Australia news April 20, 2011

'World Cup should have 10 best teams' - CA

152

Co-hosts Australia want the 2015 World Cup to be contested by the 10 teams that most deserve to be there, and will state that position when the ICC reconsiders the tournament format at its annual conference in Hong Kong.

The initial decision to simply allow cricket's 10 Full Member nations, including the struggling Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, to take their places at the next World Cup without any kind of qualification process was met with global indignation. However the ICC president Sharad Pawar has flagged a reconsideration of the wishes of the Associate nations, including 2011 tournament bright sparks Ireland, meaning several possibilities are now on the table for the June meeting.

"Our starting point on ICC Events has always been that qualification should be based on merit," a Cricket Australia spokesman told ESPNcricinfo.

"We support moving to a 10-team ICC World Cup in 2015 and longer term, support moving to ICC World Cups which are 10-team contests based on merit, [like] the top 10-ranked nations in the world. The ICC has discussed reviewing the position on 2015 and we will be an interested participant [both as an ICC member and also as a co-host] in that discussion."

Options include an expansion of the number of competing teams from 10 to the 2011 model of 14 or the more likely choice of 12, or simply the addition of a qualifying tournament between the best two Associate nations and the stragglers among the Full Members. Such a solution is clearly Cricket Australia's preference, for administrators have begun plotting the 2015 event with New Zealand based on a 10-team plan.

New Zealand coach John Wright joined the already loud chorus asking for a qualification process for the 2015 World Cup. In an interview with ESPNcricinfo, Wright said, "The World Cup has got to be about the world - they (the ICC) have to be sure they have got the ten best teams in it. No matter where they come from. Otherwise it's a nonsense. Surely it doesn't take eight years to sort that one out."

Wright cited Ireland's example saying the team had been, a "revelation" in the World Cup, where New Zealand played the supposed minnows in a warm-up match. He said, "Ireland have shown they can knock over big sides. There needs to be some incentive for the (Associate) teams to get the opportunity to play in the World Cup."

During the World Cup, ICC CEO Haroon Lorgat had said that the ICC Board would meet in May to decide on the qualification format of the 10-team 2015 World Cup. Two days after the final of the 2011 World Cup though, the ICC Board announced that the 2015 tournament would include the ten full members with qualification coming into play only in 2019. Following criticism around the cricket world and a request by the Associates, the ICC has announced that it would "revisit" the decision to shut the Associates out of the 2015 event.

Numerous Associate nations have also reacted angrily to the suggestion that a reduced field for the 50-over World Cup is effectively counter-balanced by the expansion of the World Twenty20 event to 16 teams. However CA remain certain that Twenty20 can be used to grow the game in developing countries, despite its lack of the subtleties available in Test and limited-overs cricket.

"James [Sutherland, CA chief executive] has always argued that ICC Events should be assessed in the full context of the ICC World Cup and ICC Twenty20 World Championship," the spokesman said.

"In keeping the ICC World Cup tight [which is what fans want], it is on the basis that the ICC Twenty20 can be run as a tight event with, say, the top 16. Twenty20 offers the top 16 an ideal chance to develop, progress, develop international success and profile."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • enigma77543 on April 23, 2011, 19:32 GMT

    @NALINWIJ, it doesn't matter how the mediocre matches are spread, they'll still incur losses for the boards & ICC, the bottomline remains i.e. more mediocre teams = more mediocre matches = more loss of revenue for ICC = less ICC funding for the Associates = more dead Associates. Further, I don't think there's any "ethical obligation" on ICC to include Associates, at best, there's an ethical obligation to offer them a fair chance at qualifying for the 9th & 10th place in a 10-team WC, especially since the top Associates are almost on par with Zim & Ban (so called "Test-nations") while WI is also lagging behind the pack at the top. On a side note, I think your suggestion of allowing the top team from both groups to secure a Semifinal berth is worth pondering over, it might add some life to the group-stage which'd lack in a WC with QFs while top 4 (2 from each group) directly qualifying for SFs makes it somewhat "constricted" (for the lack of a better word)

  • NALINWIJ on April 23, 2011, 17:02 GMT

    Let us examine the motive behind 10 team format. Matches between test playing nations at prime time=television rating= money. Matches involving associates seldom make money and exclusion of a test playing team or early elimination of teams like India and Pakistan =reduced telivision rating =loss of money.I believe there is an ethical obligation to include the top 2 associates. I have mentioned the solution in a previous entry. 2 groups of 6. 5 rounds of 6 games. 4games with full members as day night=prime time with associates matches at day time. 20 successive day night matches. Top teams go direct to semis and next 2 play the next2 in other group. The qualifying finals- A2vB3, A3vB2 winners play A1 and B1 in semis. The tournament complete in 31 days with 25 day/night=prime time not involving associates and 10 matches involving associates interspersed.You maximise rating but involve associates.

  • Happy_AusBang on April 23, 2011, 11:14 GMT

    Not just that, Bangladesh knocked out India in a world cup, beat Pakistan, beat England IN England, whitewashed New Zealand and whitewashed West Indies in West Indies, and beat all the test playing countries at least once. And against Ireland, well the record says they beat them quite a few times, and will still beat them more times than not, even thought Ireland have improved significantly and may well be able to knock out India or any other country. I am strongly of the opinion that the ten (or twelve) top ranked teams should play in WC. I can also accept playout amongst teams to determine which top 10 or 12 teams should make it to WC as long as it does not exempt India or Australia or any other team from the playoffs. At the moment it seems only these two teams are shy about playoffs including all top teams; no other team seems to have any such hesitation.

  • on April 23, 2011, 3:56 GMT

    @enigma77543: The Bangladesh should blame the weather, as Imran Khan won the cup even after getting a.o. for 75 against ENG. Just calling a whitewash a fluke tells me how much cricketing knowledge most posters bear here.

  • AARON.IFTEKHAR on April 22, 2011, 21:11 GMT

    No automatic selection, no ICC rating system... we want fair cricket with fair qualification in CWC 2015 only through qualification matches arround the world, like FIFA WC Football.

  • on April 22, 2011, 16:17 GMT

    Then dont call it for world cup it shuld be then ten teams cup ???????????????

  • ed.cards on April 22, 2011, 15:10 GMT

    If co-hosts Australia want the 2015 World Cup to be contested by the 10 teams that most deserve to be there, I feel including 3-5 not member associates at the cost of full members is a better idea as the bottom 3-4 full member teams are too incompetent for WC. The top associate members in their place will be a better bet anyday. The full members also should put in efforts to mantain their position and respect. They should not take their positions for granted. Number of teams may not make a difference but associate members do.

  • dragqueen1 on April 22, 2011, 12:23 GMT

    i find it incredulous that ICC didn't see this coming. just shows how far their heads are up their you-know-whats. unless they come to a compromise, probably involving 12 teams, the associates will take them to the CFAIS, THEY WILL NOT HAVE A CHOICE, anything else is suicide, & i will be utterly gobsmacked, & it will a very dark day for ALL sport, if they lose.

  • enigma77543 on April 22, 2011, 8:15 GMT

    @WestIndies1987, the real reason why cricket will never become a global sport is because most of the world finds 7-8 hour-long sport very boring & tedious & true cricket-fans should be ok with that because the only way it might become global is if T20-cricket becomes the main format & ODIs & Tests are all but killed but obviously no true cricket-fan would want that because T20 is hardly cricket, it resembles more & more to Baseball so T20 fans would be better off switching to Baseball anyway, if ball-whacking is all they want to see. @microno1seanand, why does it matter whether OZ is a rich or poor nation? Cricket isn't sponsored by the state to cover their losses, CA must do it for themselves so they (& every other board & ICC) are doing business & obviously they want to make a profit so that they can support cricket in OZ. May be you, Rohit & others here wanting more mediocre teams should contribute a few million to ICC so that they can cover losses of matches involving minnows.

  • enigma77543 on April 22, 2011, 8:10 GMT

    @reyme - "I have a feeling most people including the author has no clue about what BD has done in last 2 years. BD whitewashed WI in WI, Whitewashed NZ 4-0, Won all series vs. Ireland, Beat Zim in all series comprehensively, Beat Eng in Eng. BD is as good as NZ, if not better." WI team they beat was a crap 2XI full of newbies, not the main WI team. NZ was a big fluke, current NZ team has been very inconsistent & unsettled but if all the people who understand cricket were to bet their real money on a brand new Ban V NZ series, I'm sure even the most enthusiastic of Bangladeshis would NOT bet on Ban winning it. Ban are STILL a minnow, may be marginally (& only marginally) better than other minnows but a minnow nonetheless. NZ reached semifinals of the WC while Ban were knocked out in the first round (surprise surprise, just like all the other minnows), got wrapped up for 58 against a team they were supposedly "better" than (& surprise surpise, it was a FULL-STRENGTH WI team).

  • enigma77543 on April 23, 2011, 19:32 GMT

    @NALINWIJ, it doesn't matter how the mediocre matches are spread, they'll still incur losses for the boards & ICC, the bottomline remains i.e. more mediocre teams = more mediocre matches = more loss of revenue for ICC = less ICC funding for the Associates = more dead Associates. Further, I don't think there's any "ethical obligation" on ICC to include Associates, at best, there's an ethical obligation to offer them a fair chance at qualifying for the 9th & 10th place in a 10-team WC, especially since the top Associates are almost on par with Zim & Ban (so called "Test-nations") while WI is also lagging behind the pack at the top. On a side note, I think your suggestion of allowing the top team from both groups to secure a Semifinal berth is worth pondering over, it might add some life to the group-stage which'd lack in a WC with QFs while top 4 (2 from each group) directly qualifying for SFs makes it somewhat "constricted" (for the lack of a better word)

  • NALINWIJ on April 23, 2011, 17:02 GMT

    Let us examine the motive behind 10 team format. Matches between test playing nations at prime time=television rating= money. Matches involving associates seldom make money and exclusion of a test playing team or early elimination of teams like India and Pakistan =reduced telivision rating =loss of money.I believe there is an ethical obligation to include the top 2 associates. I have mentioned the solution in a previous entry. 2 groups of 6. 5 rounds of 6 games. 4games with full members as day night=prime time with associates matches at day time. 20 successive day night matches. Top teams go direct to semis and next 2 play the next2 in other group. The qualifying finals- A2vB3, A3vB2 winners play A1 and B1 in semis. The tournament complete in 31 days with 25 day/night=prime time not involving associates and 10 matches involving associates interspersed.You maximise rating but involve associates.

