World Cup October 13, 2010

Don't jump to conclusions about Associates ... for now

News that the ICC has approved a reduction in the number of teams at the 50-over World Cup and an enlarged World Twenty20 event has caused a predictable storm of protest from some quarters.
25

News that the ICC has approved a reduction in the number of teams at the 50-over World Cup and an enlarged World Twenty20 event has caused a predictable storm of protest from some quarters.

But the ICC has been vague about what a ten-country World Cup this means. It has not ruled out Associates taking part but as that would mean a qualifying event, it seems unlikely. But for now, we can only wait.

As some kind of sweetner, the World Twenty20 event will be expanded to 16 teams from the 2012 tournament. The success of smaller nations like Netherlands and Afghanistan in Twenty20 cricket prompted the expansion of the tournament, which will continue to have the women's event played alongside it.

What most people agree on is that the current World Cup is overly bloated. But will the ICC be forced by its more powerful members to ditch the concept that the tournament is genuinely open to all and just ensure the cosy club run by the Full Members becomes even cosier?

Martin Williamson is executive editor of ESPNcricinfo and managing editor of ESPN Digital Media in Europe, the Middle East and Africa

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Meety on November 1, 2010, 6:00 GMT

    @andrew murgatroyd - agreed except I would allow Test nations under the conditions they are U21s or players with no International experience. The format @ the Olympics would have to be T20. If T20 was admitted to the Olympics, I would do away with the T20 World Cup. The best format for deciding a World Champion is 50/50 ODIs (my opinion). Whilst I like the idea of a Test Championship - I think it is too impractical. I would rather see a Boxing style of Title defence. Supposing India currently had the "Championship Belt", they would be putting it up for grabs when they go to Sth Africa. Should Sth Africa win the series - they are the Test Champions. This means every time the Champs play they have a title to defend.

  • Meety on November 1, 2010, 5:34 GMT

    @andrew murgatroyd - agreed except I would allow Test nations under the conditions they are U21s or players with no International experience. The format @ the Olympics would have to be T20. If T20 was admitted to the Olympics, I would do away with the T20 World Cup. The best format for deciding a World Champion is 50/50 ODIs (my opinion). Whilst I like the idea of a Test Championship - I think it is too impractical. I would rather see a Boxing style of Title defence. Supposing India currently had the "Championship Belt", they would be putting it up for grabs when they go to Sth Africa. Should Sth Africa win the series - they are the Test Champions. This means every time the Champs play they have a title to defend.

  • Christian on October 31, 2010, 11:41 GMT

    Well I'm hoping they stay in, they cause the odd upset, they provide flair ( Bermuda took some great catches ), they have more young kids in their national teams that need the experience, but they seem to enjoy the "game" after all it is just that, and that is why we started playing as a kid "for fun"....there is some great talent we would never see, because there teams aren't strong enough.....Tikolo, Odoyo, Zuiderant, Ten Doeschte, Schiferli, Burger's. And if England returned the likes of Blain and Joyce & Morgan for events where their countries actually played...they'd be stronger again ( they want to play cricket professionally, they can't do it in Ireland, but let the play for Ireland when those chances come up ) Besides, considering how quickly they are improving, do you really think it too long before Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Indies and even New Zealand....start to get seriously challenged by these "associates"

  • Rich B on October 20, 2010, 14:48 GMT

    It's all about TV revenue. The rationale behind the 2003 & 2007 World Cup formats was to have big groups so the big nations could have as many games against each other as possible, hence more high profile matches to sell to broadcasters. The trouble is, it didn't work in 2007 because not all the expected 8 made it through to the Super 8s big group.

    The trouble is, it just doesn't work as a spectacle that people actually want to watch, because there are too many meaningless (dead rubber) and low intensity (ok if we lose this cos we only have to finish 4th to get through) matches.

    The excitement in the Netherlands / England / Pakistan group at the World t20 last year was nothing to do with the t20 format but the tournament format. After Ned beat Eng, Eng HAD to beat Pak, who then HAD to beat Ned. You could subsitute Netherlands with Australia or India and the level of excitement and intensity would have been just the same, which is why decent Associates do add value to tournaments.

  • karim on October 20, 2010, 7:06 GMT

    jashan your love for the associates won't last when one of them kick india out from a world cup.

  • andrew murgatroyd on October 17, 2010, 15:33 GMT

    All the more reason to get cricket played at the Olympics, minus the Test nations.

