Cricket World Cup could be expanded to 14 teams again in 2027

[wasteyouryouth]

That is an interesting way to look at it that I hadn't really considered. My concern is that after all these years of wooing, the US still does not have a competent cricket team. At some point, there has to be self sufficiency. I think it was just a few years ago when the ICC stepped in and essentially set up a new board after the former one was beyond corrupt. Other cricket playing nations have been banned for far lesser.

Nepal is honestly one of those sides that I was alluding to. They've got a massive cricket craze going on in recent times, their team has some star names that are likeable and they're geographically close to a cricket hotbed.

They are using the $1billion to offer contracts to players and build infrastructure. It seems to be largely driven by Indian money (Shah Rukh Khan has recently got involved). Dane Piedt, Corey Anderson, Sami Aslam, Willem Ludick and Carmi Le Roux have signed contracts for the Major League (it's been suggested there's a 3-year path to residency/citizenship too). Ian Holland, Rusty Theron, Cameron Gannon are already involved due to residency and birth. There's Aaron Jones who plays in the Caribbean and I think Cameron Steel who plays for Durham and was born in the US has at least been involved in a training camp.

That's why I think it's an interesting coincidence that by 2027, if they establish a decent domestic tournament and get even 6 or 7 decent professionals to take up residency, the United States could well have a team that could qualify.

 

[CerealKiller]

Sami Aslam

Could really use him in the Test squad at the moment

 

[Bevab]

Yeah, China would be ideal, in my opinion.

Post automatically merged: Apr 3, 2021

The first step to globalise cricket must begin with Olympic participation, potentially through a T10 format.

I assume this thread is fine for posting about my idea of what T10 could be like to be an interesting format rather than the shrunken down, hitfest version of T20 that it currently is.

China would easily put serious money into cricket if it would be a part of the Olympics. I remember seeing a scorecard of theirs a few years ago that had them get absolutely demolished but what struck me was the complete absence of expats in it. I don't think it would be that way if they start to have a serious interest in cricket (look over to their football side that already has Elkeson naturalized) but I would be happy to see them play with locals as the mainstay.

 

[AsadRM]

They are using the $1billion to offer contracts to players and build infrastructure. It seems to be largely driven by Indian money (Shah Rukh Khan has recently got involved). Dane Piedt, Corey Anderson, Sami Aslam, Willem Ludick and Carmi Le Roux have signed contracts for the Major League (it's been suggested there's a 3-year path to residency/citizenship too). Ian Holland, Rusty Theron, Cameron Gannon are already involved due to residency and birth. There's Aaron Jones who plays in the Caribbean and I think Cameron Steel who plays for Durham and was born in the US has at least been involved in a training camp.

That's why I think it's an interesting coincidence that by 2027, if they establish a decent domestic tournament and get even 6 or 7 decent professionals to take up residency, the United States could well have a team that could qualify.

That's true, but the real question marks would lie on the sustainability of these Kolpak-kinda deals. You can't bring foreigners every 5-10 years. Would the US Cricket system produce good enough homegrown players 5 years on from now? That is the major concern.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

That's true, but the real question marks would lie on the sustainability of these Kolpak-kinda deals. You can't bring foreigners every 5-10 years. Would the US Cricket system produce good enough homegrown players 5 years on from now? That is the major concern.

That's basically how it has worked in the Netherlands for as long as I can remember. Their World T20 qualifier winning team had two players born in the Netherlands. The UAE too, they mostly have players who don't even have residency but work there.

Most successful associates have achieved it in similar ways. Even England and New Zealand rely heavily on players that have immigrated for cricketing or other reasons.

It's one great thing about Afghanistan's rise, as well as Nepal and Papua New Guinea. They have done it through home grown players.

 

[Bevab]

They are using the $1billion to offer contracts to players and build infrastructure. It seems to be largely driven by Indian money (Shah Rukh Khan has recently got involved). Dane Piedt, Corey Anderson, Sami Aslam, Willem Ludick and Carmi Le Roux have signed contracts for the Major League (it's been suggested there's a 3-year path to residency/citizenship too). Ian Holland, Rusty Theron, Cameron Gannon are already involved due to residency and birth. There's Aaron Jones who plays in the Caribbean and I think Cameron Steel who plays for Durham and was born in the US has at least been involved in a training camp.

