New Zealand news April 24, 2011

Vaughan irked by 2015 World Cup uncertainty

ESPNcricinfo staff
87

Justin Vaughan, the New Zealand Cricket chief executive, has defended the 2015 World Cup's likely ten-team format while urging the ICC to reach a swift decision on the terms by which sides will qualify.

Global outcry over the initial exclusion of Associate nations, particularly Ireland, in favour of the game's ten Full Member countries prompted a re-think by the ICC executive board. The ICC president, Sharad Pawar, announced a renewed discussion of the qualification process at the governing body's annual meeting, in Hong Kong in June.

While sympathetic about Ireland's difficulties, Vaughan was unhappy to have to place tournament planning on hold. "Look, I am sympathetic to Ireland, in particular, and the way they have performed at world events," Vaughan told the Sunday Star-Times. "I think the ideal ten-team competition would be one determined solely on merit but I understand there are challenges around that as well."

Jack Clarke, the Cricket Australia chairman, has previously outlined the fact that a ten-team round robin format offered far greater certainty to the public about where and how much their teams will be playing for the majority of the tournament, a sentiment Vaughan agreed with.

"A ten-team competition works far better from a host perspective than a 12-team competition does," Vaughan said. "A 12-team competition would necessitate the introduction of a Super Sixes stage in between two pools of six and an elimination round. The problem with the Super Six portion of a competition is that there's no certainty around who is playing whom and where.

"To sell tickets and organise international tour groups or international visitors becomes hugely problematic when you've got a section of the tournament where you don't know who is playing where."

Vaughan also highlighted the fact that the 2015 World Cup is yet to appoint a tournament chief executive.

"From an event host perspective, it's very unhelpful to have uncertainty in regards to what the format of the competition is going to look like," he said. "We are in the process of looking for a CEO but how do you set up an organisation if you don't even know how many teams are going to participate in it?

"Obviously it was a sensitive issue and I wasn't involved in the discussions because that was part of the executive board, which only involves the chairmen, but I know there was some prolonged discussion and an eventual, I believe, unanimous agreement to move to a ten-team competition.

"As the hosts of that competition, it is unhelpful to have renewed uncertainty over the format."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Jonah58 on April 27, 2011, 21:39 GMT

    Enigma, 90% of the posts on this forum say you are wrong, and the other 10% are yours. The ICC may be passing money out through the High Performance program but to earn it you have to be high performing. The issue is that the high performers in Irl, Afghanistan and Neds and others are getting just a bit too close to your cozy club so the terms of entry have to change to protect those that don't deserve their status! You can't have it both ways if as you say Cricket is dieing in its traditional nations then now is the time to encourage more nations to take part not shut the door on new markets. If its not dieing then why are the turkeys in the club not voting for christmas? And to accuse the associates of being freeloaders is both crass and untrue, at least they are spending their money developing the game not paying 100's of so called 'officials' in their boards. Thats freeloading! Now just who do you support again?

  • enigma77543 on April 27, 2011, 19:13 GMT

    @Jonah58, ICC have invested lots of money & effort over decades to grow the sport & you're saying they haven't done enough? Are you kidding me? The only reason your little Irl team is where it is today because of ICC's funding (& county cricket) & now all of a sudden ICC is villain & has done nothing to grow the sport? If cricket had the "elitist" attitude that you & others here are claiming, none of the Associates would've grown & there'd've been no ICC funding or all the "minnow-tourneys" that take place. Now that top Asso can smell money, they want to taste it badly yet blame ICC & "cricketing nations" for their "greed" but forget that they've been sponging off them for so long. And as I've said before, numebrs don't always matter especially when they make arguments based on emotions rather than objectivity,further,most of these non-Irl supporters of Irl wouldn't even be watching Irl games anyway & I didn't mean to denigrate Irl people but calling Irl team "juggernaut" IS laughable

  • enigma77543 on April 27, 2011, 18:50 GMT

    @diddles, I'm NOT saying cricket can't grow AT ALL in other countries but if we wish to preserve ODIs or more so, Tests, then its length is always going to be a road-block preventing it from becoming a top sport in a lot countries like Football is, not to mention its complicated nature is another issue by itself. Why do you think cricket didn't elicit an interest in neighbours of "cricketing countries" despite significant investments, I mean it should've picked up without any effort if it was so "catchy" while football spread like wildfire without much effort due to its short duration which means people don't've to spend almost half their day on it (like cricket) & very simple to understand. I'll concede that cricket administrators aren't all saints but that's true everywhere but I can assure that they've tried to spread it & thus make it more profitable like football but its just not a very "catchy" sport & you'll agree if you'd put your love for cricket aside & look objectively.