  • Happy_AusBang on April 23, 2011, 11:14 GMT

    Not just that, Bangladesh knocked out India in a world cup, beat Pakistan, beat England IN England, whitewashed New Zealand and whitewashed West Indies in West Indies, and beat all the test playing countries at least once. And against Ireland, well the record says they beat them quite a few times, and will still beat them more times than not, even thought Ireland have improved significantly and may well be able to knock out India or any other country. I am strongly of the opinion that the ten (or twelve) top ranked teams should play in WC. I can also accept playout amongst teams to determine which top 10 or 12 teams should make it to WC as long as it does not exempt India or Australia or any other team from the playoffs. At the moment it seems only these two teams are shy about playoffs including all top teams; no other team seems to have any such hesitation.

  • on April 23, 2011, 3:56 GMT

    @enigma77543: The Bangladesh should blame the weather, as Imran Khan won the cup even after getting a.o. for 75 against ENG. Just calling a whitewash a fluke tells me how much cricketing knowledge most posters bear here.

  • AARON.IFTEKHAR on April 22, 2011, 21:11 GMT

    No automatic selection, no ICC rating system... we want fair cricket with fair qualification in CWC 2015 only through qualification matches arround the world, like FIFA WC Football.

  • on April 22, 2011, 16:17 GMT

    Then dont call it for world cup it shuld be then ten teams cup ???????????????

  • ed.cards on April 22, 2011, 15:10 GMT

    If co-hosts Australia want the 2015 World Cup to be contested by the 10 teams that most deserve to be there, I feel including 3-5 not member associates at the cost of full members is a better idea as the bottom 3-4 full member teams are too incompetent for WC. The top associate members in their place will be a better bet anyday. The full members also should put in efforts to mantain their position and respect. They should not take their positions for granted. Number of teams may not make a difference but associate members do.

  • dragqueen1 on April 22, 2011, 12:23 GMT

    i find it incredulous that ICC didn't see this coming. just shows how far their heads are up their you-know-whats. unless they come to a compromise, probably involving 12 teams, the associates will take them to the CFAIS, THEY WILL NOT HAVE A CHOICE, anything else is suicide, & i will be utterly gobsmacked, & it will a very dark day for ALL sport, if they lose.

  • enigma77543 on April 22, 2011, 8:15 GMT

    @WestIndies1987, the real reason why cricket will never become a global sport is because most of the world finds 7-8 hour-long sport very boring & tedious & true cricket-fans should be ok with that because the only way it might become global is if T20-cricket becomes the main format & ODIs & Tests are all but killed but obviously no true cricket-fan would want that because T20 is hardly cricket, it resembles more & more to Baseball so T20 fans would be better off switching to Baseball anyway, if ball-whacking is all they want to see. @microno1seanand, why does it matter whether OZ is a rich or poor nation? Cricket isn't sponsored by the state to cover their losses, CA must do it for themselves so they (& every other board & ICC) are doing business & obviously they want to make a profit so that they can support cricket in OZ. May be you, Rohit & others here wanting more mediocre teams should contribute a few million to ICC so that they can cover losses of matches involving minnows.

  • enigma77543 on April 22, 2011, 8:10 GMT

    @reyme - "I have a feeling most people including the author has no clue about what BD has done in last 2 years. BD whitewashed WI in WI, Whitewashed NZ 4-0, Won all series vs. Ireland, Beat Zim in all series comprehensively, Beat Eng in Eng. BD is as good as NZ, if not better." WI team they beat was a crap 2XI full of newbies, not the main WI team. NZ was a big fluke, current NZ team has been very inconsistent & unsettled but if all the people who understand cricket were to bet their real money on a brand new Ban V NZ series, I'm sure even the most enthusiastic of Bangladeshis would NOT bet on Ban winning it. Ban are STILL a minnow, may be marginally (& only marginally) better than other minnows but a minnow nonetheless. NZ reached semifinals of the WC while Ban were knocked out in the first round (surprise surprise, just like all the other minnows), got wrapped up for 58 against a team they were supposedly "better" than (& surprise surpise, it was a FULL-STRENGTH WI team).

  • enigma77543 on April 22, 2011, 8:08 GMT

    @fruitypastille - "More teams equates to more matches and more revenue" seriously mate, where've you been? lol The reason ICC & other concerned parties want to cut the number of teams is because vast majority of matches involving minnows don't even cover the expenditure, foget about bringing in "more revenue". As for calling it "World Cup", well, it's a private, non-governmental event so organisers are free to call it whatever the want; calling it "World Cup" does NOT in any way compel them to include all the 190+ countries. "All the development of the game in Associate countries will cease if you stick to only the 10 'elite' teams of Full members of the ICC." Exactly the opposite is true, if ICC sustains more losses due to arranging more matches for minnows then that means they'll've less money to fund them in the future. Some of the minnows have improved only because of ICC funding "minnow-tournaments" ICC organises from the money it receives through matches involving top teams.

  • on April 22, 2011, 7:07 GMT

    if prove worthy they are not minows mircrono, so no it would be no problem

  • johanx841 on April 22, 2011, 0:52 GMT

    India will not play next world cup since sachin tendulkar will be retired by then...they will hardly win a game.....!! no tendulkar no win for india!!

  • WestIndies1987 on April 21, 2011, 22:55 GMT

    This is why cricket will NEVER be a truly global sport! Too many people involve in the game have an ELI EST attitude and don't want new entities in the game.

  • hakapuu on April 21, 2011, 20:20 GMT

    @reyme: I love the crazy support for bangladeshi cricket but you gotta release bangladesh has test status and irleand/zimbabwe dont! Of course bangladesh is struggling like the author says. Yes they beat WI in WI (but that was second string WI team since all the main team players backed out!). Beating non -test playing nations zimbabwe and ireland (tht too in spin friendly conditions at home in odis!) is nothing special! The only real thing of notice they have done is the 4-0 NZ whitewash(in the last 10 yrs!). Plz dont bring up small one off instances of beating bigger nations in a ODI! Also I dont think the author is saying that ireland is better than bangladesh. All he is saying that irleand also deserves a chance to be part of the world cup bcz they are almost as good as bangladesh! Dont forget bangladesh also got test staus only after beating pakistan in the world cup!

  • hardhitter71 on April 21, 2011, 19:47 GMT

    There should be knockouts as qualifiers. Even Afghanistan, Germany, Holland, Ireland, USA, Canada, UAE, Singapore, and many other teams will get to know each other, the merrit of sport would increase and the best of the best will play for the coveted spot. Let not Australia bully as to who, when, where etc. Cricket is a sport of gentlemen and should be left in hands of gentlemen.

  • Farhad-Shamsi on April 21, 2011, 19:40 GMT

    Being an Associate team, Ireland may not have been taken seriously in the WC by the other big teams. So, they had very competetive results against ENG, WI, SA, IND. On the other hand, big teams play Bangladesh very very seriously, because of their tendency to cause frequent upsets. For example, Australia fielded their Strongest 11 players in the just concluded ODI series against Bangladesh.

  • microno1seanand on April 21, 2011, 19:30 GMT

    Does OZ bother about their revenue if more minnows play in WC2015 in their home? is OZ such a poor nation???? :P

  • Rohit... on April 21, 2011, 18:19 GMT

    This is absurd. The teams who deserve to be in the semi-final would be able to defeat all the low grade teams . It doesnot matter if they are 2 or 8. Moreover if there are more teams then there are more practice for the touring countries and they may get more time to adjust to the conditions. So it will make a fair tournament.

  • on April 21, 2011, 16:47 GMT

    Everyone here is like Ireland will beat Bangladesh, Ireland will win series against them etc. Too many time travellers. You can grade a class only based on what already happened, not what could have.

  • ed.cards on April 21, 2011, 16:00 GMT

    continuing on the post by bonaku on (April 20 2011, 17:53 PM GMT)

    are teams like Australia feeling the pressure that if associate members continue performing in such a way in WCs, then their presence and domination over ICC will be threatened?

  • nataraajds on April 21, 2011, 15:50 GMT

    Associate teams participation if WC will only give opportunity to players to make records. even if there if few upset results, inconsistancy is the issue. so top 10 teams in ICC rankings should only play WC.

  • Maksood on April 21, 2011, 15:00 GMT

    WC should be for top 10 team. However, I do not get the merit of claim that Bangladesh should not be it or Ireland is a better team than Bangaldesh.Bangladesh just beat Ireland in WC, as well as England and the Dutch.

  • Rakesh_Sharma on April 21, 2011, 14:24 GMT

    Some who say they want to see 10 best team,so you mean the full members made by ICC are not the correct ones?Like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe? Well than the team which makes it in top 10 may be in place of Bangladesh and Ireland must be made Full member and either Bangladesh or Zimbabwe stripped of Full membership. This willl be the insult to the Full membership itself. So to take care of all this ,the WC must be of 12 teams.Period If anyone feels matches are one sided than there must effectively be 8 team WC to make up their point.Else 12 teams so that best Associates are accomodated just like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Some guys who say Bangladesh are better or worse please consider the amount of insignificant matches they play throughout the year against top teams.Give this same exposure to Ireland, Afghanistan against top teams.These teams will be able to beat Bangladesh on consistent basis.