That's why I think it's an interesting coincidence that by 2027, if they establish a decent domestic tournament and get even 6 or 7 decent professionals to take up residency, the United States could well have a team that could qualify.

Liam Plunkett is very likely to play for the US too after the three year qualification period (has an American wife), think I saw this sometime after he was pushed out of the England squad.

I reckon they could build more than a decent playing XI if they were to go down this route. Imagine a Conway, Beddingham and Campher all snapped up in their early 20s with the promise of more money and guaranteed star status. Add a few Under-19 players from the Asian countries via University sports scholarships who are semi-regulars or bench players to offer depth and you're suddenly looking at a semi-organic team that could still have a few locals.

The issue yet again in this idea is the one @AsadRM pointed out. At some point, you need a decent domestic cricket structure or your cricketers must be playing quality domestic cricket to develop. Gannon gets his diet of Sheffield Shield and Holland gets his big meal from County Cricket. You would however need a first-class structure in your own country preferably to truly push the big teams like the ICC wants you to one day and that isn't so easy to set up and sustain. There is no real immediate money in domestic cricket, you would need to support it with money from your big T20 league (and we all know how likely they are to cost even more) or your team needs to bring in the sponsors via performance and clout. New Zealand can afford to import cricketers, even ones in their late teens or early twenties and still develop them because of a decent cricket setup. Conway struggled in the SA first class setup before he left for NZ for example, he would have likely not been a success had it not been for the Firebirds team.

Speaking of clout, one way the ICC could make the US side more appealing is to grant them ODI status thereby making them more likely to play bigger teams leading to more exposure and experience. Essentially fast-track them into cricket. Wouldn't be the first time they've given US Cricket special treatment and if you're going to flirt all the way along, might as well ask them out soon?

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Liam Plunkett is very likely to play for the US too after the three year qualification period (has an American wife), think I saw this sometime after he was pushed out of the England squad.

I reckon they could build more than a decent playing XI if they were to go down this route. Imagine a Conway, Beddingham and Campher all snapped up in their early 20s with the promise of more money and guaranteed star status. Add a few Under-19 players from the Asian countries via University sports scholarships who are semi-regulars or bench players to offer depth and you're suddenly looking at a semi-organic team that could still have a few locals.

The issue yet again in this idea is the one @AsadRM pointed out. At some point, you need a decent domestic cricket structure or your cricketers must be playing quality domestic cricket to develop. Gannon gets his diet of Sheffield Shield and Holland gets his big meal from County Cricket. You would however need a first-class structure in your own country preferably to truly push the big teams like the ICC wants you to one day and that isn't so easy to set up and sustain. There is no real immediate money in domestic cricket, you would need to support it with money from your big T20 league (and we all know how likely they are to cost even more) or your team needs to bring in the sponsors via performance and clout. New Zealand can afford to import cricketers, even ones in their late teens or early twenties and still develop them because of a decent cricket setup. Conway struggled in the SA first class setup before he left for NZ for example, he would have likely not been a success had it not been for the Firebirds team.

Speaking of clout, one way the ICC could make the US side more appealing is to grant them ODI status thereby making them more likely to play bigger teams leading to more exposure and experience. Essentially fast-track them into cricket. Wouldn't be the first time they've given US Cricket special treatment and if you're going to flirt all the way along, might as well ask them out soon?

They already have ODI status. Achieved without most of these players who are signing up. They're currently standing in second place in the World Cup League 2 - which would guarantee qualification for the World Cup qualifier.

If they expanded the World Cup Super League (after 2023) to include all ODI teams, two or three groups instead of one big group the ICC could fix it so some big teams go to the US. It would be huge if they had India over there to play a three-match ODI series.

In terms of domestic structure - they are setting up a minor league of 24 teams below the Major League. The national team has played in Caribbean tournaments before and I'm sure the bigger names would be allowed to continue to pursue other opportunities providing they turn out in the Major League and national team.