  • enigma77543 on April 27, 2011, 18:34 GMT

    @diddles, what you're terming "negative view" is actually a "realistic & rational" view & I'm sure that if you do thorough research on cricket's financial & other systems, you'd largely agree with it. Getting a SMALL % of population from "non-cricketing nations", especially cricketing-expats, interested in the sport can hardly be termed as "growth"; from administrative POV, it's when a nation becomes financially viable enough to carry its financial burdens, that'd be called growth; right now, all the upstarts are sponging off ICC's money that comes thru "cricketing nations", including "top Asso." like Irl,ND,etc & obviously, "cricketing nations" aren't excited about this freeloading for their own reasons. For eg. for CA to prevent AFL from absorbing cricket & to prevent players from running after IPL, CA must raise its players' salaries, for which they must maximise their profits & obviously, diluting their profits by having more uncompetitive teams & matches won't help.

  • enigma77543 on April 27, 2011, 17:52 GMT

    @Notredam, can you please start reading my posts? You're asking the same things over & over, I'm not going to reply again. Anyways,firstly, as I've already said, cricket IS declining in "cricketing countries" & that's precisely why ICC cut teams & thus, wasting resources on making the top teams qualify is imprudent & I'm not saying give this or that team automatic entry, just give top 8 an entry, whoever they may be & put the bottom 2 in qualifiers against top 2 Associates. As I've said before, the costs of organising extra matches is comparatively larger in cricket than in Football & some other sports & that's why such comparisons are futile. As for Nether, Scot,etc, as I've said before, they can't even win against English DOMESTIC sides in English DOMESTIC 1-day comp & these are supposed to be "top Associates" then what's the point of giving them more ODIs? Why would ICC & boards of "cricketing nations" want to suffer losses by playing these teams? Nobody likes freeloaders.

  • Jonah58 on April 27, 2011, 15:31 GMT

    Enigma, the ICC and its predecessors have been consolodating in 'Cricketing Nations' for over 100 years now, its time to let a few more nations in I would have thought. It is precisely that position from the ICC and people like yourself that is preventing cricket becoming a more global game, just how many more Ashes and India V SL series can the paying public take? T20's are cricket for non cricket fans a bit of fun every now and then but thats it and no serious cricketer would volunteer T20 as a vehicle to develop cricketing skills, oh the odd bean counter and admistrator might but not a cricketer! And you may denigrate some of us for being Irish and proud of it, but at least we and the Asian fans are proud to profess our allegiences, are you perhaps Ausi or English? 91%+ of folks say no to the WorldLESS cup so maybe there is a mood amongst cricket fans to change the old elite dominance?

  • Notredam on April 27, 2011, 12:07 GMT

    Even golf takes full day..why u want to say cricket is decling..preserve test for elite..even bangdesh..zimmies shud have that scrapped..

    So..odi can be availabe to 16 teams...and 12 team world cup..

    expand..20 world cup to 16 then to 20..so on..wats the harm in that..

  • Notredam on April 27, 2011, 12:05 GMT

    Ireland and dutch playing ODI will give them extra inputus for attaining the test status.. Even teams in past like Naimbia,,Usa,Kenya...Scotland have declined with the uni directional approach of ICC.. I fail to understanaad that is it cricket become sport for single minded invidividuals interests only.. or are we serius in giving in associates opportunities...

    FIFA giving so many options for CHina.. India,,,,Rugby wants india to be in their scheme of things...How we will attain all this with single minded approach of individuals of Enigma.

    All we say is give promising teams like irish 10-15 ODI against full members...but ICC is not willing to do so...or invite them for some tri series of some short duration say 10 days...This can be done..isn't it..

    So does that stop countries like New zealand from participating in Davis cup...or Pakistan in Davis cup....