  • ravi_hari on April 21, 2011, 14:11 GMT

    I think WC2011 has become boring when matches were either one-sided or when minnows were playing against each other. I think the 10 team format is good enough. However, it should not be purely on the basis or ranking. ICC should pick the top 6 teams automatically and run a tournament for the rest to get the balance 4 places. This qualifying tournament should be held just 3 months before the actual tournament so that the teams can maintain the same combination and form. This would help have teams on even keel and avoid boring encounters. I dont think we should compare T20 and 50-over world cups. Ravi Hari

  • mehedi123 on April 21, 2011, 14:02 GMT

    hey everybody who says.....Ireland is better than Bangladesh...pls see the series played by Ireland....they cant win any series with a test playing nation...they will do only a thing that create a upset in world cup...but Bangldesh win 3 match where Ireland win 2 ....and they are crushed by Bangladeshi bowlers specially mighty spinners.....If they want to play in world cup ...they must upgrade their ranking...playing better in series not in world cup......

  • henrystephen on April 21, 2011, 13:47 GMT

    Fanatical India may be able to sustain decent crowds for 12+ teams, but that is not the case in Australia and NZ, where unfortunately cricket is not very popular. To the type of fans who log on to cricinfo the omission of Associates is an outrage, but there's no way you'll get Joe Public along to those games.

  • Nampally on April 21, 2011, 13:08 GMT

    If Cricket World cup is played under the same rules as the Olympic Athletic games, the sport itself will gain in popularity. If ICC want to make Cricket a true World sport, that should be the goal. Canada is the the major Ice Hockey country both in Men & womens' divisions. Yet the sport in its world cup Women's format includes teams from Europe & Scandinavia to popularize it. The scores are lop sided but the sport is thriving in those nations too. In the field hockey too, once India ruled supreme taking 8 olympic Gold medals in a row. Today the sport is so popular that India struggles to make it to the last 4 in the Olympic games.The weaker nations have picked up. The same applies to Cricket. ICC must encourage more cricketers from USA, Canada, Kenya, Netherland to play in the English county cricket & in the IPL. They should also set up funding for coaching camps in these countries to promote Cricket. This is the right way to popularize cricket not banning these countries from WC.

  • soumyas on April 21, 2011, 12:56 GMT

    Let Bangladesh,Ireland,Zimbabwe,Netherland,Scotland play 3 matches each, one Home, one Away, one on Neutral venues. then choose the best two nations out of them.

  • Happy_AusBang on April 21, 2011, 12:45 GMT

    Very opportunistic from some AUS and IND fans! They seem to suggest performance should dictate which 10 teams are represented in the world cup. But hang on! there is a catch. Those 10 teams should not include those that are situated higher up. The performance should be tested only among the bottom 4 teams. Lest the first or second of the bottom 4 displace someone from the top. I don't think BD has anything to fear from facing off either the Associates who they dominated for a long long time. They have beaten ENG at home and abroad. They beat IRE recently and they will still beat them more times than not. No, the fear is, either they or some other team may displace either AUS or IND. Not that won't be good for the game, will it? Money talks! In football, ALL the teams have to go through qualifying rounds, inluding teams like Brazil and Argentina; same should happen in cricket.

  • nzcricket174 on April 21, 2011, 12:19 GMT

    There should be 12 teams in the tournament. 10 is too little. Also qualification should be needed, as most people haven't seen how decent teams like Afhghanistan are.

  • reyme on April 21, 2011, 10:54 GMT

    Can someone tell me who won the match between BD and IRE in the Worldcup?

  • reyme on April 21, 2011, 10:53 GMT

    I have a feeling most people including the author has no clue about what BD has done in last 2 years. BD whitewashed WI in WI, Whitewashed NZ 4-0, Won all series vs. Ireland, Beat Zim in all series comprehensively, Beat Eng in Eng. BD is as good as NZ, if not better.

  • IMObserver on April 21, 2011, 10:20 GMT

    I would like to add further. Instead of selecting test palying nations without qualifiers the ODI WC performance should qualify top 8 teams of the tournament to play officially certified test serieses. Test series are supposed to test the players talent gained in other forms of cricket.

  • IMObserver on April 21, 2011, 10:13 GMT

    I think it is possible to invite 16 teams and finish the tournament in four weeks with 45 games. The idea is to have only four knock out rounds. To rule out luck every knock out will be best of three games. 24 games in round 1 with 8 pairing. 12 games in qurter finals. 6 games in semi finals and 3 games in final. The pairing, for example in first round, should be not 1st seeded against 16th but 1st against 9th etc, so that matches are more competetive and interesting. Once in four year so called minows should get an opportinuity to test themselves so that they can plan a road map for improvements over the next four years.

  • Notredam on April 21, 2011, 9:31 GMT

    Bangladesh are surely afraid of facing irish...even ducth wud push them off on seaming, bouncing tracks...have a match up of 10 mtch series..

    just becoz of 200 million pople supportes dsnt mean u get test status..

    on that order india shud every time win the world cup as there population is max in cricket world..

    also china should get automatic qualification in semis and brazil should also play..what a joke...

    If u r gud u deserve propmotion and reward irrespectiv of country populationm..

    infrastructure will only build once u get named faces in public and interest, govn backing,,,so bangadanhudesh didnt become in 1 year..all stadiums ready..similary wth lankanss..............so develop and se by next wrld cup..gve irish 15 odi against full memebers in1 year..i say sincerely they can win 3-4 out of those which wud be remarkable..acheivement..

  • Notredam on April 21, 2011, 9:26 GMT

    Well have a match up of Ireland versus banagaduldesh

    5 in dublin.. 5 in dhaka..

    result 6-4 or 7-3 in inrish favour..wanna have bet mate..

  • enigma77543 on April 21, 2011, 9:14 GMT

    @fruitypastille - "More teams equates to more matches and more revenue" seriously mate, where've you been? lol The reason ICC & other concerned parties want to cut the number of teams is because vast majority of matches involving minnows don't even cover the expenditure, foget about bringing in "more revenue". As for calling it "World Cup", well, it's a private, non-governmental event so organisers are free to call it whatever the want; calling it "World Cup" does NOT in any way compel them to include all the 190+ countries. "All the development of the game in Associate countries will cease if you stick to only the 10 'elite' teams of Full members of the ICC." Exactly the opposite is true, if ICC sustains more losses due to arranging more matches for minnows then that means they'll've less money to fund them in the future. Some of the minnows have improved only because of ICC funding "minnow-tournaments" ICC organises from the money it receives through matches involving top teams.

  • ravikumarsinha on April 21, 2011, 8:49 GMT

    a qualifying process must be there. how can you judge full member squad form 4 years earlier. it is real absurd that "full test nations" play "one-day" world cup. i would like every "full one-day" squad will have a proper chance to show their capabilities.

  • fruitypastille on April 21, 2011, 6:23 GMT

    All comments coming from OZ and NZ clearly indicate they have their heads in the sand. More teams equates to more matches and more revenue to organisers through gate money, TV, etc. with added income for Airlines, Hotels, Restaurants, Shoppers etc. by the fans travelling to see their teams play and win the trophy. Yes merit does come into question so apart from the 9 Test playing countries not less than an additional 3 teams should be allowed to play after a qualification process. One must accept that you are calling this a WORLD CUP and if you contrive to restrict to just the test playing countries you have no right to call it a World Cup event. You should then call this simply as an ICC 50 Overs event and stop calling it the World Cup of Cricket. All the development of the game in Associate countries will cease if you stick to only the 10 'elite' teams of Full members of the ICC.

  • on April 21, 2011, 6:07 GMT

    Can Ireland whitewash New Zealand, I doubt even Zimbabwe can match that fit. Ireland never won any bilateral series against Bangladesh. You do your math.

  • enigma77543 on April 21, 2011, 5:41 GMT

    @Rakesh_Sharma, you're kidding me, right? Those 10 extra matches played by 11th & 12th placed teams will be pointless considering that under the format I've specified, it'll be next to impossible for them to go into the next phase, at best they'll cause 1 upset but that won't be enough for them to go into the next round while rest of their matches will be a waste. Cricket doesn't run on charity you know, it requires money & resources to organise matches & boring uncompetitive matches consisting of countries which've no cricket-following is a financial burden on the parties involved, how many people here arguing for more teams spent their hard-earned money to go & watch matches involving some of these mediocre teams or sat in front of their TVs all day, not many I presume, may be none & yet, they come here disregarding financial & logistical constraints claiming high ground. "If Sutherland does not agree WC venue must be shifted back to India." Have you ever considered stand-up comedy?

  • Notredam on April 21, 2011, 5:11 GMT

    Go irish go..go dnish go..go scottish go..go..dutch go..go Uae go..go namibia go..go..go go....

  • Evilpengwinz on April 21, 2011, 4:05 GMT

    I know this won't ever happen, but what about doing what FIFA is doing right now, and put the World Cup in countries where the sport hasn't grown as much as others but is still heard of? Maybe have them as co-hosts and give auto qualification to the host nation(s).

    Nothing wrong with having a World Cup in England, with Ireland and Netherlands hosting a handful of games each and a getting auto qualification. People would probably still come to see their country playing in a World Cup, even in Ireland and the Netherlands, and all the games without them could be held in England.

    There's enough Asians and South Africans in England to fill a cricket ground if they wanted to for them matches, which leaves WI, Zimbabwe, Australia and NZ. Aus-NZ in a World Cup would sell out, so you'd probably have trouble selling all the tickets for 5 games.

    With this idea, ICC makes $, game expands to Ireland + Netherlands, and you get 12 teams, 2 associates. Everyone's a winner :) Too obvious for ICC...