 

[Bevab]

They already have ODI status. Achieved without most of these players who are signing up. They're currently standing in second place in the World Cup League 2 - which would guarantee qualification for the World Cup qualifier.

If they expanded the World Cup Super League (after 2023) to include all ODI teams, two or three groups instead of one big group the ICC could fix it so some big teams go to the US. It would be huge if they had India over there to play a three-match ODI series.

In terms of domestic structure - they are setting up a minor league of 24 teams below the Major League. The national team has played in Caribbean tournaments before and I'm sure the bigger names would be allowed to continue to pursue other opportunities providing they turn out in the Major League and national team.

All of that sounds very promising. I feel that it is too optimistic to hope they are as influential as England or Australia in twenty years (unless the latter two dwindle in significance) but they could at the very least be a seriously competitive mid-tier side.

This thread could honestly be titled 'Cricket's Future' and pinned given the discussions here. Feels a lot more specific than the general discussion thread.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

All of that sounds very promising. I feel that it is too optimistic to hope they are as influential as England or Australia in twenty years (unless the latter two dwindle in significance) but they could at the very least be a seriously competitive mid-tier side.

This thread could honestly be titled 'Cricket's Future' and pinned given the discussions here. Feels a lot more specific than the general discussion thread.

I managed to find the article. The comment is from an Australian involved in German cricket. It is a bit hyperbolic but the UAE is the home of the ICC for one reason, money. It's not like they're a powerhouse or will ever be. But in terms of population and commercial prospect the US is always going to be a target along with China. Likewise, for businesses cricket will be seen as a way into the Indian market.

"Australia and England are dead," he says. "In 20 years, cricket will be run by India, Europe as a whole, and America. England has 10 million cricket fans. This is tiny, tiny stuff compared to India.

"You could end up with a lot of cricket fans in America, a lot of cricket fans across Europe. Australia and England, I'm sorry to say, will be irrelevant.

"The ECL can become the world's second biggest cricket event, after the Indian Premier League. It's pretty easy, to be honest."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/52553359

 

[ddrap14]

I'm all for it.

In 2015, I was 11 years old, and cricket was still first and foremost entertainment to me. I remember watching the Australia vs Afghanistan game- even if Afghanistan was terrible, I remember the great entertainment and also the fact that Afghanistan never gave up and played with enthusiasm to the end of the game. That was the spirit you always see from associate teams even if, as on that day, their performances aren't brilliant.

As for the comments on cricket globalising? I don't see it helping America so much initially, but I do see it giving a big hand to Scotland and the Netherlands. Those two, for me, are right on the cusp of Test cricket (not yet but maybe 2025). It'll also be interesting to see if Kenya and Canada can reclaim their past glories now with this, or if Oman, Nepal and PNG can qualify for their first.

 

[Bevab]

My ideal WC format would probably be a mix between the 2007 (yes, that one) WC and the current T20 WC formats.

How does it work?

4 teams in 4 groups initially. Same as the 2007 format. Except here the top three qualify, a safety net so as to ensure the ICC doesn't lose sleep over India and Pakistan failing to qualify again.

The twelve full members get to qualify automatically. If they're good enough to play the highest format of cricket, they should be good enough for ODIs too. Or you could have the top twelve from the Super League. Wouldn't really differ. Four more associate teams qualify.

This stage is treated as the final qualifying stage of sorts before the 'main' event, very similar to the T20 WC format. You could allow teams to have large (20-25?) player squads and the bigger teams can get some quality 'warmup' matches that will be more competitive than the ones before the 2019 event. The associate sides can very easily have a chance of qualifying, Scotland defeated England in 2018 for example. Imagine that happening now and them winning against a side like Zimbabwe or Ireland. Or even edging past them on NRR. All of a sudden they are in the main event.

What next?

Two groups of six teams like in the T20 World Cup. Teams are expected to finalize their fifteen member squads and name five standby players. The top two qualify from each group. Could easily have four for an extra round of games but it would feel unnecessarily long by that point. Besides, a safety net here isn't fair. India already get eight games by the time this round is complete, just one less than the 2019 group stage.

The competition here will be cut throat. All of a sudden a loss to that team you considered to not be as strong will hurt a lot. Unlike in the 2019 event you cannot lose three or four games and still qualify. Lose two and you could potentially be out.