  • diddles on April 27, 2011, 9:38 GMT

    Enigma, regards Cricket Australia's past backward approach to cricket development, it took them 27 years to play their second test match against NZ in 1973. No wonder cricket in the past has to struggled to grow. As to cricket's current problems, many of them are administrative related. For example, in todays very competitive Australian sports environment, may of our current administrators are not up to the mark. Note former coach Buchanan's and Gideon Haigh's comments on this subject. Look at the current mess with the Big Bash. Plus our selectors are a joke and we have a second rate national coach. Informed Aussie cricketer supporters know it too well. Twenty 20 has an important role in developing the game's global reach, but it should not be the only version open to non-test countries. Many countries, like Ireland,Netherlands and Afghanistan can play ODI very competently. Last weekend, Netherlands beat Yorkshire and Derbyshire in ODI's. As to administration, Ireland's is first class.

  • Notredam on April 27, 2011, 9:00 GMT

    @enigma77543.. Why then provide automatic qualification for 8 teams..Are west indies that gud to deserve a place..Even getting beaten consistenlty at home..Also kiwis..what they have done in past to suggest them to give them automatic entry. Only 4 teams have played consistently ove rthe last decade..Slanka,India,Aus,Saf This i am talking bout ODI and not tests... So let 4 gurantee spot..Just like in hockey world cup..we have best 1 from each continent. winning asia cup or european champs..automatic entry..So get that process in place..Why u so hellbent on Bangl;adesh facing weaker team in face of IRish...that i wud have fully supported say 5 years back..but after numerous millions invested and lot many tours done for bangladesh..team..will u not expect them to increase their standard by say 10%..that is the difference we can see between irish and bangla of now..So..u kep on bragging bangla are better..then give irish also regular tours...to full countries..for 5 years.and See.

  • Jonah58 on April 27, 2011, 21:39 GMT

    Enigma, 90% of the posts on this forum say you are wrong, and the other 10% are yours. The ICC may be passing money out through the High Performance program but to earn it you have to be high performing. The issue is that the high performers in Irl, Afghanistan and Neds and others are getting just a bit too close to your cozy club so the terms of entry have to change to protect those that don't deserve their status! You can't have it both ways if as you say Cricket is dieing in its traditional nations then now is the time to encourage more nations to take part not shut the door on new markets. If its not dieing then why are the turkeys in the club not voting for christmas? And to accuse the associates of being freeloaders is both crass and untrue, at least they are spending their money developing the game not paying 100's of so called 'officials' in their boards. Thats freeloading! Now just who do you support again?

  • enigma77543 on April 27, 2011, 19:13 GMT

    @Jonah58, ICC have invested lots of money & effort over decades to grow the sport & you're saying they haven't done enough? Are you kidding me? The only reason your little Irl team is where it is today because of ICC's funding (& county cricket) & now all of a sudden ICC is villain & has done nothing to grow the sport? If cricket had the "elitist" attitude that you & others here are claiming, none of the Associates would've grown & there'd've been no ICC funding or all the "minnow-tourneys" that take place. Now that top Asso can smell money, they want to taste it badly yet blame ICC & "cricketing nations" for their "greed" but forget that they've been sponging off them for so long. And as I've said before, numebrs don't always matter especially when they make arguments based on emotions rather than objectivity,further,most of these non-Irl supporters of Irl wouldn't even be watching Irl games anyway & I didn't mean to denigrate Irl people but calling Irl team "juggernaut" IS laughable

  • enigma77543 on April 27, 2011, 18:50 GMT

    @diddles, I'm NOT saying cricket can't grow AT ALL in other countries but if we wish to preserve ODIs or more so, Tests, then its length is always going to be a road-block preventing it from becoming a top sport in a lot countries like Football is, not to mention its complicated nature is another issue by itself. Why do you think cricket didn't elicit an interest in neighbours of "cricketing countries" despite significant investments, I mean it should've picked up without any effort if it was so "catchy" while football spread like wildfire without much effort due to its short duration which means people don't've to spend almost half their day on it (like cricket) & very simple to understand. I'll concede that cricket administrators aren't all saints but that's true everywhere but I can assure that they've tried to spread it & thus make it more profitable like football but its just not a very "catchy" sport & you'll agree if you'd put your love for cricket aside & look objectively.