  • CricSamraat on April 21, 2011, 3:15 GMT

    Merit based WC participation will force the national cricket overlords in all countries to take nothing for granted and build their teams with players in best form - not giving undue weight to past performance. Merit will gain ground all around and quality of the contests will go up a match as no established player will be able to take his place in his team's playing eleven for granted. The way to go.

  • CricSamraat on April 21, 2011, 3:09 GMT

    Perfectly understandable position taken by Cricket Australia. Merit should be the determining criteria, plain and simple.

  • tawsulee on April 21, 2011, 2:48 GMT

    For those who are saying Ireland performed better than Bangladesh in 2011 WC: Bangladesh won 3 matches and Ireland 2. Now tell yourself who played better! Ireland deserves to be in the WC for sure, it does not mean that yo have to bend the truth! And why do people want include WI and NZL as automatic qualifiers? Based on which criterion?

  • cricsavvy on April 21, 2011, 2:25 GMT

    @nmaniar and @Anneeq Spot on guys. Need to have 12-14 teams and the bottom 4 teams from the regular test playing countries have to play the associates to qualify. In soccer even the top ranked countries need to qualify. I would rather pay to watch Ireland than BD, Zim and even the current WI.

  • kriskini on April 21, 2011, 2:16 GMT

    This is my idea. The same format we follow in championstrophy except in the first round in a group of 3 a team should play the other team twice. This way in the first round a strong team will not get out as they play the assoicate twice. This will make all tgather 39 matches. see the break up below. First round 24 matches ( 4 groups . 3 teams in group play round robin twice. ) Second round 12 matches ( 4 teams in each group . round robiin playing once) 2 semifinals and a final.

  • cricket_for_all on April 21, 2011, 1:41 GMT

    If it is 10 teams even with merit system we will not have any associate teams in the final 10. Bang and Zim are capable of winning the associate teams(They didn't looseto any associate teams in this world cup too). This is world cup and we should be able accommodate more associate teams to get them play with stronger teams (May be one sided games but this is only time they can play with full member teams). I would suggest 16 teams so we will have 6 associate teams.

  • Floatyman on April 21, 2011, 1:21 GMT

    I agree with 12 teams, 2 groups of 6 but top three in each go through to next round with top teams of each group getting extra chance. This makes the group games more meaningful.

    I also think that even if the WC is 12 teams, the bottom 2-4 top 10 ranked teams should compete in the current style WC qualifier. They are near certain to go through but it gives the Associates more experience, a chance and if a county has fallen apart and not competitive, it weeds them out.

    As for length of the tournament, that's what happens when you play only one game (and sometimes none) a day!

  • cricketgladiator on April 21, 2011, 0:39 GMT

    I would like to see 10 best teams in the World Cup not 10 full members only. A qualifying round like soccer would give every team a fair chance to prove their ability. Otherwise team like Kenya, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and even West Indies (given the direction they are heading to) will be beneficial over team like Ireland, Netherlands and Afghanistan!!!!

  • Kirk-at-Lords on April 21, 2011, 0:32 GMT

    Numbers matter, but the principle of merit trumps all other concerns. Kudos to Cricket AUS for taking this stand, and explicitly referring to the reconsideration of the unseemly hasty ICC decision, which violated its own decision timeline by nearly 2 months. Perhaps the chaos that is threatening to envelop the sport can yet be averted.

  • cricketgladiator on April 21, 2011, 0:31 GMT

    I would like to see 10 best teams in the World Cup not 10 full members only. A qualifying round like soccer would give every team a fair chance to prove their ability. Otherwise team like Kenya, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and even West Indies (given the direction they are heading to) will be beneficial over team like Ireland, Netherlands and Afghanistan!!!!

  • mightymf2000 on April 21, 2011, 0:12 GMT

    ICC this is my Idea. You have 14 teams in 2 groups of 5 and one of 4. Each team plays each other teams in there group. The top two progress and the best placed 3rd ranked sides join in for the quarter finals. Then the semis then the final. In my view it's fair it has minnows so they can't complain and shouldn't take long.

  • sanjaya123456 on April 21, 2011, 0:12 GMT

    what the ....l . better to have the 2 best teams qualifies and we have the world cup in 1 game . damn cricket will never be like football and develop worldwide. associates will never improve their cricket this way.

  • on April 21, 2011, 0:06 GMT

    I think we should allow all full members to choose their 12th/13th men from small associates team, let them serve water and cricket bat during the game, may also use them to "special massage" Australians like Watson etc. This way they will gain experience of "big cricket".

  • zimbos_05 on April 20, 2011, 23:44 GMT

    Why should Zimbabwe be dropped and not Bangladesh. They couldnt even score 60 runs against West Indies. In fact Bangladesh were worse than Zimbabwe at the last world cup, if anything Zimbabwe should be there and not Bangladesh. I think you expand to 12 teams and let the two Associate members who qualify in with a chance.

    It devlaues cricket to drop the full members.

  • aaamsaasza on April 20, 2011, 23:33 GMT

    10 TEAMS is more than enough....... The host nation plus top six ranking teams should get automatic entry to the main round. Remaining three slots should be awarded to the three top teams selected from a pre-qualification tournament. This pre-qualification tournament will be an opportunity to the associate nations to prove their eligibility to play an event as big as world cup. This pre-qualification tournament will also be a test for some low ranking test playing nations to justify their right to play test cricket.

  • bobagorof on April 20, 2011, 23:21 GMT

    How can one seriously say that they are trying to 'grow the game' when teams that currently play 50 over cricket (and love it) would be forced to play 20 over cricket instead?? I thought the marketing used for 20 over cricket 'growing the game' was that it would work the other way i.e. that teams would use 20 over cricket to spark interest and hopefully progress to 50 over and then longer games. When did that change?

  • Agni2 on April 20, 2011, 23:17 GMT

    This is great news. It's a very simple solution. 10 teams. Top 6 teams qualify automatically. The bottom 4 play a tournament with the top 4 associates and you end up with 10 teams. Kudos to CA for keeping the interests of cricket in mind rather than protecting the narrow, selfish interests of the test playing countries.

  • shahzada81 on April 20, 2011, 22:40 GMT

    12 teams please two groups 6 in each group very simple.

  • on April 20, 2011, 22:33 GMT

    ICC should consider the approach of FIFA for qualifying teams for World Cup. Have regional qualifying tournaments in every continent and pick 2-3 teams from each and group them up to play in the main event.

    It is old world to constantly keep the elite teams in the tournament by default and then making the developing nations fight it out at the bottom. This enequality creats the distance of skills and ability to compete in world stage for most teams outside of the elite 8 or 9.

    And this approach will allow more teams to find incentives to develope their cricket programs and shine on world stage.

    C'mon ICC wake up and get away from your imperialistic mentality....

  • ajm63 on April 20, 2011, 22:30 GMT

    You are all missing the reason why they don't want a qualification process. Bangla and Zim votes with India at ICC meetings so India wants to ensure Bangla and Zim are guaranteed WC places and with it big bucks. End of story.

  • gyrase on April 20, 2011, 21:38 GMT

    THere should be in best case 6 teams and 8 is also fine. But every team should be made to qualify. Only top 8-10 teams should play world and in world cup each team should play every other team.

  • on April 20, 2011, 21:31 GMT

    i think the format should be like Top 8 teams till the specified time should qualify and bottom 2 should play with associates teams, and Finalist should qualify

    So its 10; otherwise matches are boring and dull

  • t2sgreat on April 20, 2011, 21:02 GMT

    I can see why ICC and also CA wanting to be a 10 team cricket world cup. First, sometime its not that profitable for the host nation or even ICC to schedule a match between two associate nations or even associate nation vs a test team, bcs less people would come to watch those games and sponsorship money also prolly less. I am sure the decision is just because of money matter. I am not sure how you could call a tournament a world event when it doesnt have the connection of all nations in the world which plays that sports. I can also think that ICC wants those associate nation to be little more serious so they can build a strong base so they can be motivated to apply for a test status so they can play World Cup? not sure...however, I would like to see some type of qualification for last 4 teams (for 12 teams WC) so it can involve all the cricket playing nations.

  • thair9999 on April 20, 2011, 20:39 GMT

    I think best is 12 team format. 8 top ODI ranking teams and qualifying round for rest of 4. Otherwise we will have one-sided matches like 2011. Let the best teams to compete.

  • crazycricketfan4life on April 20, 2011, 20:09 GMT

    Well I have been listening to the comments saying that Bangladesh do not deserve to play in the World Cup if Ireland doesn't and I have had enough. I mean on what basis is Ireland held on the same category as Bangladesh???? Yes, Ireland did beat England in an unlikely encounter and I do think that they do deserve another shot at the limelight because they are an exciting team. But, has Ireland whitewashed a semi-finalist of the World Cup??? Bangladesh beat NZ 4-0 in their home series and the only players that were not part of the NZ squad were Oram and Styris. BD has beaten England once in England and once in the WC. Barring the appalling 58 and 78, Bangladesh won 3 out of their 6 games including beating England in the WC. In the last world cup they threw out India and reached the super eights. In the past two years Bangladesh has had not 1 but 2 Wisden Test Cricketers of the Year (2009: Shakib and 2010: Tamim). If this is not progress, I don't know what is.

  • on April 20, 2011, 19:58 GMT

    Three groups of five would be best I think, yes you're going to get some minnows, but to deny these teams their once in a lifetime opportunity beggars belief. We might end up with a Sri Lanka, who shuffled and ducked and swayed their way through their first games, and who who have become competitive over the years from such a small start....recall the 1975 World Cup. From there they have become World Cup winners, finalists in the last two World Cups, and a formidable Test playing nation...after this who knows what the likes of Afghanistan, or even Papua New Guinea may do in years to come.

