ICC confirms 10 teams for next two World Cups

[Dragon Fire]

The ICC's decision to axe the world out of the World Cup is nothing short of dictatorship. If you do not offer someone an incentive or an opportunity, they will not improve. By cutting the World Cup down to ten teams you already removed the ncentive for teams like Canada who would be unlikely to make such a closed shop, but in removing the opportunity you kill cricket in 95\% of the countries of the world. If you have a justifiable reason for doing this, and not just money-grabbing greed, then I congratulate you.

 

[Dare]

Love this awesome posting by some "cricket fans" saying that the WI shouldn't get an automatic spot.
Even in its sorry state the West Indies are able to produce excellent players and then we have India who cant produce more then one good pace bowler every 10 years, England that can claim a 20/20 as its only major tournament, South Africa that haven't won jack ████.
West Indies at this moment are one of the top 8 teams and you cant do anything about it. Maybe the money hungry Aussies and Indians can skip a tournament and give some teams that have less money a chance to earn some, not grab it all for them self.

 

[MontyAngryIrMan]

Yeah but what can we do? Indian public won't really riot in front of BCCI HQ for you Irish (and they're in seventh heaven right now anyways). What is happening sucks. Ireland should be the one getting Test membership not Zimbabwe.

For now though, your team can save itself. Beat Pakistan in the upcoming 2-odi series (its not hard seriously ), make it to at least the semis of the World T20. It would be heartbreaking to see more Irish being imported to England killing cricket further in Ireland, don't let that happen, keep fighting.

Ya fair point about the Indian public not rioting on our behalf (congratulations by the way), but a little bit of complaining from 1 Billion of you guys will have more impact than the 5 million of us could ever have. (and very few of those have any love for cricket given it way down the line behind our national games, football and rugby). But the real point is not just the unfairness of it to us but how much better the sport could be if it global appeal was enhanced, rather than be kept the exclusive preserve of a few. There was a time I'd have to be payed to sit through a cricket match, but our success at beating Pakistan at the last world cup made me pay more attention and as I understood the game better I began to like it. It has become more popular here since then and beating England this year has given a real buzz to the game here this setback has just reinforced all the old stereotypes about an elitist sport and could well have mortally wounded the sport here but I suspect that was the whole point.

My theory is that no associate nation will get automagically better without playing the Test playing nations on a regular basis. Kenya is a prime example. They desperately need competitive cricket with the top nations (or at least their A-teams) each and every year, not just World Cups. Their current decline is precisely due to the fact that they have no goals to achieve or no reachable target in mind. AND it's for the ICC to provide a target or a realistic goal for these fledgling cricketing nations.

Sure they'll get walloped on many occasions initially by playing top teams, but then just to avoid embarrassment of defeats they will either have to give up cricket or go all out to improve themselves and in the process their domestic structure (or create one).

I believe that there is nothing like throwing associate nations into the deep end of the pool and seeing how they do and how far they go. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Survival of the best associate nations will drastically improve their quality and improve the "global" nature of the sport.

The ICC's current policy is focussed on the $$$-signs and not the good of the game or its spread to other nations.

There's simply no shortcut formula. It'll take years of hard work and passion. I don't believe we lose anything by giving associate nations a chance to compete at the highest level and I believe it shouldn't be just the World Cup. There should be a place for them in the FTP. Sadly the ICC sees any reduction in the number of matches of the money-spinners of the game as a threat to their short-term profits.

Well said

The latest on this episode in this end of the world is that the English Counties have written to all the Irish players in their employment telling them to stop complaining about the ICC decision in public or face fines or suspensions. It just gets worse.

 

[SaiSrini]

WI not getting an automatic spot? Thats a load of BS. This time, I am with you Dare. They have good players and a team that deserves to be in the Top 8. How India wish we have a bowler like Roach or Rampaul!!!

 

[Addy]

last world cup, played in Australia, featured 10 teams, & won by Pakistan. WC 2015 is going to be played in Australia, again same number of teams, winner = Pakistan ?

 

[Chewie]

Trying to draw a line between who gets an automatic spot and who doesn't is much too difficult and will draw way too much debate. It should just be that everyone has to qualify.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

sorry, but I am one person saying that the west indies should not get an automatic spot.

for me, this 10 team world cup is just an extension of the constant examples of nepotism we see in cricket. and claiming the west indies have any more right to a place based on anything other than performances is total nepotism.

