. And they play again later today. Then, in July, what do we have to look forward to? Another Ashes series. While this kind of thing is worrying for the minnows, the smaller full members like New Zealand should be a bit concerned by the commercial connection that England, Australia, and India are forming.
It might sound like I'm going off topic, but it's all part of the same problem with cricket today. I honestly believe that any sport that tries to shrink its audience rather than grow it is in big trouble in the long term.
This move to restrict automatic qualification to the top eight teams wouldn't be such a problem if the ICC provided an opportunity for Ireland or Afghanistan to actually break into the top eight. This would be achieved by putting a system in place by which each of the top eight teams has to play at least one ODI series against us in the next two years. The reality is that games against minnows are organised at the discretion of the full members. If they don't want to play us, they don't have to. Why, then, would the likes of Bangladesh or West Indies have any incentive to play against us if a defeat puts their ranking at risk? Since the last World Cup, I believe Ireland have played eleven ODIs against full member nations. That's nowhere near enough for us to progress. Additionally, regular games against top teams is the only way for us to improve to the point that we can actually compete at the tournaments, rather than just exist to make up the numbers.
A tournament with eight good teams and six bad teams isn't much fun. A tournament with fourteen good teams benefits everyone. It would lead to the aforementioned big three teams taking a financial hit in the short-term, but would surely do wonders for the game's long-term future.
We have the players. We have the structure. We have the ambition. We don't have the necessary support from those who have the power to make a change. That's what bothers me.
Seriously though it is a pretty exciting time here, especially since we have been starved of so many major sporting events here since the quakes. The fact that the rugby season is starting here this week end also and no one cares about that (especially it is World Cup year in that as well) is a good indication of how psyched people here are for the cup since we are usually so obsessed with rugby.