  • popcorn on April 20, 2011, 19:56 GMT

    ICC wıll KILL World Crıcket ıf ıt does not allow the Assocıate Natıons to play ın a Qualıfyıng Tournament to compete for the places ın the 10 Team event ın 2015. All theır talk of propmotıng world crıcket ıs then hogwash. Crıcket Australıa,a words are very well chosen: Co-hosts Australia want the 2015 World Cup to be contested by the 10 teams that most DESERVE to be there. On theır showıng ın the recent World Cup,Zımbabwe and Bangla Desh certaınly do not qualıfy to be amongst the 10 best teams.The Automatıc Selectıons should be the Top Sıx or Eıght as of a Cut Off Date. The Qualıfyıng Tournament should be between the Assocıate Natıons and the bottom Two or Four of the current 10 Full Member Natıons.

  • on April 20, 2011, 19:55 GMT

    For all those people who are dissing Bangladesh, soon very soon Bangladesh will be a top 5 ODI team :-P just watch your fingers crossed!

  • Nampally on April 20, 2011, 19:35 GMT

    What is the Australian basis for choosing a number "TEN" as the limiting number of teams for the ICC World cup? This is the ICC tournament and the participants are funded by ICC. ICC's mandate should be to promote Cricket & popularise it throughout the World. A WORLD CUP is only when all cricketing Nations participate in it. I can see the Australian view that having teams of unequal skills is not good for the sport. But every sport needs funding to promote & popularise it. If the weaker nations are excluded they will not get funding from ICC or for that matter their own Govts. Instead of excluding weaker nations, ICC should work with these Nations in raising their cricketing standard. Netherland, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, Kenya, USA, Denmark are all keen nations and deserve to be trained. True World games dictates inclusion, NOT exclusion, of as many cricketing Nations as possible in the same spirit as the Olympic Games.That is the only way to go if it is to be true World Cup.

  • drpramit on April 20, 2011, 19:16 GMT

    i dont have any problem with 10 team format! but there shud be a qualifying round before selecting 10 teams,even team like australia shud play that qualifying round along with associates! my suggestion is to give a wild card entry to WC finalist & t-20 wc2014 winner team!+ u can also give to the home team(aus & nzl)....for rest 5-6 teams need to play a qualifier

  • on April 20, 2011, 19:09 GMT

    12 for me is the obvious choice...it allows for teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to build on experience every four years so that eventually they may actually compete at Test level (or even fail to qualify if not up to it!) whilst teams like Ireland, Kenya, Canada, Holland USA, Holland etc...can have the opportunity to fast track if the game becomes more than whimsical and they are serious about competing.

  • Anneeq on April 20, 2011, 18:49 GMT

    Why are people always winjing about time? As long as they dont last longer than 4 weeks its fine, its a WORLD cup for god's sake, we need to involve the WORLD in it! I really dont understand why cricket Australia are being so awkward. 10 teams is way too small! There should be 12 teams at the next world cup with the top 6 full members automatically qualifying and the last 4 full members, plus associates, plus a few affiliates fighting for the last 6 places in a qualification series. This will give the Associates more exposure to quality opposition over a longer period of time rather than playing full member teams in a 2 week period once every 4 years. That simply isnt enough exposure for the Associates to improve!

    The goal for 50 over cricket should be 16 teams, any more than that will be too long, cos afterall each match lasts for a day. T20 should aim for 32 like the football w/c. And after the group stage there should be knockout matches like they did this time round.

  • shayad on April 20, 2011, 18:47 GMT

    10 teams 1.Australia 2.India 3.Sri Lanka 4.South Africa 5.England 6.Pakistan 7.New Zealand 8.West Indies 9.Bangladesh 10.Ireland

  • bharath74 on April 20, 2011, 18:38 GMT

    Minnows beating favorites, these are the matches we will remember forever. eg, BD beating Pak, Ireland beating Eng,etc. Lets give associate teams a chance they deserve by allowing 12 teams for WC.

  • Rakesh_Sharma on April 20, 2011, 18:11 GMT

    @ enigma77543 . Eleventh and Twelth team being in different groups ,the matches does have significance in the selection of sem ifinalists. If ever any matches were insignificant in the history of ODIs, it was the triseries like VB and Benson and hedges where insanely high amount of group matches were played followed by best of 3 finals. CA person Sutherland is a picture of all arrogance. The format of round robin itself is useless. There must be 2 groups having its own round robin than top 2 semifinalists or top 3 in supersix.That''s all. There mus be minimum 2 games per day. Wc finished in 30 days. If Sutherland does not agree WC venue must be shifted back to India.

  • bonaku on April 20, 2011, 17:53 GMT

    I think now we know who is against ireland. it is not india it is australia. they dont want to take some less money and have 12 teams. i am for 12 teams. 10 teams is too small for a world cup

  • RichardW on April 20, 2011, 17:51 GMT

    This last world cup was again too long and should be shortened by at least another week.The associate countries should absolutely have a chance to qualify to play, but ten teams does seem like the perfect number for a competitive,exciting tournament.Have a cut off date about a year before the next tournament,the top seven teams in the rankings qualify automatically,and then the next six can play each other in a super six format to give us the last three qualifiers.Obviously it would need some work logistically,but it does seem like a very fair way to do it. And let's not talk about Fifa!They may have about 200 teams trying to qualify,but there are probably no more than ten teams who could realistically win the football world cup.And there are always a hell of a lot of boring games at their world cup.

  • VistaCalifornia on April 20, 2011, 17:37 GMT

    As Hala_Madrid said: After beating West Indies, New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Ireland in series and England in both world cup and in england in last 24months, if yet Bangladesh has listen that they are 'STRUGGLING'.. then my question is what do they have to do to prove they are not struggling and on the right path?????

    Guess Australia or author Daniel Brettig has their OWN bias? Is it new bias or have we seen this before?

  • enigma77543 on April 20, 2011, 17:33 GMT

    I think 10 teams is enough. Top 8 ranked teams can get automatic entry into the WC while no.9 to no.12 can play a little quandrangular (worth only 6 matches in total) as part of the WC qualifiers & the top 2 from that fill the 9th & 10th positions in the main event. 5 teams, 2 groups with top 2 teams in each group going into semifinals, only 23 solid matches as every match will be important, short & sweet. On the other hand, having 12 teams would add another TEN pointless matches, 5 each played by 11th & 12th placed teams, not very wise considering how much cricket, especially ODIs, are struggling to generate public-interest & revenue. I commend CA for coming out like this & supporting what's best for the sport, especially considering the fact that most major boards & players have chosen to keep their mouths shut.

  • enigma77543 on April 20, 2011, 17:32 GMT

    I think 10 teams is enough. Top 8 ranked teams can get automatic entry into the WC while no.9 to no.12 can play a little quandrangular (worth only 6 matches in total) as part of the WC qualifiers & the top 2 from that fill the 9th & 10th positions in the main event. 5 teams, 2 groups with top 2 teams in each group going into semifinals, only 23 solid matches as every match will be important, short & sweet. On the other hand, having 12 teams would add another TEN pointless matches, 5 each played by 11th & 12th placed teams, not very wise considering how much cricket, especially ODIs, are struggling to generate public-interest & revenue. I commend CA for coming out like this & supporting what's best for the sport, especially considering the fact that most major boards & players have chosen to keep their mouths shut.

  • howizzat on April 20, 2011, 17:31 GMT

    Aussie talk makes sense.ICC management needs a brain check or a complete overhaul.

  • Monjur_Elahi on April 20, 2011, 17:28 GMT

    Looks like it had been Australia all the way... They were always against the weaker teams' participation at the World Cup. Ricky Ponting started moaning even before the world cup and some poor performance from the associate teams had encouraged their claim. Most associates could not put up a better statistics, even so much praised Ireland could not display a better performance compared to their previous world cup. However, now that ICC intended to soften a bit, Australia again is resisting. Some representatives of the associates were blaming the sub-continent cricket for this ICC decision, but they should wake up now and see who really is obstructing them. Australia did not accept Bangladesh very happily as a full member right at the begining....

  • Farhad-Shamsi on April 20, 2011, 17:22 GMT

    @Vivek: I couldn't agree with you more. Ireland being an Associate, is taken lightly and so their games ocassionally result in spirited fight with other big teams. With Bangladesh, quite the opposite happens. Because of their tendency to cause infrequent upsets, stronger teams take Bangla very seriously and field their best players against Bangla. Example, when Aust played Bangla in the recent ODI series, they fielded their STRONGEST 11 players. Not saying that Ireland or Netherland are weak. Just that IRE, NED, BAN are taken in different lime-light.

  • m_ilind on April 20, 2011, 17:21 GMT

    Adding 2 good associates to the 10 test playing nations would be a good idea! That way we can have 2 groups of 6 teams each, while playing the same format as the WC 2011.

  • on April 20, 2011, 17:05 GMT

    regarding BD i would like to add rather remind that yes BD won 3 matches but against whom???against non regulars...just beat england (was surprise) and wht abt tht embarrassing 58 runs against WI.please note we are not agianst any team we just want the best 10 teams.ths it. i think its a very good idea that top 6 or 7 teams should play world cup directly and others play qualifying round with 3,4 top associates. believe me that will make world cup really interesting as everyone has to play well to qualify for the world cup.and by playing qualifying rounds we may see some good crickets from the associates as well plus some test regular members of ICC may not qualify for WC if they dont perform in QF round.

  • on April 20, 2011, 17:04 GMT

    I think 1999 world cup format was brilliant...12 teams.....group stages then a super six stage...n finally the best 4 qualifying 4 semis!!!