  • It's Not a World Cup Without Qualifiers on October 17, 2010, 12:14 GMT

    If the ICC "ditches the concept that the tournament is genuinely open", then it ceases to be a 'world cup'. The concept of the world cup - in any sport - is that any nation that plays that sport internationally has the opportunity to display their ability and win the cup. If that is not the case, then the 50-over 'world cup' is just another multi-team event, like the ICC Champions' Trophy. Further, it is not true that Associate level nations have not 'had an impact' on world cup tournaments. Who could forget Ireland eliminating Pakistan, a genuine contender, in 2007? Others might remember Kenya's shock wins over the West Indies in 1996, and Sri Lanka in 2003 - in both cases, the opponents' world cup campaigns lost momentum after having been frontrunners early on in the tournament. That is what sets the 50-Over World Cup aside from other multi-team tournaments; and that is what we would be missing without the Associates.

  • Jashan(India) on October 17, 2010, 5:49 GMT

    I hope there would be a 8 Nation qualification with top 6 Associate's and bottom 2 test teams playing and top 2 qualifying. It shud be a round robin with all teams playing other 7 and not broken into pool's of 2. That will give enough playing to all and the best 2 qualify. Under present ranking the 8 teams would look like Zim, BD, Ire, Neth, Afg, Scot, Can & Ken. If they play looks like it would be Zimbabwe along with Ireland or Afghanistan that will qualify. That way an interesting world cup, everybody gets to play a lot and the best qualify.

    This tournament should be held just before the CWC 2015 and that too in Aus, NZ so that everybody notices, wath & Follow this tournament. The good associate performances will be noted. Would love to see Bd loosing to other associates :)

  • Aussie Jim on October 16, 2010, 14:44 GMT

    Why don't the ICC look at making cricket more merit based. The top 6 nations play home and away for the test championship, the next six play and so on. Promotion and relegation are mandatory between division 1 and 2, and down through the Intercontinental Cup. It might stop any dodginess from the likes of Pakistan if they are faced with relegation.

    To make 20/20 significantly different to ODI cricket, why don't we look at splitting up the West Indies as well as England and Wales. Trinidad & tobago, Guyana, Jamaica, Barbados and Wales as well as the 9 test playing nations and top two associates (including any other West Indian nation who may qualify) would make beef up the numbers with "traditional" cricket playing nations and make for matches of quality and unpredictability. Any Associate who qualified would also surely earn it.

    Cricket has too many predictable results and too many surprises that turn out to be dodgy.

  • Peter Jeavons on October 15, 2010, 14:24 GMT

    The problem with the World Cup is, as the report rightly points out, that it's "overly bloated" - and that's down entirely to the format, not the number of teams. Scrap the Super Eights/Sixes/ whatever, go straight from the initial groups to a knockout. Four groups of four would be ideal - room for the best associate members (even if a more full members are created in the future) and then seven knockout matches to round the event off. Remember, the qualifying stages of the 2007 event weren't the dull bit, with upsets from Bangladesh and Ireland - and if anyone proves to be out of their depth and gets through the group on a fluke result, they've only got one more match to go.

  • Meety on November 1, 2010, 6:00 GMT

    @andrew murgatroyd - agreed except I would allow Test nations under the conditions they are U21s or players with no International experience. The format @ the Olympics would have to be T20. If T20 was admitted to the Olympics, I would do away with the T20 World Cup. The best format for deciding a World Champion is 50/50 ODIs (my opinion). Whilst I like the idea of a Test Championship - I think it is too impractical. I would rather see a Boxing style of Title defence. Supposing India currently had the "Championship Belt", they would be putting it up for grabs when they go to Sth Africa. Should Sth Africa win the series - they are the Test Champions. This means every time the Champs play they have a title to defend.

  • Meety on November 1, 2010, 5:34 GMT

    @andrew murgatroyd - agreed except I would allow Test nations under the conditions they are U21s or players with no International experience. The format @ the Olympics would have to be T20. If T20 was admitted to the Olympics, I would do away with the T20 World Cup. The best format for deciding a World Champion is 50/50 ODIs (my opinion). Whilst I like the idea of a Test Championship - I think it is too impractical. I would rather see a Boxing style of Title defence. Supposing India currently had the "Championship Belt", they would be putting it up for grabs when they go to Sth Africa. Should Sth Africa win the series - they are the Test Champions. This means every time the Champs play they have a title to defend.