  • enigma77543 on April 27, 2011, 18:34 GMT

    @diddles, what you're terming "negative view" is actually a "realistic & rational" view & I'm sure that if you do thorough research on cricket's financial & other systems, you'd largely agree with it. Getting a SMALL % of population from "non-cricketing nations", especially cricketing-expats, interested in the sport can hardly be termed as "growth"; from administrative POV, it's when a nation becomes financially viable enough to carry its financial burdens, that'd be called growth; right now, all the upstarts are sponging off ICC's money that comes thru "cricketing nations", including "top Asso." like Irl,ND,etc & obviously, "cricketing nations" aren't excited about this freeloading for their own reasons. For eg. for CA to prevent AFL from absorbing cricket & to prevent players from running after IPL, CA must raise its players' salaries, for which they must maximise their profits & obviously, diluting their profits by having more uncompetitive teams & matches won't help.

  • enigma77543 on April 27, 2011, 17:52 GMT

    @Notredam, can you please start reading my posts? You're asking the same things over & over, I'm not going to reply again. Anyways,firstly, as I've already said, cricket IS declining in "cricketing countries" & that's precisely why ICC cut teams & thus, wasting resources on making the top teams qualify is imprudent & I'm not saying give this or that team automatic entry, just give top 8 an entry, whoever they may be & put the bottom 2 in qualifiers against top 2 Associates. As I've said before, the costs of organising extra matches is comparatively larger in cricket than in Football & some other sports & that's why such comparisons are futile. As for Nether, Scot,etc, as I've said before, they can't even win against English DOMESTIC sides in English DOMESTIC 1-day comp & these are supposed to be "top Associates" then what's the point of giving them more ODIs? Why would ICC & boards of "cricketing nations" want to suffer losses by playing these teams? Nobody likes freeloaders.

  • Jonah58 on April 27, 2011, 15:31 GMT

    Enigma, the ICC and its predecessors have been consolodating in 'Cricketing Nations' for over 100 years now, its time to let a few more nations in I would have thought. It is precisely that position from the ICC and people like yourself that is preventing cricket becoming a more global game, just how many more Ashes and India V SL series can the paying public take? T20's are cricket for non cricket fans a bit of fun every now and then but thats it and no serious cricketer would volunteer T20 as a vehicle to develop cricketing skills, oh the odd bean counter and admistrator might but not a cricketer! And you may denigrate some of us for being Irish and proud of it, but at least we and the Asian fans are proud to profess our allegiences, are you perhaps Ausi or English? 91%+ of folks say no to the WorldLESS cup so maybe there is a mood amongst cricket fans to change the old elite dominance?

  • Notredam on April 27, 2011, 12:07 GMT

    Even golf takes full day..why u want to say cricket is decling..preserve test for elite..even bangdesh..zimmies shud have that scrapped..

    So..odi can be availabe to 16 teams...and 12 team world cup..

    expand..20 world cup to 16 then to 20..so on..wats the harm in that..

  • Notredam on April 27, 2011, 12:05 GMT

    Ireland and dutch playing ODI will give them extra inputus for attaining the test status.. Even teams in past like Naimbia,,Usa,Kenya...Scotland have declined with the uni directional approach of ICC.. I fail to understanaad that is it cricket become sport for single minded invidividuals interests only.. or are we serius in giving in associates opportunities...

    FIFA giving so many options for CHina.. India,,,,Rugby wants india to be in their scheme of things...How we will attain all this with single minded approach of individuals of Enigma.

    All we say is give promising teams like irish 10-15 ODI against full members...but ICC is not willing to do so...or invite them for some tri series of some short duration say 10 days...This can be done..isn't it..

    So does that stop countries like New zealand from participating in Davis cup...or Pakistan in Davis cup....