  • timmytimmytimmytimmy on April 20, 2011, 17:03 GMT

    @ shan...yeah that´s what they´re suggesting except maybe 4 associates vs 4 members in the qualifiers in 2 groups of 4. top 2 in each group join the top 6 members for 10 in the world cup. pretty obvious solution. wc remains tight, everyone gets a chance to participate

  • on April 20, 2011, 17:01 GMT

    Couldnt understand why people say Netherlands deserve a place.Ireland do.Bang needs to produce some pacemen to play next world cup.And pakistani fans supporting ireland.mark my words.Only u ve to visit them , they ll never(security).So dont be so kind.Why not have playoff,ireland vs india,netherlands vs australia,will they qualify,impossible.For people comparing with football theres the difference.Deutrom gives interviews as though they are destined to win the next world cup.Ireland wins in a while bcoz they r taken too lightly.BD would will win everyday if taken that lightly(just for arguements sake).Nobody can stop anyone if they perform consistently,it(consistent) is yet to be done.

  • binojpeter on April 20, 2011, 16:39 GMT

    The problem is that Cricket Australia is wishing to conduct WC 2015 just like WC 1992 format where every team plays with each other. So even with 10 teams, total number of matches come out to be 48. If there are 12 teams, it will be 69 matches. WC 2011 had 49 matches and still there was complaint that it was a long tournament. So best solution will be to keep the total number of teams to 10, give automatic entry to top 8 ranked regular members, make last two ranked regular members, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh play with top 4 associate teams and best two teams among them given the entry to WC.

  • Hala_Madrid on April 20, 2011, 16:37 GMT

    After beating West Indies, New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Ireland in series and England in both world cup and in england in last 24months, if yet Bangladesh has listen that they are 'STRUGGLING'.. then my question is what do they have to do to prove they are not struggling and on the right path?????

    Remember, Bangladesh completely dominated the matches they won in the CWC including that England match. Other matches they simply succumbed to pressure and threw the matches away. SA and WI did not beat them. They gifted matches to them.

  • Copernicus on April 20, 2011, 16:30 GMT

    @alltimegreat - I believe the sort of disheartening mismatch you describe ("less then 100 allout when batting first, chasing 300 plus when batting second") happened to Ful Members Bangladesh three times out of six matches in the recent world cup, and zero times to Ireland and the Netherlands, unless you count the 300+ match between the two of them. Zimbabwe, also Full Members were pretty pathetic as well.

  • Challie on April 20, 2011, 16:14 GMT

    Confucius says: One must be careful what rules he asks to be implemented today. Why? Because the rules you fight for today, which work in your favour, will work against you tomorrow!

  • on April 20, 2011, 16:10 GMT

    Good that voices from teams like IRL has been heard. Teams like WI,Ban,Zim and Kenya doenst deserve a Full Time Playing Nations status if they contiue to show the inconsistency they r showing today. IF ICC wants to limit the WC playing teams to 10 or 12and make it most exciting and a short tournament, the Best possible solution I can suggest to ICC is between the two world cups which is a period of 4 years,there has to be a continuous system where the bottom 4 FULL TIME PLAYING nations need to change based on the performance in the WC, u don't deserve to be a FULL TIME PLAYING nation if there r others who are deserving. Like take that status away from Kenya and Zim (they r pathetic in the last 4 years and even in this WC) and give to the next 2 best nations, may be to IRELAND and CANADA, those comes best next to FULL TIME PLAYING nations in this WC. So have a qualifying competetion between the below 4 FTP nations in ICC ODI championship table and 4 Associates and choose 4 from them

  • camouflage on April 20, 2011, 16:09 GMT

    Like association football, each team that is to play on the World Cup should get there via qualifiers. Playing only 10 teams is fine as long as all the countries, where cricket is celebrated, get a chance to qualify for the cup. If not, it's not a 'world' cup but merely a 10 nation's cup. ICC must be fair like FIFA is.

  • on April 20, 2011, 16:05 GMT

    ICC should not play according to Australia's request, the small nations like Ireland and Holland should be given a chance, they performed well during 2011 world cup, limiting teams is not going to help the game in the long run, the attitude that England and Australia had before 1980's kept lots of good teams not getting a chance and only England, Australia and West Indies dominating the game. Now it is any body's game.

  • Shan_Karthic on April 20, 2011, 16:05 GMT

    Why not a 12 team world cup with 6 out of 10 full members auto qualifying based on ODI ranking, the remaining 4 play a qualification tournament with top 6 associate countries to select 6 for the WC?

  • xylo on April 20, 2011, 16:04 GMT

    This is an excellent idea. Given the current scheme of things, two out of WI/Zim/Bangladesh will stand to lose to Ireland and some surprise.

  • Tillso on April 20, 2011, 15:42 GMT

    I believe there should be a 16 team tournament 4 groups of 4 so 3 games each. Then the top 2 in each group qualify for a straight knockoit quarter finals. Thsi gives assocaiates even more chance of improving and cuts down on too much cricket for the big boys!

  • crikkfan on April 20, 2011, 15:35 GMT

    How about 12 teams in total divided into two groups of 6. Top 6 Test teams along with the remaining 6 spots to be filled by playoffs between the bottom 4 test teams and top 4 associate teams. However we can still bring back Super 6 (Top 3 from each group enter super 6) and then the semis and finals. Total games - 30 group + 9 super 6 + 3 knockouts - only 42. The qualifiers for the bottom 6 spots should take place outside the main tournament a la soccer.

  • Monjur_Elahi on April 20, 2011, 15:22 GMT

    How can a team winning 3 matches in the World cup be regarded as struggling, yes I am talking about BD! This report has certainly underestimated Bangladesh's performance. The reporters should be careful with their choice of words.

  • BapiDas on April 20, 2011, 15:20 GMT

    10 teams should indeed be sufficient I am not in favour of 'automatic' qualification of the Test playing nations. ICC world Cup has nothing to do with the classic long format of the game. Therefore, the qualification must remain open to all cricket playing nations. Only the top ten teams in terms of performance in ODI's will be eligible to participate in the WC, even if that means that some of the Test playing countries may fail to qualify! However, ICC may not take this route because TV Viewers may not show the same level of interest, which may adversely affect their revenue through sponsorships, endorsements, advertisements and selling of TV broadcasting rights.

  • mopinphilip on April 20, 2011, 15:14 GMT

    even 10 team world cup is allright but there should be qualifying matches for the 10th spot between those countries who dont come under top ten. for example if ireland is ranked number 10 then ireland should play qualifying matches with the teams ranked over 10th. that way every team would have a chance.

  • kentspitfires on April 20, 2011, 14:59 GMT

    Top 6 qualify, other 4 places are through a play off.

    Qualifier would be:

    New Zealand, Canada, Afghanistan, PNG

    West Indies, Kenya, Scotland, Hong Kong

    Bangladesh, Netherlands, UAE, Uganda

    Ireland, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Bermuda

    Top in each group qualifies!

  • Robster1 on April 20, 2011, 14:56 GMT

    10 teams, with several places open for qualifiers, sounds ideal. Then have a single group of all playing all, with the top four going through to semi finals. Every match would then have real meaning.

  • Rakesh_Sharma on April 20, 2011, 14:44 GMT

    T20 must be made an Olympic sports . Than countries like USA, Germany,China,Japan will take cricket seriously for 2 gold medals(men and women).In general 6 medals will be at stake. ICC can also have T20 wc only once in 4 years rather than every 2 years. This will not change any program. Olympics will spread cricket big time. Anyway ICC could not do it for last 100 years and based on their history there is nothing to suggest they can do it in future. Just imagine how cricket can change society as it has happens in Afghanistan.It has potential to do much more than just earning money .Afghanistan's journey in cricket is an extraordinary potential of cricket which even UN has recognized and here we have ICC curtailing ODI WC to 10. WC must be 12 teams to satisfy everyone and still have quality. Australia is only a host ,it must agree to ICC decision which must be inclusive and just.Watch http://www.australiancricketnews.com/cricket-videos/afghan-cricket-9-min

  • Vinod on April 20, 2011, 14:24 GMT

    ICC Full members keep harping on the top 10-ranked nations in the world, but the ranking system itself is not accurate. If 16 ODI teams don't play with each other equal number of times, the ranking accuracy is not justified. And based on such a crappy raking system, you can't keep Associates out!

  • jackthelad on April 20, 2011, 14:20 GMT

    At the root of all this was simple financial fear - that cricket is no longer the only game to play in Oz, that Australian and Kiwi cricket watchers would not turn up to watch unknowns, that TV rights would be lost, and filthy lucre go a-missing. In my opinion, the ICC read it wrong, but let nobody fantasize that they have any interest in furthering the game in the non-Test nations.

  • Hari_Ram on April 20, 2011, 14:17 GMT

    Top 6 or 8 teams direct qualification for WC, and the remaining teams should be based on qualifiers. Associate nations who are competing in the qualifiers must play minimum number of matches, for them to qualify for the qualifiers and this criteria should be taken care by ICC. This ensures the Associate nation get the exposure what they need.

  • NALINWIJ on April 20, 2011, 14:14 GMT

    I wonder whether the 10 team format comes from perceived inability to incorporate 12 teams or fear of one sided matches with associates. This is my solutions. 2 groups of 6 with one associate per group. 5 rounds with 6 matches per round- 2 involving associates playing day matches and 4 matches involving full members playing day/night matches that are prime time and day time in subcontinent and mornings in UK/AFRICA giving 20 successive d/n matches with full members and 10 day matches involving associates interspersed. If tournament starts on wednesday group stages would end on a wednesday. Top team of each group goes directly to semis and the next2 plays the next 2 in the other group on weekend [A2vB3,B2vA3] winners play A1,B1 in semis midweek and final on Sunday.31 days total with 25 D/N matches with full members at prime time and the 10 matches involving associates interspersed. The ICC should consider this feasible format.

  • area1985 on April 20, 2011, 14:13 GMT

    ICC should work toward improve the quality of the cricket of non full member teams, rather than ranking them as associates for ever,, its not there lack of ability or short of talent, just the simple reason of they don't play enough matches at higher level.