  • Christian on October 31, 2010, 11:41 GMT

    Well I'm hoping they stay in, they cause the odd upset, they provide flair ( Bermuda took some great catches ), they have more young kids in their national teams that need the experience, but they seem to enjoy the "game" after all it is just that, and that is why we started playing as a kid "for fun"....there is some great talent we would never see, because there teams aren't strong enough.....Tikolo, Odoyo, Zuiderant, Ten Doeschte, Schiferli, Burger's. And if England returned the likes of Blain and Joyce & Morgan for events where their countries actually played...they'd be stronger again ( they want to play cricket professionally, they can't do it in Ireland, but let the play for Ireland when those chances come up ) Besides, considering how quickly they are improving, do you really think it too long before Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Indies and even New Zealand....start to get seriously challenged by these "associates"

  • Rich B on October 20, 2010, 14:48 GMT

    It's all about TV revenue. The rationale behind the 2003 & 2007 World Cup formats was to have big groups so the big nations could have as many games against each other as possible, hence more high profile matches to sell to broadcasters. The trouble is, it didn't work in 2007 because not all the expected 8 made it through to the Super 8s big group.

    The trouble is, it just doesn't work as a spectacle that people actually want to watch, because there are too many meaningless (dead rubber) and low intensity (ok if we lose this cos we only have to finish 4th to get through) matches.

    The excitement in the Netherlands / England / Pakistan group at the World t20 last year was nothing to do with the t20 format but the tournament format. After Ned beat Eng, Eng HAD to beat Pak, who then HAD to beat Ned. You could subsitute Netherlands with Australia or India and the level of excitement and intensity would have been just the same, which is why decent Associates do add value to tournaments.

  • karim on October 20, 2010, 7:06 GMT

    jashan your love for the associates won't last when one of them kick india out from a world cup.

  • andrew murgatroyd on October 17, 2010, 15:33 GMT

    All the more reason to get cricket played at the Olympics, minus the Test nations.

  • It's Not a World Cup Without Qualifiers on October 17, 2010, 12:14 GMT

    If the ICC "ditches the concept that the tournament is genuinely open", then it ceases to be a 'world cup'. The concept of the world cup - in any sport - is that any nation that plays that sport internationally has the opportunity to display their ability and win the cup. If that is not the case, then the 50-over 'world cup' is just another multi-team event, like the ICC Champions' Trophy. Further, it is not true that Associate level nations have not 'had an impact' on world cup tournaments. Who could forget Ireland eliminating Pakistan, a genuine contender, in 2007? Others might remember Kenya's shock wins over the West Indies in 1996, and Sri Lanka in 2003 - in both cases, the opponents' world cup campaigns lost momentum after having been frontrunners early on in the tournament. That is what sets the 50-Over World Cup aside from other multi-team tournaments; and that is what we would be missing without the Associates.

  • Jashan(India) on October 17, 2010, 5:49 GMT

    I hope there would be a 8 Nation qualification with top 6 Associate's and bottom 2 test teams playing and top 2 qualifying. It shud be a round robin with all teams playing other 7 and not broken into pool's of 2. That will give enough playing to all and the best 2 qualify. Under present ranking the 8 teams would look like Zim, BD, Ire, Neth, Afg, Scot, Can & Ken. If they play looks like it would be Zimbabwe along with Ireland or Afghanistan that will qualify. That way an interesting world cup, everybody gets to play a lot and the best qualify.

    This tournament should be held just before the CWC 2015 and that too in Aus, NZ so that everybody notices, wath & Follow this tournament. The good associate performances will be noted. Would love to see Bd loosing to other associates :)

  • Aussie Jim on October 16, 2010, 14:44 GMT

    Why don't the ICC look at making cricket more merit based. The top 6 nations play home and away for the test championship, the next six play and so on. Promotion and relegation are mandatory between division 1 and 2, and down through the Intercontinental Cup. It might stop any dodginess from the likes of Pakistan if they are faced with relegation.

    To make 20/20 significantly different to ODI cricket, why don't we look at splitting up the West Indies as well as England and Wales. Trinidad & tobago, Guyana, Jamaica, Barbados and Wales as well as the 9 test playing nations and top two associates (including any other West Indian nation who may qualify) would make beef up the numbers with "traditional" cricket playing nations and make for matches of quality and unpredictability. Any Associate who qualified would also surely earn it.

    Cricket has too many predictable results and too many surprises that turn out to be dodgy.