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

the only team with a worse win loss ratio than the windies in the last two years is kenya.

here are the same results for teams against full ICC members.

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

even playing the full members in the last 2 years ireland and zimbabwe have been more competitive.

they are not competing, the world cup 2015 is already a farce in my eyes.

 

[Dare]

sorry, but I am one person saying that the west indies should not get an automatic spot.

for me, this 10 team world cup is just an extension of the constant examples of nepotism we see in cricket. and claiming the west indies have any more right to a place based on anything other than performances is total nepotism.

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

the only team with a worse win loss ratio than the windies in the last two years is kenya.

here are the same results for teams against full ICC members.

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

even playing the full members in the last 2 years ireland and zimbabwe have been more competitive.

they are not competing, the world cup 2015 is already a farce in my eyes.

So Zimbabwe and Ireland not being able to beat the West Indies should get them in ahead of the West Indies?

There is still allot of room between West Indies and Zimbabwe and Ireland. West Indies just bowled out Bangladesh for 50+ and Bangladesh is ranked ahead of West Indies.

I don't know how much WI cricket you have been following since Gibson came in as coach but there are allot of changes going on in WI domestic cricket and grass roots cricket. Allot of the players that went to the High Performance Center did well in this years domestic cricket.

 

[Chewie]

I agree with Dare.

In some ways, WI cricket is similar to NZ cricket in that there are a heap of talented players but they're just not performing. Compare that to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe where it is easy to argue that there are just a few players keeping teams up.

Dare, what's your opinion on there only being 10 nations at the WC and having no qualifiers for it though?

 

[Dare]

I agree with Dare.

In some ways, WI cricket is similar to NZ cricket in that there are a heap of talented players but they're just not performing. Compare that to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe where it is easy to argue that there are just a few players keeping teams up.

Dare, what's your opinion on there only being 10 nations at the WC and having no qualifiers for it though?

I don't like it at all.
I am not exactly sure but isn't the ICC putting in a good amount of money to help these teams develop and then they exclude them from a major competition. One that boosts their income and exposes cricketers to a higher level of competition.
Ireland and Zimbabwe are both moving forward, building solid teams and have some good cricketers in their squads and they will be the candidates for the last spot but it is a huge blow for their cricket if they don't make it.
What about Afghanistan? They have been doing great things over the past 2 years and who knows in 4 years they could have had the opportunity to play at the world cup but because of this horrible decision by the ICC they probably wont be in it.

 

[War]

exactly sums up your attitude. You think we should be rewarding teams out of respect and tradition. If teams don't put out competitive teams, which the windies have not now, for about 2 years, why should they be given the financial benefits of a world cup spot over other teams.

the windies were not competitive going into this world cup, they were not competitive at this world cup. If reducing the world cup to 10 teams is aimed at increasing comepition then the automatic inclusion of the windies makes no sense. you want to see cricket run into the ground, continue to let under-performing teams live on past glories. 2006 and was TWO world cups ago, and is irrelevant now.

Although your suggestion that the traditional teams should maintain some level of consistency preferably en route to world cups is indeed valid. Cricket at this stage isn't big enough for under-performing traditional teams to subjected to that kind of pressure.

In football for example its VERY big & major teams in world-cup qualifications have to earn their right to consistently qualify for cups, no-one cares about your tradition & how much tournaments you have won.

Yo cant do that in cricket with the top 8 nations since you risk crippling cricket in one of those nations in times of decline. In the Windies case them not playing in a world-cup would not help their revival at a time when people have suggested young west indian are following American sports more & more. They deserved continued ICC support.

Cause if you take that approach & precedent with the Windies for 2015. Im sure you are not going to tell me for eg:

- If Australia for example go into a decline in the next 4 years like what happened in the mid-80s that they should miss the next world cup as well?.

- Or if India post retirements of Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Khan their young replacements fail to adapt & IND decline at an alarming level that they should miss a world cup tournament??