  • diddles on April 27, 2011, 9:38 GMT

    Enigma, regards Cricket Australia's past backward approach to cricket development, it took them 27 years to play their second test match against NZ in 1973. No wonder cricket in the past has to struggled to grow. As to cricket's current problems, many of them are administrative related. For example, in todays very competitive Australian sports environment, may of our current administrators are not up to the mark. Note former coach Buchanan's and Gideon Haigh's comments on this subject. Look at the current mess with the Big Bash. Plus our selectors are a joke and we have a second rate national coach. Informed Aussie cricketer supporters know it too well. Twenty 20 has an important role in developing the game's global reach, but it should not be the only version open to non-test countries. Many countries, like Ireland,Netherlands and Afghanistan can play ODI very competently. Last weekend, Netherlands beat Yorkshire and Derbyshire in ODI's. As to administration, Ireland's is first class.

  • Notredam on April 27, 2011, 9:00 GMT

    @enigma77543.. Why then provide automatic qualification for 8 teams..Are west indies that gud to deserve a place..Even getting beaten consistenlty at home..Also kiwis..what they have done in past to suggest them to give them automatic entry. Only 4 teams have played consistently ove rthe last decade..Slanka,India,Aus,Saf This i am talking bout ODI and not tests... So let 4 gurantee spot..Just like in hockey world cup..we have best 1 from each continent. winning asia cup or european champs..automatic entry..So get that process in place..Why u so hellbent on Bangl;adesh facing weaker team in face of IRish...that i wud have fully supported say 5 years back..but after numerous millions invested and lot many tours done for bangladesh..team..will u not expect them to increase their standard by say 10%..that is the difference we can see between irish and bangla of now..So..u kep on bragging bangla are better..then give irish also regular tours...to full countries..for 5 years.and See.

  • Notredam on April 27, 2011, 9:00 GMT

    @enigma77543.. crciket is declining..buddy first recognise and identify urself..are u someone from ICC internally who wants to show managerial constraints and financial problems for not including 12 team format...if that is the case then we wont argue..but the fact of the matter is that even FIFA has matches between say Saudi arabia and China..does that solve..even Kiwis qualified for this world cup..2010 Fifa..so who wants to see that//as for irish community they will only be glued to their sets if and when they get chance,,,to play at sport biggest level..

  • Notredam on April 27, 2011, 8:54 GMT

    @enigma77543.. Why then provide automatic qualification for 8 teams..Are west indies that gud to deserve a place..Even getting beaten consistenlty at home..Also kiwis..what they have done in past to suggest them to give them automatic entry. Only 4 teams have played consistently ove rthe last decade..Slanka,India,Aus,Saf This i am talking bout ODI and not tests... So let 4 gurantee spot..Just like in hockey world cup..we have best 1 from each continent. winning asia cup or european champs..automatic entry..So get that process in place..Why u so hellbent on Bangl;adesh facing weaker team in face of IRish...that i wud have fully supported say 5 years back..but after numerous millions invested and lot many tours done for bangladesh..team..will u not expect them to increase their standard by say 10%..that is the difference we can see between irish and bangla of now..So..u kep on bragging bangla are better..then give irish also regular tours...to full countries..for 5 years.and See.

  • diddles on April 27, 2011, 8:31 GMT

    Enigma, do you work for Cricket Australia/NZ, because you should with your deeply negative and insular views on our game's future. Seriously, if the cricket world accepted your view on its future, then god help it. Do you seriously realise how much money the ICC has invested in the growth of the game in the last 10/15 years and the results have been very positive. Read regular reports compiled by ICC's development team - cricket is taking seriously hold in many places like Uganda, Namibia, Nepal, Afghanistan, PNG and so many other places across Europe, Americas, Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Before mid 1990's, our efforts to globalise the sport were either non-existant or very half hearted. People with views like your own held the game back. I know from first hand knowledge in Chile what can be achieved in a new frontier with some enthusiastic expatriate volunteers and some good support from the ICC. Yes, many locals there now play the game! Teams like Ireland are cricket's future.

  • enigma77543 on April 27, 2011, 7:23 GMT

    @Notredam, don't blame me for your comments not posting, I've been bugged by the same issue for a while, it has something to do with the website itself & I've also complained about it to Cricinfo through the Feedback option, may be you should do it too. As for "why 10 teams" question, as I've said in my last post to "diddles", cricket is declining & that's why ICC must consolidate it in "cricketing nations" first before getting too ambitious about including more teams hence the 8 top "cricketing nations" must at least get a guaranteed place while keeping the last 2 spots up for grabs so that Associates aren't completely shut out & get a chance at earning their spot in WC. And as I've said in my last post, majority isn't always right, especially when they're unaware of the intricacies of the managerial process & the fact that noone has properly contested me on the issue of finance shows just that. As for "Irish Juggernaut", that's a joke, right? Thanks for the laugh, anyway.