  • vikosaurus on April 20, 2011, 14:08 GMT

    I agree with this format. I think this format must be a fixed standard for ODI WC events from here on. Although I feel minnows deserve a chance, they should be considered strictly based on merit.

    Have the top 8 test playing nations given default entry with the world cup qualifier help determine the remaining to countries. This way, the minor players who deserve a chance would get it, even it meant knocking the last two test playing nations off.

  • on April 20, 2011, 14:03 GMT

    Let the non test playing nations fight for the last two places to make the tournament interesting and fair for all

  • vimalkm on April 20, 2011, 14:01 GMT

    Ok why can it not be like football? I.e the host and the winner qualifies.REST all teams fight it out!

    instead of this mind numbing bi-lateral series over and over again ICC should arrange these qualifying matches incorporated in the schedule for example when india is playing england in august they can play ireland and scotland in that tour for the qualifying matches.Overall the teams that has the highest points qualify rest OUT and make sure only 10 teams are picked. THE FIRST MONTH OF this WC was BORING yes Ireland did the odd upset but that was just one or 2 matches.

    if this option is not picked then associated fight out top 2 gets selected have 12 teams ...so i think :)

  • nmaniar on April 20, 2011, 13:54 GMT

    1. Add Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to the associate teams 2. Have the associate teams play amongst each other through out the year and have them maintain a separate ODI and Test Rankings 3. Before the world cup, top two teams from that ranking will be added to the 8 - regular teams making it a 10 team world cup. Because honestly, zimbabwe and bangladesh haven't done much to prove their worth in the world cup. Ireland has peformed much better than them

  • on April 20, 2011, 13:37 GMT

    what about 10+2 teams for the world cup but

    the 2 qualified associates+2 non-qualified associates=4 associates teams play a lot more with the "A" team of the above Test Playing Nation.

    In that way, the associated members will not be battered the way they do and the test playing nations will have a lot more chance to play their bench players and the off-form players to get back in the line for the national team.

    WHAT DO YOU THINK, guys??????????

  • on April 20, 2011, 13:30 GMT

    i believe top 6 teams ranked in the ICC. then the rest play for 4 spots about 6months out from the finals. teams like ireland need to play more games against tougher opponents.

  • just_Test_lover on April 20, 2011, 13:20 GMT

    Dear ICC Please ignore CA and Cricket India as they just want the game to be played in their own way. Keep UDRS and Keep the 14 team format or even extend it to 12 teams 3 teams in a pool. The 8 top ICC teams qualify and 4 teams qualify. Each pool is a round robin each team play each other twice. the top four teams play a log round Robin to qualify for Quaters...

    The game is to controlled by India and Australia! Lets think about WI Bangladesh and co

  • CheryDayan on April 20, 2011, 13:06 GMT

    if thats the case with CA... then its not called as "WORLD CUP".. rather its a "TEN COUNTRIES CUP". CA must keep in mind that IRISH upset the ENGLISH in this 2011 WC and SA & PAK in 2007 WC along with BANGLA upsetting INDIA in the same.

  • MaruthuDelft on April 20, 2011, 12:59 GMT

    Bangs should get a place automatically; a growing fresh test cricket playing nation of 200 million cricket fans. Winds has to qualify; despite their pedigree they are a mess; we saw it the way they organised the 2007 WC. Zims has to qualify; another community who can't achieve something collectively. Irish have to qualify of course; they still have to proove a lot. Therefore along with the first 3 games between the 9 nations Irish, Zims and Winds play each other for one spot to qualify to continue until the Semis; 48 games before the Semis; 92 WC had 36.

  • NBRADEE on April 20, 2011, 12:53 GMT

    If we are going to have a WC with the world's best teams, how can the future hosts be so bold to say it should be ten? That rankles me - so what if you're the number one rated ODI team (for now, anyway, based on a system of ranking that seriously needs an upgrade!)??? What I really hope that happens is that more teams at the associate level over the next four years are given significant opportunity (beyond a 16 team T20 WC) to play as much cricket as possible to ensure their true potential can be reached in four years. If the Dutch, Irish, Canadians, Afghans, Argentinians and other teams are given the benefit of inclusion at under 19 level to play First Class games, more ODIs and exposure to academy level training in Australia, England, South Africa and India, I am certain that they will do their countries proud... But, it always boils down to dollars and cents and power structures, as we have observed with the possible removal of baseball from the future Olympic games!

  • remnant on April 20, 2011, 12:53 GMT

    I agree with Gerry_the_Merry. The all-play-all made the 1992 world cup, so even and so memorable. No team was unlucky to leave after two matches and each got a chance to fight back. The world cup should not be diluted in quality. Moreso at the tmie when cricket is diminshing in its traditional strongholds, like Windies and Pakistan, hence egalitarianism/socialism may not be the best medicine, to spreading the message to faraway lands.

    If it is not going to be like this than scrap the champions trophy and a few others to make a Top Ranker's Cup with 7-8 or 10 nations in all play all format other than WC. i'm certain that would be successful.

  • remnant on April 20, 2011, 12:42 GMT

    I agree with what the Australian board says, merit based. Atleast we don't have to put up with a socialist utopia type world cup. Let the 10 best teams join it, whoever they are, and each play the other, as was in the memorable 1992 world cup. This way nobody can say, this side did'nt get to play side, but a champion comes out from having contested all matches, some won, some lost, but the last man standing becomes champion. That should be fair. And if perchance that is not possible because it is a world cup and nothing less than 36 teams would od, then please ICC make another merit based tournament with only 8-10 teams and play them out with each other without those needless groups. That could be two years apart from the wordl cup. Atleast this tournament would see closer contests between equals.This should satisfy the associates who get a world cup and those who don't wish to see Canada UNLEASH their fury on India or Australia etc. Spare us the horror please. kindly print it.

  • Chris_Howard on April 20, 2011, 12:25 GMT

    What the? Cricket Australia was one of the backers of the Test only nations originally planned! They came out as strong supports of the ICC decision! Please, can we get rid of everyone in CA and replace them with guys who didn't leave their balls on the cricket ground. I want the Associates in the World Cup, but I also want a CA who will stand up to the rest of the ICC.

  • Notredam on April 20, 2011, 12:21 GMT

    Ire Vs Ban ( 5 Home 5 away) : result 6:4 in Irish favour at least. Ire Vs Win ( 5 Home 5 away) : result 4:6 in Irish favour at least. Ire Vs Zim ( 5 Home 5 away) : result 5:5 in Irish favour at least.

    So guys Irish surely deserve. And that wud be 2 teams best way.

    Holl Vs Ban ( 5 Home 5 away) : result 3:7 (cnt get more bad than this) Holl Vs Win ( 5 Home 5 away) : result 2:8 (cnt get more bad than this) Holl Vs Zim ( 5 Home 5 away) : result 3:7 (cnt get more bad than this)

    So holland also deserve.

    best format 12 teams for 50 over world cup. 16 teams for 20-20 world cup 8 teams for test championship.

    and please incerae associates games against full members to 15 in 1 year atleast. and no 20-20 world cup in 2 yrs. shgud be in 4 yrs time only...

  • on April 20, 2011, 11:57 GMT

    i would suggest cricket australia to lobby for a 12 team tournament as this will encourage assosciate countries to improve their game inorder to qualify for the world cup.a ten team world cup will kill cricket and erode gains made in spreading the game from the traditional test playing nations.the world cup might lose a bit of edge in terms of competitiveness but it will all go well for the development and spreading of the game to more nations

  • AKmAK on April 20, 2011, 11:57 GMT

    My opinion is its ok to go with 10 teams at 2015WC, but the criteria are: last 4 ranked main members are to play off with associate nations and made up the last 4. That is the top ranked 6 nations and 4 qulaifiers, which brought good sense to the arena.

  • Rakesh_Sharma on April 20, 2011, 11:56 GMT

    Before the qualifiers the Associates like Ireland must get extensive exposure by playing Top teams like the way Bangladesh gets. Otherwise the qualifier starts with undue advantage of Bangladesh being provided 100s of matches against strong teams as practice before qualifying tournament.It will not be a level playing field. Also the qualifiers must be in a neutral place like in Scotland as it was suppossed or in Australia or NZ. I for one feels due to all this intricacies 12 team is the best.It satisfies everyone.

  • wambling_future on April 20, 2011, 11:48 GMT

    @Biso: If ICC uses T20 ratings to decide who plays in 50 overs WC, then this is totally ridiculous. One of they ways for Associates to move forward is either playing in more and more in Domestic leagues of stronger teams OR make them play against Test playing nations in a phase-wise manner. For ex: Ireland, Netherlands Afghanistan can play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in a bilateral 3 match series for first year. Analyse their progress. If they do well then make them play against the next best 2 teams say WI and NZ in a 3 match series and so on. Also Ireland/Netherlands can ask to play a 2 match series against teams that travel to England. It might not mean much to touring sides but surely it will mean a lot to these 2 nations. This is just a suggestion. We can't expect them to be a good side when Test playing nations plays minimum of 25 ODIs/year while they play maximum of 10 ODIs/year.

  • Cool_Jeeves on April 20, 2011, 11:43 GMT

    Vote for top 7 teams based on ICC Ranking + 3 more based on qualifying rounds. Final 10 teams in all-play-all format like in 1992. Knockouts to start directly with semi-finals. Final a single match. Total 48 matches.

