ICC news March 30, 2015

ICC chiefs voice support for Associates

ESPNcricinfo staff

Play 05:39
'World Cup must be just for the best teams'

ICC chairman N Srinivasan has said cricket's governing body was committed to spending $300 million on Associate countries.

"There will be an eight-year cycle during which this amount will be spent," Srinivasan said during the World Cup final in Melbourne on Sunday. "We want the Associate nations to develop a sound domestic structure which will help in having a good system.

"It took India eight years to develop a system where we are now having a strong domestic supply chain of players. The Ranji Trophy, Duleep Trophy and age-group is so structured, and that's why India is where it is today."

When interviewed by the broadcaster during the final, Srinivasan had defended the ten-team World Cup in 2019, reasoning that the Associates would have a "meaningful chance" of qualifying for the tournament. "I think it has been very successful because we have seen that on a given day the top Associate is able to hold its own against the Full Members … Ireland versus West Indies, for example.

"And even the next World Cup, you see, the top eight will qualify. Nine and ten will play qualifying along with six Associates, so the Associates will still have a meaningful chance to enter the World Cup in its next edition."

ICC chief executive David Richardson told BBC Test Match Special that Associate members shouldn't be put into tournaments such as the World Cup for "window dressing".

"We must ensure Ireland and Afghanistan get more resources and play more Full Members on a more regular basis," Richardson said. "The matter will be discussed again at future ICC meetings. As it stands we've entered into an agreement with broadcasters for a ten-team World Cup.

"I want it to be a shop window for the best teams in one-day cricket - whether that be eight teams, ten teams or 12 teams. The debate will still be had as to whether we have ten or increase it.

"It's more about giving opportunities to everyone and giving more money to the likes of Ireland and Afghanistan so they can compete against Full Members. We're putting money into these teams hoping we'll genuinely have 14 rather than eight teams capable of competing," Richardson said.

Srinivasan was pleased with the way the 2015 World Cup had unfolded, and sounded optimistic about the future of the 50-over game. "I think it has gone much better," he said. "It is the best attended World Cup that has been held, we have had many exciting games, and we have also seen how fans have flocked to the stadia which is a very refreshing sight, and it really emphasises the relevance of ODI cricket.

"I don't think World Cup has been stretched for long time. One example will be good enough to tell you that it was a success. India versus South Africa match at MCG had 87,000 people. That says it all … for a non-Australia match to be house full."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Dummy4 on March 31, 2015, 19:17 GMT

    Australia, India and England cricket boards are bamboozle everyone in the name competitive cricket actually, everybody watched these semifinal and final games (India Vs Australia and Australia Vs New Zealand) how boring these games were, I believe that if Nepal was there, of course Nepal put its effort better than India and New Zealand. If ICC is really represent as the global organization then ICC must be liberalize (to allow playing and giving financial support) with the associates countries at least for Division 1 and Division 2 countries. In addition, ICC should make such schedule, which is necessary for every test playing side play with at least one tournament with associates' countries within one year. If these big sharks(Australia, India and England) really want to globalize the game. Come on ICC, get out of the old conservative mentality, and learn something from FIFA how to globalize the game.

  • waqas on March 31, 2015, 13:08 GMT

    Why don't we have a world cup of 12 teams with 3 groups of 4. Three teams from each group qualify for the next round of 9 teams but play against the other 6 teams qualified from the the other two groups. The best 4 then qualify for semi's. The maximum matches a team will play is 11 to win. Totals number of matches will be 48. The total number of matches in the first round will be 18. Totals number of matches in the second round will be 27.There will far less meaningless matches and the low ranked teams will be eliminated after the first round.

  • Bahar on March 31, 2015, 0:04 GMT

    It is NOT support for the Associates. It is killing cricket in the world. Srinivasan and the big three are limiting cricket within few countries and not spreading it all over the world.

  • ESPN on March 30, 2015, 22:43 GMT

    At face value, these comments are worthy of applause, which was not the feeling I had when Srini's "interview with the broadcaster" got in the way of the final. But why must Richardson say that they must "ensure" more matches for the top associates? Why not simply insist upon it. Establish a framework within which IT WILL take place over the next 4 years. He makes it sound as if the ICC had no power, yet we all know, when it comes to the things they REALLY want, they have all the power they need. So, instead of using India-Someone bilateral series as a reward for votes rendered, coerce the big 3 (and next-big 3 etc) to play the top associates REGULARLY. Use the tv money already pocketed to bankroll it if necessary. Ensure All tours of the UK include, say, a 3-day and 50-over game v Ireland and Scotland. Likewise, all tours of sub-continent, to include UAE, Afghanistan. West Indies tours to include Canada. It isn't rocket science

  • Dummy4 on March 30, 2015, 19:15 GMT

    300M over 8 years is less than 1% of the total revenues! This is very little. I wonder as a percentage what life was before Big 3?

  • Farhan on March 30, 2015, 18:37 GMT

    Well that's like 37 million every year for ALL the associate nation. Thats a not a lot of money to be honest. If we allowed these team to play in World cup and create a strong cricket far base in their country they would easily earn that amount of money every year. Currently lot of them are financially struggling and lack of matches against test playing nations not gonna help. This N Srinivasan and ICC is ruining cricket man. They need to spread cricket all around the world, give these associates more opportunities and instead they are reducing the number of team

  • Jawid Ansar on March 30, 2015, 14:44 GMT

    its a great news for the devoloping of cricket and cricket fans around the world. hope to see cricket world cup rather than just a test playing nations or super teams cup. this would help to motivate cricket fans and have talents from around the world.

  • Dummy4 on March 30, 2015, 14:42 GMT

    I am fine with associates participating in world cup. If any team is making world cup a boring affair, then it is Australians. To make the world cup better, we can declare Australia as champions and make them sit outside and make the remaining teams compete for the second best champions. We may not have monopoly then. The world cup will be keenly contested.

  • Richard on March 30, 2015, 10:31 GMT

    Richardson: "I want [WC] to be a shop window for the best teams in one-day cricket" which is the Champions' Trophy purpose and NOT a World Cup then. The Associates have clearly and noticeably improved because of more exposure, tournaments between themselves AND taking part in WCs = a huge boost to the game in these and other associate countries.

    "we've entered into an agreement with broadcasters for a ten-team World Cup" just so we all know what the most important focus is then.

  • Dummy4 on March 30, 2015, 9:12 GMT

    The telecasting of the matches was good. Eyesore was the showing of too many ads between overs / when the batsman got out / when there was a hold up in the game. I remember Channel 9 telecasting Cricket matches where they restrict to one ad between overs / when the batsman got out / when there was a hold up in the game.

  • No featured comments at the moment.