  • world_champion on April 27, 2011, 7:12 GMT

    The soccer WC format is the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    16 teams 4 groups of 4,top 2 to QF This way every maych would be exciting Look at 2010 soccer world cup,SA(the equivalent of Nepal)beat France(the equivalent of IND)

  • Notredam on April 27, 2011, 5:45 GMT

    So enigma brother my comments were not published..by cricinfo..that s greate news..i had answer to all ur questions posted yesterday..but they didnt publish that..

    Secondly..y 10 team for world cup place..have only.. 6 team get automatic world cup entry.. let world cup be of 8 teams 1992 format.. and let windies..nz..bangla..zimeis,,irish..holl,,kenya,,fight for last 2 places..wont that solve the problem..Also we are tired of bangla beaen by india,,auss,,saf everytime...

    Also @enigma..i feel there is some friend of urs in cricinfo editing my section of comments or not publishing my comments.. i have great knowledge of the game..and other games as well..

    So dnt question my abilitiy...i feel injustice is been served..and thats it..Majority of people on thiis section feel..that..Ireland shud play...more than 90% ..thats itself say the story...so let irish juggernaut continues..

  • Notredam on April 27, 2011, 5:40 GMT

    So enigma brother my comments were not published..by cricinfo..that s greate news..i had answer to all ur questions posted yesterday..but they didnt publish that..

    Secondly..y 10 team for world cup place..have only.. 6 team get automatic world cup entry.. let world cup be of 8 teams 1992 format.. and let windies..nz..bangla..zimeis,,irish..hold,,kenya,,fight for lats 2 places..wont that solve the problem..wais ebhi we are tired of bangla beatn by india,,auss,,saf everytime...

  • enigma77543 on April 27, 2011, 4:05 GMT

    @diddles, cricket will likely remain an "elite sport",not by choice but due to its very nature. Comparisons with football are futile because it as well as most other sports with huge following don't last for more than a couple of hours because it isn't possible for most to follow a 7-8 hours-long sport in our fast-paced world so any effort to "globalise" cricket would be futile unless we make T20 the main format & kill ODIs & Tests but of course, no true cricket-fan would want that. Not to mention cricket is very complicated compared to football & other popular sports.The only reason why it persists in "cricketing nations" is because it's become part of their sports-culture & history due to British-colonialism but even there it has started declining so ICC has two options i.e. either to spend lots of resources on spreading it in vain hope that'll it'll catch on in other countries or try to consolidate it in the "cricketing nations" first, & ICC have taken latter, the more sane route.

  • enigma77543 on April 26, 2011, 18:10 GMT

    @notredam, mate, I asked a simple question & you couldn't even offer me a straight-forward answer; I suppose that in itself is an answer, it shows that the most enthusiastic of Irl supporters don't believe in their own lofty claims of Irl being better than Ban & Zim. Thanks for confirming it once again. The ridiculous of your last baffles the mind but I guess you're only here for blind cheerleading & not for putting forth your honest & rational views. @Apple_BD, nice to see that there're Ban supporters out there who don't fear having to earn their place through qualifiers in a 10-team WC, I wonder why their Irish counterparts are so shy about it ;)

  • diddles on April 26, 2011, 9:09 GMT

    Come on True Cricket Lovers, get behind the Associate and Affiliate members and support their right to play in the 2015 World Cup and those that follow. Seriously its a no brainer to those who want to see our game grow in popularity. Soccer has known about it for years...if they adopted cricket's silly exclusive attitude, there would be 10 countries in their world cup...look how soccer is booming in Asia, Africa, the Carribean and even the Pacific. Rugby too has the right attitude....20 countries play in their world cup...and yes there are some big defeats suffered by the minnows, but the game's popularity has grown in countries like Japan, Georgia and Uruguay thanks to their regular world cup participation. Why would you not want too see cricket grow in Ireland, Netherlands, Afghanistan, PNG, Uganda, etc. As an Aussie, I'm disappointed by the backward and insular attitude of our administrators. Very sad. They lack any real global vision and should give up their roles.