  • on April 20, 2011, 11:40 GMT

    I think 12 teams should be there , top 8 automatically qualifies n then the rest 4 will go for a qualifier

  • randika_ayya on April 20, 2011, 11:30 GMT

    If the teams are to be selected on the basis of ICC ranking system, an equal opportunity should be presented to all of the top 16 to to earn qualification points. This would mean a complete overhaul to the FTP for ODI. I wonder how Australia would suggest this to be done. because if they just let the associates to play in the odd WC match and the 10 full member get several chances on a regular basis thanks to the FTP to earn their points, then ranking will obviously be biased and will not present a fair chance to select the 10 best teams on merit. The ideal way would be to have play off between the bottom 4 + top 2 associates to select 4 participants. I would ideally prefer to see 12 teams taking part though which would automatically mean the 2 best ranked associates taking part so that can be done on the ranking basis directly

  • on April 20, 2011, 11:24 GMT

    Top 6 one day ranking teams should get auto entry in WC2015, for rest 4 teams there must be a qualifier among the rest 4 full members and top 4 associate nations.

  • Biso on April 20, 2011, 11:13 GMT

    @wambling_future. Agree with you. There has to be a level playing field or some kind of equitable opportunity to the Associate members to get into a position to compete with the struggler among the test playing nations. Also, merely beating a test team (in one odd match) that is low down in the ICC ranking and taking it's place in the ICC world cup will not be fair. But, the point is - is there enough scope for the associate members to improve their ratings to be compared with any of the test sides. I do not see that happening in the near future. CA may be right about top ten sides playing the world cup. But, T-20 ratings from a 16 team tournament can not be a yardstick for qualification into 50 ovrs tourney.The lack of depth will be embarrassingly exposed in the bigger match. Any ways, the CA's solution is more difficult to implement, however attractive it might appear prima facie.

  • rickeap on April 20, 2011, 11:09 GMT

    There should be a play-off among the non-affiliated nations to allow the best two to compete in ther world cup. It would be a pity to lose the great `underdog' wins like Ireland beating England

  • Rakesh_Sharma on April 20, 2011, 11:09 GMT

    Although CA talks about 10 team WC,the situation is tricky. For example if they wish to have qualification as the basis of selecting the last 2 teams with top associates, it still gives undue advantage to the likes of Bangladesh due to their FTP program. They consistently get match practice both in ODI and Tests against top Test countries. Although their performance is a mismatch they get valuable round the clock exposure which will be used against top associates in qualification tournaments. Infact all the Bangladesh players are coached and developed from age 16 just by playing international games.This can be found from the fact that players are 22 years but have played 100s of ODI etc. There will be no level playing field. The best option at present is 12 team Wc so that Full members participate and best 2 associates make it. Otherwise qualifiers will be a trick to shut out teams like Ireland. 10 team WC is totally wrong.

  • on April 20, 2011, 11:05 GMT

    everyone shud play good for cricket then it can travel all around the world and hopefully becaome the most popular sport in the world from number 2. I think wat wambling said is wrong you can compare everyone deserves chance or else cricket will deminish

    btw Pakistan is the best

  • alltimegreat on April 20, 2011, 11:03 GMT

    I agree that Associate nations should get exposure to compete but just imagine the mismatches that we see when they face the stronger nations...less then 100 allout when batting first, chasing 300 plus when batting second...bad for viewership and for advertisement. They should be given a chance but not at the big stage like the world cups.

  • Green_and_Gold on April 20, 2011, 10:52 GMT

    More important than the number of teams is the importance of the games being played and this has to do with the format of the competition. Whilst the last WC was a good there were too many games played where the result didnt matter in grand scheme of things (essentially the games were used to find the order of who plays who in the knockout rather than applying real excitement of the fear of not making it to the knockout). For example if you have 10 teams and the top 4 play the finals (next 4 have automatic entry into next WC, last 2 have to re-qualify) then you need to win more games to assure your spot (in the finals or for next wc - everyone has something to play for). If you are on the border then you take an interest in other games where you need results to go your way. Makes for a more exciting WC. And of course this means that there is a qualification for spots allowing the best associate sides to qualify. Thoughts?

  • on April 20, 2011, 10:43 GMT

    I would suggest ICC's last five top ranked teams should play against 5 top ranked associates in a world cup qualifier, from there take 5 qualifiers....so it will be a world cup of deserving teams...

  • Willowarriers on April 20, 2011, 10:28 GMT

    This is stating the obvious. Who is going to disagree with that? The devil, as always, lies in the details of the system used to determine the "10 best teams" on merit. The associates, if not given the same opportunities as the other established sides, will not be able to make the cut.

    If they play once in a blue moon against established sides, they are bound to be rusty and too nervous for the big stage.

  • on April 20, 2011, 10:20 GMT

    I believe the 12 nation format is ideal, with top 8 or 10 ranked teams getting selected directly, and rest playing a qualifier round.

  • on April 20, 2011, 10:16 GMT

    There should be a Qualification round for 2 spots between the Associates along with ZIm and Bangla.

  • I.RAGHURAM on April 20, 2011, 10:14 GMT

    Allowing bottom rankers among Full members (read Zimbabwe/Bangladesh/West Indies) to play next world cup at the expnse of better & improving Associates (read Ireland/Netherlands) is rubbish to say the least.....Just because they are full members does not give ICC the rights to give them auto qualification.... Merit should only be the critiria. Top 6 ranked teams can get auto qualification for WC, while there can be a qualifying tournament for the last four spots between the top 4 Associates and bottom 4 full members...... ANY TAKERS ?????

  • Something_Witty on April 20, 2011, 10:11 GMT

    I agree that 10 teams is sufficient, however extra steps need to be taken to ensure that the smaller teams get the chance to prove they are in the top 10...

  • on April 20, 2011, 10:11 GMT

    Ireland and Netherlands Should Play They r Performing Well 12 team WC will B Better

  • wnwn on April 20, 2011, 10:10 GMT

    Then what is the point of the champions trophy? The champions trophy should be axed immediately if we are going to have a 10 team world cup. This would also help to lighten the cricketing calendar providing no other cricket is played in its place.

  • Jonah58 on April 20, 2011, 10:02 GMT

    "In keeping the ICC World Cup tight [which is what fans want]" No what fans want is a fair and open world cup that does not drag on for 6 or more weeks.

    You do not need to play it with only 10 teams to make it shorter, in fact playing with 16 will make the format shorter, it just means that Australia, India Eng etc dont get to play 9 matches each against all their buddies. Again! Don't we see enough of that already?

    And if you want the best 10 there, make them all have to qualify to prove they belong, dont just send them nice gilded invitations based on their membership of the Test cricket club.

  • wambling_future on April 20, 2011, 9:51 GMT

    I do agree as well that 10 teams is sufficient for CWC. This game ain't soccer. One cannot compare a game that last for 7 hrs to a game that last 90 mins. For that matter comparison of Cricket with any other sport is incorrect as it is a totally different game played with different logistics. But when we say about 10 teams, ICC has to ensure that Associates get full exposure and proper amount of matches to give them a realistic chance to be in top 10. If they play 10-12 ODIs a year we are depriving them of any chance of making the cut (in case ICC decide not to have qualifiers).

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • wambling_future on April 20, 2011, 9:51 GMT

    I do agree as well that 10 teams is sufficient for CWC. This game ain't soccer. One cannot compare a game that last for 7 hrs to a game that last 90 mins. For that matter comparison of Cricket with any other sport is incorrect as it is a totally different game played with different logistics. But when we say about 10 teams, ICC has to ensure that Associates get full exposure and proper amount of matches to give them a realistic chance to be in top 10. If they play 10-12 ODIs a year we are depriving them of any chance of making the cut (in case ICC decide not to have qualifiers).

  • Jonah58 on April 20, 2011, 10:02 GMT

    "In keeping the ICC World Cup tight [which is what fans want]" No what fans want is a fair and open world cup that does not drag on for 6 or more weeks.

    You do not need to play it with only 10 teams to make it shorter, in fact playing with 16 will make the format shorter, it just means that Australia, India Eng etc dont get to play 9 matches each against all their buddies. Again! Don't we see enough of that already?

    And if you want the best 10 there, make them all have to qualify to prove they belong, dont just send them nice gilded invitations based on their membership of the Test cricket club.

  • wnwn on April 20, 2011, 10:10 GMT

    Then what is the point of the champions trophy? The champions trophy should be axed immediately if we are going to have a 10 team world cup. This would also help to lighten the cricketing calendar providing no other cricket is played in its place.

  • on April 20, 2011, 10:11 GMT

    Ireland and Netherlands Should Play They r Performing Well 12 team WC will B Better

  • Something_Witty on April 20, 2011, 10:11 GMT

    I agree that 10 teams is sufficient, however extra steps need to be taken to ensure that the smaller teams get the chance to prove they are in the top 10...

  • I.RAGHURAM on April 20, 2011, 10:14 GMT

    Allowing bottom rankers among Full members (read Zimbabwe/Bangladesh/West Indies) to play next world cup at the expnse of better & improving Associates (read Ireland/Netherlands) is rubbish to say the least.....Just because they are full members does not give ICC the rights to give them auto qualification.... Merit should only be the critiria. Top 6 ranked teams can get auto qualification for WC, while there can be a qualifying tournament for the last four spots between the top 4 Associates and bottom 4 full members...... ANY TAKERS ?????

  • on April 20, 2011, 10:16 GMT

    There should be a Qualification round for 2 spots between the Associates along with ZIm and Bangla.

  • on April 20, 2011, 10:20 GMT

    I believe the 12 nation format is ideal, with top 8 or 10 ranked teams getting selected directly, and rest playing a qualifier round.

  • Willowarriers on April 20, 2011, 10:28 GMT

    This is stating the obvious. Who is going to disagree with that? The devil, as always, lies in the details of the system used to determine the "10 best teams" on merit. The associates, if not given the same opportunities as the other established sides, will not be able to make the cut.

    If they play once in a blue moon against established sides, they are bound to be rusty and too nervous for the big stage.

  • on April 20, 2011, 10:43 GMT

    I would suggest ICC's last five top ranked teams should play against 5 top ranked associates in a world cup qualifier, from there take 5 qualifiers....so it will be a world cup of deserving teams...