Finally?

The usual fare of semis and a final. No arguments over table toppers deserving another qualifier, only the best sides could be here in the first place by design. And this time, we'll have another super over if the first one is tied. Also, maybe more reserve days to cover for washed out games.

Issues?

You could still have a big team bowing out before the Super 12 stage. However, if they are losing all three of their games or losing two with a much worse NRR than two weaker sides, do they really deserve to progress?

The tournament is arguably too long, but the ODI WC is supposed to be the pinnacle of world cricket. It should be the fun filled carnival in the host country for however long it runs with multiple interesting games that you don't get to normally see featuring varied players. Imagine the potential narratives that you could have too. South Africa lose to Australia in the first stage and are very nearly out but end up bouncing back superbly, only to meet them again in the final. Or India and Pakistan get to play in the first, second stages and then the final. Pretty sure the ICC would rig the lots for the latter to happen.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

My ideal WC format would probably be a mix between the 2007 (yes, that one) WC and the current T20 WC formats.

How does it work?

4 teams in 4 groups initially. Same as the 2007 format. Except here the top three qualify, a safety net so as to ensure the ICC doesn't lose sleep over India and Pakistan failing to qualify again.

The twelve full members get to qualify automatically. If they're good enough to play the highest format of cricket, they should be good enough for ODIs too. Or you could have the top twelve from the Super League. Wouldn't really differ. Four more associate teams qualify.

This stage is treated as the final qualifying stage of sorts before the 'main' event, very similar to the T20 WC format. You could allow teams to have large (20-25?) player squads and the bigger teams can get some quality 'warmup' matches that will be more competitive than the ones before the 2019 event. The associate sides can very easily have a chance of qualifying, Scotland defeated England in 2018 for example. Imagine that happening now and them winning against a side like Zimbabwe or Ireland. Or even edging past them on NRR. All of a sudden they are in the main event.

What next?

Two groups of six teams like in the T20 World Cup. Teams are expected to finalize their fifteen member squads and name five standby players. The top two qualify from each group. Could easily have four for an extra round of games but it would feel unnecessarily long by that point. Besides, a safety net here isn't fair. India already get eight games by the time this round is complete, just one less than the 2019 group stage.

The competition here will be cut throat. All of a sudden a loss to that team you considered to not be as strong will hurt a lot. Unlike in the 2019 event you cannot lose three or four games and still qualify. Lose two and you could potentially be out.

Finally?

The usual fare of semis and a final. No arguments over table toppers deserving another qualifier, only the best sides could be here in the first place by design. And this time, we'll have another super over if the first one is tied. Also, maybe more reserve days to cover for washed out games.

Issues?

You could still have a big team bowing out before the Super 12 stage. However, if they are losing all three of their games or losing two with a much worse NRR than two weaker sides, do they really deserve to progress?

The tournament is arguably too long, but the ODI WC is supposed to be the pinnacle of world cricket. It should be the fun filled carnival in the host country for however long it runs with multiple interesting games that you don't get to normally see featuring varied players. Imagine the potential narratives that you could have too. South Africa lose to Australia in the first stage and are very nearly out but end up bouncing back superbly, only to meet them again in the final. Or India and Pakistan get to play in the first, second stages and then the final. Pretty sure the ICC would rig the lots for the latter to happen.

I'm not really a fan of the pre-group group stages. Isn't that what the qualifier events should be for?

I'd be happy with two groups of 7.

I like how rugby grants qualification to teams for the next tournament if you finish in the top 3 of 5.

Maybe the quarter-finalist in a cricket World Cup (plus teams that finish 5th) could be granted qualification to the next WC and also qualify for a 10-team Champions Trophy/League - that is played over two or three years with a final tournament held in one country. Maybe the top five or six.

Teams below that, two lowest full members and other teams with ODI status (e.g. Zimbabwe, Ireland, Scotland, Nepal, Oman, USA, PNG, Namibia, Netherlands) could play in a 2-3 year qualification league. You could perhaps add in a couple of other teams with lower standing or look to ensure a pathway for one or more to get the chance to qualify.