  • Peter Jeavons on October 15, 2010, 14:24 GMT

    The problem with the World Cup is, as the report rightly points out, that it's "overly bloated" - and that's down entirely to the format, not the number of teams. Scrap the Super Eights/Sixes/ whatever, go straight from the initial groups to a knockout. Four groups of four would be ideal - room for the best associate members (even if a more full members are created in the future) and then seven knockout matches to round the event off. Remember, the qualifying stages of the 2007 event weren't the dull bit, with upsets from Bangladesh and Ireland - and if anyone proves to be out of their depth and gets through the group on a fluke result, they've only got one more match to go.

  • Cricket lover on October 15, 2010, 5:31 GMT

    Instead of increasing the number of teams playing cricket,ICC is demotivating new upcoming nations like ireland and afghanisthan,this will breach even a bigger gap between the full members and the associates,Even in the football world cup there are 32 teams and all are not competative,therefore to spread the global interest of the game ICC should think about other alternatives.

  • Arno on October 14, 2010, 21:28 GMT

    But as Stevie points out, the 2015 world cup format is for 48 matches even without the minnows. The 2011 event has 49 matches scheduled. One match difference! Why isn't this fact being reported more openly by cricinfo? It doesn't read to me that the ICC want a shorter world cup. Instead they want more matches involving India and the other full members. (India in particular)And also, what's this I read about associates and affiliates not having a right to a single vote at ICC board meetings. That's a joke right?

  • Alex on October 14, 2010, 16:06 GMT

    @ Michael Perera: "but neither of those teams have made significant steps towards becoming legitimately competitive one-day sides"

    Really? Ireland in the last 12 or so months have nearly beaten England, the West Indies and Australia and have defeated Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. So much for not being competitive eh. Maybe some more matches against full members would improve the picture, but your comment, particularly in regards to Ireland is way wide of the mark. Why not include Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in that bracket?

    Why should Ireland take a step back? They are competitive in T20 cricket, they bowled well against the West Indies and almost beat England this year. Last year they defeated Bangladesh and almost defeated Sri Lanka - a team with Mendis and Murali in it.

    Maybe you should pay closer attention to Associate cricket. This move is NOT the right way to develop it; instead it makes the cosy club cosier.

  • Edd Oliver on October 14, 2010, 10:25 GMT

    I must say that the lack of any dissenting voices at Cricinfo about this is disappointing. I can remember the ICC being slammed for much less in the past. Yes the current World Cup is bloated but reducing it by all of 1 match shows the true rationale behind the ICC's decision-as many matches for India as possible to maximise TV ratings, and to deny 'upstarts' like Ireland and Afghanistan the very realistic opportunity of embarassing full members Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and quite possibly Pakistan and the West Indies too.

    The least they could have done is see how the Associates fare at the 2011 World Cup before making such a crass and short-sighted decision.

  • Ujjwal Acharya on October 14, 2010, 9:08 GMT

    A sad day for cricket - and it's not a good move unless ICC ensures there is a football-like world cup qualifying structure that virtually ensures any team can qualify or that matter miss out.

    The ICC board wants to confine cricket within a closed-group, then it should openly accept that and maybe open up a way for remaining countries to form some other kind of world cricket governing body and run their own competitions. A World Cricket League-like move for those countries missing out is something that would challenge the ICC - on its authority over cricket but not on money it generates!

    Sad! Sad! Black Day for Associate Cricket!

  • Sayed Anwar on October 14, 2010, 8:25 GMT

    Very bad dicision has tanken by the ICC to reduce number of ODI team in world cup.But if there is a one day league than why one day world cup ? I think no need world cup for one day cricket. It is better to play T/20 world cup in 2015 with 16 countries and one day league with 10 test playing nation along with 6 assosiate nation. Also test league championship is very goods idea. This way world cup, one day & test cricket will be more popular in the world. To get the result of one day league ICC will inclode more country for test status. Hope ICC will think this proposal seriously.

  • James in NZ on October 13, 2010, 23:19 GMT

    Cutting the number of teams will make for a nice cosy club and the withering of cricket in the associates. The ICC seems hell-bent on removing the possibility of any of them ever reaching the heights, for some inexplicable reason. At the risk of opening a big can of worms, perhaps the fact that an expansion of full members would almost certainly start with Ireland and the Netherlands (and thereby dilute subcontinental influence) is a factor?