Fact is none of that cant happen, unless cricket has a BIG base like football.

and well, it's already known England are interested in Dockrell seeing as Rashid is going nowhere. Of course, the point is they are keeping the ireland team down NOW, not in the future so they can pick at imaginery talent. If ireland are kept out of the world cup 2015, it's almost a given Paul Stirling and Dockrell will make themselves available to england at the earliest possible opportunity. suits england fine I think.

Their is no guaranteed that Dockrell & Stirling will make themselves available for ENG even in that scenario. They could do like Ryan Ten Doescate & be happy with life in county cricket, possible other options in other domestic competitions around the world & maybe an IPL deal if they improve & are deemed good enough.

Plus their is no guaranteed either than England will go after them. England have a young talented left-arm spinner by the name of Danny Briggs who has been impressive, who England could also conceivable prefer to pick him instead of going for the foreign option in Dockrell. Since ENG selectors in recent years have been known to be reluctant to pick even Kolpak/S Africa players since Pietersen given how it looked i.e Nic Pothas & how long they took to eventually pick Johnathan Trott.

Same thing can be said about Stirling. ENG got a talented young aggressive opener by the name of Alex Hales, plus of course we all know about Kieswetter & Davies.

ENG where interested in Rankin recently also. But the recent influx of impressive English born fast-bowlers that have emerged in the last year, has rendered his chances of playing for ENG irrelevant.

So basically their is enough young talent in ENG coming through to ignore those couple talented Irish players IMO.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

cricket with balls ? God hates the associates claims the ICC - join sehwagology


I'm going to try emailing all the sponsors as well after my exams.

 

[Params7]

I don't like it at all.
I am not exactly sure but isn't the ICC putting in a good amount of money to help these teams develop and then they exclude them from a major competition. One that boosts their income and exposes cricketers to a higher level of competition.
Ireland and Zimbabwe are both moving forward, building solid teams and have some good cricketers in their squads and they will be the candidates for the last spot but it is a huge blow for their cricket if they don't make it.
What about Afghanistan? They have been doing great things over the past 2 years and who knows in 4 years they could have had the opportunity to play at the world cup but because of this horrible decision by the ICC they probably wont be in it.

I have no clue what's happening with Afghanistan. Both Ireland and Afghanistan have super potential to be the next test nations since they are neighbors to cricketing nations. But idk what ICC have done for Afghanistan since their ODI membership years ago. I've seen no ODI match with Afghanistan yet.

 

[sohum]

Here is my opinion (and keep in mind that my opinion is usually correct):

1. Twenty20 is the best way to expand cricket. You're not going to build a massive fan following in this day and age for a game that lasts 7 hours. It's just not going to happen. You can't go to a bar and watch a 7 hour game. You can't leave work early and watch a 7-hour game. You can't watch 7 hours of a game you don't understand fully. The ICC is correct in their analysis that 50-over cricket is not the way to expand the game. We've been trying that for over 30 years and the only thing we've got to show for it is the up-and-down Bangladeshi cricket team and an Irish team that finally looks like it is getting consistent if not for the ECB poaching their best players.

2. I'm neutral about reducing the 50-over WC to 10 teams. I think it will make the tournament shorter and make each game more meaningful. It will also reduce the number of blowouts, theoretically.

3. I do not agree that the Test teams should qualify automatically to the WC. Maybe the top 4 or top 6 or top 8, but I don't think every team deserves to be in the mix. Draw a line about a year out from the WC and then have an official qualification tournament. Bring back the ICC Cup. Even if we have the top 8 qualify, make Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Kenya and the other associate nations duke it out in a tournament to figure out who gets those last couple of spots. Make those last 2/x spots teams that will actually compete when they get to the competition.

4. Cricket is not dying.

--

In summary, I'm in favor of reducing the number of teams as long as the associate nations have a fair chance of qualifying. For other development and a true "World Cup", Twenty20 is the way to go because it is short, exciting, easy to understand (comparatively) and won't constantly be made fun of by sports enthusiasts in other countries.

 

[Owzat]

Here is my opinion (and keep in mind that my opinion is usually correct):

1. Twenty20 is the best way to expand cricket. You're not going to build a massive fan following in this day and age for a game that lasts 7 hours. It's just not going to happen. You can't go to a bar and watch a 7 hour game. You can't leave work early and watch a 7-hour game. You can't watch 7 hours of a game you don't understand fully.