You wouldn't need qualifier events, you could maintain high quality bilateral series, have another elite tournament and the fact that India are currently in a qualification tournament for a tournament they are already qualified is less stupid.

 

[Satan666]

Do they have the Asian and West Indian immigrant and second/third generation population to sustain any spark? Because I cannot see the other major population groups devoting time to a sport they have no modern day ties to when they have plenty of other options.

It is really infuriating that the ICC tries to grow the sport in a country that has been completely refractory to most attempts when there are other nations with more interest struggling only with infrastructure and/or limited player pools, both of which could be improved massively with proper funding and smart management.

Post automatically merged: Apr 3, 2021

Maybe then it would feel like a World Cup again. Hated the format of the last tournament, it needed the tournament favourites to have a mini-wobble to even make the group stage interesting.

If memory serves me right the WI had played India in a couple T20 matches in Florida and the turn out was pretty huge.

 

[Satan666]

I can barely recall any games from the last world cup in ‘19 due to the fact that comprised of 10 teams.

My question though how India are hosting it?

 

[CerealKiller]

My ideal WC format would probably be a mix between the 2007 (yes, that one) WC and the current T20 WC formats.

How does it work?

4 teams in 4 groups initially. Same as the 2007 format. Except here the top three qualify, a safety net so as to ensure the ICC doesn't lose sleep over India and Pakistan failing to qualify again.

The twelve full members get to qualify automatically. If they're good enough to play the highest format of cricket, they should be good enough for ODIs too. Or you could have the top twelve from the Super League. Wouldn't really differ. Four more associate teams qualify.

This stage is treated as the final qualifying stage of sorts before the 'main' event, very similar to the T20 WC format. You could allow teams to have large (20-25?) player squads and the bigger teams can get some quality 'warmup' matches that will be more competitive than the ones before the 2019 event. The associate sides can very easily have a chance of qualifying, Scotland defeated England in 2018 for example. Imagine that happening now and them winning against a side like Zimbabwe or Ireland. Or even edging past them on NRR. All of a sudden they are in the main event.

What next?

Two groups of six teams like in the T20 World Cup. Teams are expected to finalize their fifteen member squads and name five standby players. The top two qualify from each group. Could easily have four for an extra round of games but it would feel unnecessarily long by that point. Besides, a safety net here isn't fair. India already get eight games by the time this round is complete, just one less than the 2019 group stage.

The competition here will be cut throat. All of a sudden a loss to that team you considered to not be as strong will hurt a lot. Unlike in the 2019 event you cannot lose three or four games and still qualify. Lose two and you could potentially be out.

Finally?

The usual fare of semis and a final. No arguments over table toppers deserving another qualifier, only the best sides could be here in the first place by design. And this time, we'll have another super over if the first one is tied. Also, maybe more reserve days to cover for washed out games.

Issues?

You could still have a big team bowing out before the Super 12 stage. However, if they are losing all three of their games or losing two with a much worse NRR than two weaker sides, do they really deserve to progress?

The tournament is arguably too long, but the ODI WC is supposed to be the pinnacle of world cricket. It should be the fun filled carnival in the host country for however long it runs with multiple interesting games that you don't get to normally see featuring varied players. Imagine the potential narratives that you could have too. South Africa lose to Australia in the first stage and are very nearly out but end up bouncing back superbly, only to meet them again in the final. Or India and Pakistan get to play in the first, second stages and then the final. Pretty sure the ICC would rig the lots for the latter to happen.

Two pools of 7.
Qualifiers 1
M1 - 1A vs 2B
M2 - 1B vs 2A
Eliminators
M3 - 3A vs 4B
M4 - 3B vs 4A
Qualifiers 2
M5 - M1 Loser vs M3 Winner
M6 - M2 Loser vs M4 Winner
Semis
M1 Winner vs M5 Winner
M2 Winner vs M6 Winner
Final
In total, 2 matches longer than 2011/15 WCs, and rewards teams more for finishing 1/2 rather than 3/4.

I assume this thread is fine for posting about my idea of what T10 could be like to be an interesting format rather than the shrunken down, hitfest version of T20 that it currently is.

Would love to hear it.