    The competition only seems bloated because of the ridiculous way it's been organised over the years. Take a leaf out of Rugby Sevens' book - 16 teams in four groups of four. Top two from each group go to quarter finals, semi finals, and final. Bottom four go on to the quarter finals of their own plate competition. No messy super stages to extend the competition, and good close competition in the second stage of the contest for all 16 involved teams.

  • Gizza on October 13, 2010, 22:24 GMT

    I think at the moment 12 teams is right balance. Can't think of the best format off the top of my head though. With 14 or 16 you will be including minnows who have a 0% chance of causing a upset.

  • Layek on October 13, 2010, 21:55 GMT

    It completely wrong decision taken by ICC. It will harm the progress of development of cricket in associate country. If you want globalization of Cricket, it cannot be by the ten teams. Twenty 20 is a popular format in modern cricket. However, its standard is not like ODI match, just as ODI is not like Test cricket. To compete with other team event like football we need more and more countries participation in test cricket. To encourage associate team and to develop their cricket at least 12 teams should be included in World Cup Cricket. If only two teams come from associate country by playing qualification tournament then it must make them stronger in future. Please ICC Save The cricket of associate countries.

  • Jarrod Potter on October 13, 2010, 21:31 GMT

    Why limit it to 10? The problem is the size of the tournament, including the ridiculous Super 8s which is done to increase profit rather than prove anything. Look at the Soccer World Cup for a working model and replicate that on a smaller scale. This also makes it painfully clear that the ICC has no interest in giving Ireland/Netherlands/Afghanistan/etc Test Match Status any time soon, as they're already outside of the working 10.

    I can't see how less teams playing the linking format, and more playing the slap-dash kind, will lead to better results for Test cricket. I'd love to see Ireland v England Test matches, or get someone out to Australia to revive the July Top End Test series, but it just won't happen.

    Twitter: @JarrodPotter @trueallrounder

  • Stevie Lou Nicholls on October 13, 2010, 20:06 GMT

    So how is this going to be a shorter tournament? Sorry, its 48 matches instead of 49, as if that will really make a difference!

    Ireland shared a series with Bangladesh, we lost narrowly to Zimbabwe 2-1 (both losses narrow ones), and scared the pants out of the Aussies for a while too this summer. Oh, and England beat us by 2 runs last year, thanks to the fielding of an Irishman! Not sure what more we can do given the respective funding we get compared to the others!

  • pankaj singh on October 13, 2010, 18:38 GMT

    it's kind of injustice with the associates, i mean the icc want to make the ODI world cup more viewer friendly and short but this should not b done at the cost of the associates not at all taking part in the world cup, it's probably the only time the minor countries gets to see the big guns and get to rub shoulders with them, but icc does'nt want this to happen, infact in away they themshelves are depopularising the ODI version of cricket... hope they reconsider there dicision.

  • Michael Perera on October 13, 2010, 18:30 GMT

    I think it's the right move. It's much harder for Associates to make an impact in 50-over cricket - sure, we all remember Kenya beating the West Indies and Sri Lanka, and Ireland beating Pakistan, but neither of those teams have made significant steps towards becoming legitimately competitive one-day sides. I am 200% for expanding and developing the game into new areas, and I think Twenty20 is the best (and possibly, the only) way to do that. Open the Twenty20 doors to all, and streamline the 50-over World Cup. Once Associates prove that they can consistently compete in Twenty20, then you can seriously think about them batting out 50 overs, or chasing down big targets. Until then, though, they'll mostly be cannon fodder.

  • juro on October 13, 2010, 17:23 GMT

    What is the point of the ICC announcing things such as the 10 team competition without announcing the qualification process (or lack of) at the same time???

  • Jon on October 13, 2010, 14:26 GMT

    If the true goal is to shorten the World Cup, the ICC wouldn't introduce qualifying for Full Members - and so this must be a move to restrict Associate participation. Why? What sense does that make? Why would the ICC want to take away what right now is virtually the only thing Associates have to play for (apart from the shiny, more-meaningless T20 event)?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Jon on October 13, 2010, 14:26 GMT

    If the true goal is to shorten the World Cup, the ICC wouldn't introduce qualifying for Full Members - and so this must be a move to restrict Associate participation. Why? What sense does that make? Why would the ICC want to take away what right now is virtually the only thing Associates have to play for (apart from the shiny, more-meaningless T20 event)?

  • juro on October 13, 2010, 17:23 GMT

    What is the point of the ICC announcing things such as the 10 team competition without announcing the qualification process (or lack of) at the same time???