T20 will get the wrong kind of fan, fad fans. If they're not interested in cricket for the bowling, batting, deliveries, strokes, tactics etc then they're not really interested at all. To watch cricket and be a fan you need to have a love for all aspects of the game, not just watch it because it is over quickly. T20 and ODIs may be relatively fast, but to a non enthusiast it is still quite a slow game, much derided by the small minded I may add, yet we're expecting to appeal to the small minded??!?

In any form of cricket the important factor is the contest, the problem is the ICC focus is on $$ and runs, the latter fuelling the former because they want Tests to last five days for the $$. Cricket is not boring over seven hours/five days unless it is a runfest or one-sided. The same is true of other formats.

2. I'm neutral about reducing the 50-over WC to 10 teams. I think it will make the tournament shorter and make each game more meaningful. It will also reduce the number of blowouts, theoretically.

Big fail on the "my opinion is usually correct", because the tournament won't be (significantly) shorter. Each team plays the other = 45 games + 3 knockout games = 48 games in total compared to 2011's 49 games

There is still quite a gap between between levels within the Test nations at ODIs, unless the format is the risky 2007 format then you will still end up with the top teams in the top positions in the table - so effectively it should reflect the rankings.

3. I do not agree that the Test teams should qualify automatically to the WC. Maybe the top 4 or top 6 or top 8, but I don't think every team deserves to be in the mix. Draw a line about a year out from the WC and then have an official qualification tournament. Bring back the ICC Cup. Even if we have the top 8 qualify, make Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Kenya and the other associate nations duke it out in a tournament to figure out who gets those last couple of spots. Make those last 2/x spots teams that will actually compete when they get to the competition.

The problem with the notion of qualifying is you may end up with a weaker side than Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and even West Indies 'fluking' their way through to the World Cup. If it is done as a durable qualifying process then I expect you'd end up with them anyway.

I think the whole "qualifying" bandwagon that is gathering momentum is short-sighted. Sure Ireland are capable of causing an upset, but look what happened in 2007 when they got past Pakistan - the only other Test team they beat was Bangladesh. Point being they may be a lot of people's idea of "the team that deserves Test status" or "10th best team in the world", but they are some way off being any or much better than Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, it's just some people want them to do well (more than existing Test nations)

Say Ireland replaced Zimbabwe, what would or could they achieve by that ONE action? Maybe beat 1-2 Test nations, 50-50 on beating Bangladesh and maybe catch West Indies on a bad day. How would that be improving the competition??!!? It wouldn't, it would just mean team "go Ireland!" would be happy.

In summary, I'm in favor of reducing the number of teams as long as the associate nations have a fair chance of qualifying. For other development and a true "World Cup", Twenty20 is the way to go because it is short, exciting, easy to understand (comparatively) and won't constantly be made fun of by sports enthusiasts in other countries.

I think the problem is TV and $$$. They want a TV show that will keep the audience glued to maximise $$$$ and they can't think of a way of integrating the minnows who have basically been left out in the cold way too long so they've left them out altogether. Tiers should have come in yonks ago, this whole process of giving Test status selectively is outdated and cr ap. Just imagine if football turned round and said "the lower leagues are no good, we're cutting them out of the league structure" meaning sides can't get promoted into the upper echelons.

How many years did it take county cricket to come up with two tiers? They are a bit 'elitist' in their own right with the minor counties cut adrift, as happened specifically with the domestic cup knockout competition. Had tiers come in even 20 years ago in Tests and ODIs you could well see Ireland above England in the pecking order, I think Bangladesh would be a better side for it and Kenya wouldn't have fallen away so badly as they have in recent years.

I think it is a global affliction on sport, that the sport is dictated (to) by TV. Tiers would get around that, who says s*y has to show every match and that every match therefore has to be approved by them!?!?!?!? Cricket can be played without 20 cameras at the ground or 20,000 sell out crowds.

So to sum those last three paragraphs up, the short term fix is for people to stamp their feet and demand Ireland be included, or qualifiers for the World Cup, but the LONG TERM PROBLEM is what really needs addressing or it won't matter who are the 2-3 weakest sides in the World Cup, they'll still be streets behind being (truly) COMPETITIVE

I won't state if that is opinion or that my opinion is "usually correct"