  • Michael Perera on October 13, 2010, 18:30 GMT

    I think it's the right move. It's much harder for Associates to make an impact in 50-over cricket - sure, we all remember Kenya beating the West Indies and Sri Lanka, and Ireland beating Pakistan, but neither of those teams have made significant steps towards becoming legitimately competitive one-day sides. I am 200% for expanding and developing the game into new areas, and I think Twenty20 is the best (and possibly, the only) way to do that. Open the Twenty20 doors to all, and streamline the 50-over World Cup. Once Associates prove that they can consistently compete in Twenty20, then you can seriously think about them batting out 50 overs, or chasing down big targets. Until then, though, they'll mostly be cannon fodder.

  • pankaj singh on October 13, 2010, 18:38 GMT

    it's kind of injustice with the associates, i mean the icc want to make the ODI world cup more viewer friendly and short but this should not b done at the cost of the associates not at all taking part in the world cup, it's probably the only time the minor countries gets to see the big guns and get to rub shoulders with them, but icc does'nt want this to happen, infact in away they themshelves are depopularising the ODI version of cricket... hope they reconsider there dicision.

  • Stevie Lou Nicholls on October 13, 2010, 20:06 GMT

    So how is this going to be a shorter tournament? Sorry, its 48 matches instead of 49, as if that will really make a difference!

    Ireland shared a series with Bangladesh, we lost narrowly to Zimbabwe 2-1 (both losses narrow ones), and scared the pants out of the Aussies for a while too this summer. Oh, and England beat us by 2 runs last year, thanks to the fielding of an Irishman! Not sure what more we can do given the respective funding we get compared to the others!

  • Jarrod Potter on October 13, 2010, 21:31 GMT

    Why limit it to 10? The problem is the size of the tournament, including the ridiculous Super 8s which is done to increase profit rather than prove anything. Look at the Soccer World Cup for a working model and replicate that on a smaller scale. This also makes it painfully clear that the ICC has no interest in giving Ireland/Netherlands/Afghanistan/etc Test Match Status any time soon, as they're already outside of the working 10.

    I can't see how less teams playing the linking format, and more playing the slap-dash kind, will lead to better results for Test cricket. I'd love to see Ireland v England Test matches, or get someone out to Australia to revive the July Top End Test series, but it just won't happen.

    Twitter: @JarrodPotter @trueallrounder

  • Layek on October 13, 2010, 21:55 GMT

    It completely wrong decision taken by ICC. It will harm the progress of development of cricket in associate country. If you want globalization of Cricket, it cannot be by the ten teams. Twenty 20 is a popular format in modern cricket. However, its standard is not like ODI match, just as ODI is not like Test cricket. To compete with other team event like football we need more and more countries participation in test cricket. To encourage associate team and to develop their cricket at least 12 teams should be included in World Cup Cricket. If only two teams come from associate country by playing qualification tournament then it must make them stronger in future. Please ICC Save The cricket of associate countries.

  • Gizza on October 13, 2010, 22:24 GMT

    I think at the moment 12 teams is right balance. Can't think of the best format off the top of my head though. With 14 or 16 you will be including minnows who have a 0% chance of causing a upset.

  • James in NZ on October 13, 2010, 23:19 GMT

    Cutting the number of teams will make for a nice cosy club and the withering of cricket in the associates. The ICC seems hell-bent on removing the possibility of any of them ever reaching the heights, for some inexplicable reason. At the risk of opening a big can of worms, perhaps the fact that an expansion of full members would almost certainly start with Ireland and the Netherlands (and thereby dilute subcontinental influence) is a factor?

    The competition only seems bloated because of the ridiculous way it's been organised over the years. Take a leaf out of Rugby Sevens' book - 16 teams in four groups of four. Top two from each group go to quarter finals, semi finals, and final. Bottom four go on to the quarter finals of their own plate competition. No messy super stages to extend the competition, and good close competition in the second stage of the contest for all 16 involved teams.

  • Sayed Anwar on October 14, 2010, 8:25 GMT

    Very bad dicision has tanken by the ICC to reduce number of ODI team in world cup.But if there is a one day league than why one day world cup ? I think no need world cup for one day cricket. It is better to play T/20 world cup in 2015 with 16 countries and one day league with 10 test playing nation along with 6 assosiate nation. Also test league championship is very goods idea. This way world cup, one day & test cricket will be more popular in the world. To get the result of one day league ICC will inclode more country for test status. Hope ICC will think this proposal seriously.