  • Notredam on April 26, 2011, 8:53 GMT

    cricket oldest game in 18 th century was between Can , USa,,,,and eng Aus.. so let these 4 coutries play wrld cup..and completely ignore...Saf,India,,Nz,lanka,,windies..

  • Apple_BD on April 26, 2011, 8:07 GMT

    @enigma77543, I am with you mate! As a BD fan I wont mind if Ireland can earn a place by beating us in qualifying matches. We are up for Irish challanges anytime!! Still a 10 team WC should be the way to go.

  • Rakesh_Sharma on April 26, 2011, 7:11 GMT

    @ enigma7**** .Stop firing. Majority does not agree with you and Vaughan and Sutherland. Please read and analyze in a positive way. "" Afghanistan Cricket Board CEO, Nasimullah Danish, said today, "cricket is more than just a game for us here in Afghanistan - it is a vital part of rebuilding our country and a contribution for our country being a part of the international community. If we are excluded from participation in international cricket, Afghanistan loses an opportunity to build national unity through the game of cricket.

    "As the ICC revisits this issue in June, we hope that the ICC Executive Board members will consider, in the true Spirit of Cricket, the power that cricket has to bring about change in societies like Afghanistan and see themselves as having the power to build a better world - not just a better, more convenient or more lucrative sporting competition. " "

  • enigma77543 on April 26, 2011, 6:49 GMT

    @notredam, oh come on, quit hiding behind Ban & Zim. If you truly believe that IRL are better than them then why won't you back them to knock-out Ban or Zim in qualifiers for a 10-team WC? Tell me why? Give me a straight answer; no more Ban this, Zim that. If Irl are good enough they'll qualify & if they're not good enough even to beat Ban or Zim then Irl don't deserve to be in WC, simple as that. And as I've said before, if you really want a 12-team WC then why don't you contribute a few million to ICC so that they can cover the losses arising out of the ADDITIONAL unprofitable matches that'll have to be played. And you're merely speculating about Irl's support, no, the world won't end if Irl don't qualify, you'll still watch your Ind matches & same holds true for most of the cricket-fans around the globe. Cricket didn't start with the Irl cricket team, if I'm not mistaken.

  • enigma77543 on April 26, 2011, 6:19 GMT

    @psy_spy,you failed to realise that IND played ONLY 20 games in those 20 years, people play that many in 2 years these days so they weren't as bad as some of the Associates today. Secondly, if playing against top nations is all that is needed for Associates to improve then how would explain Ban & Zim's mediocrity after such a long time? They completely nagate your unfounded hypothesis. Further, look up last year's ClydesdaleBank40 (Eng's DOMESTIC one-day tourney) where ND & SCOT lost 10 of their 12 games each, these "top Associates" aren't even good enough to beat DOMESTIC teams of stronger nations. What is needed to improve top Asso. is structured LONG-TERM program whereby they play 4-day & 1-day cricket regularly against domestic & A-teams of stronger nations where they've better chance of winning & improving & creating a player-base from which the most promising Asso. can grow & become good International teams in the future; FLUKE performaces in WC are pointless, did it help KEN?

  • Notredam on April 26, 2011, 5:39 GMT

    Also Enigma..

    Bro i am not irish..i am pure cricket lover frm cricket maddest country India..and i knw they are doing wrong..in spprtng Bangandesh..Remember bangdesh hvent toured india since getting test status..Its for pakistan and sri lanka..who play bangaldesh and improve thier record and statistics..bangladesh are just in cricket world for making records...

    Irish i challenge u conduct a poll across india..and 80% wud support them./.becoz they are fearlesee...gutsy..and proud nation...

    in 2015 world cup if irish dosnt play...i wud rqst many to boycott those games... y cannot be ther 12 team in 2 pools each...2 semis..1 final..total 33 matches..over in 1 month..great cometitivenes..and great atmosphere...still icc fails to understand it..

  • ygkd on April 26, 2011, 0:16 GMT

    Yes, there are indeed "challenges" around having a merit-based World Cup. But isn't that what administrators are for, overcoming administrative challenges? A World Cup without merit-based attendance is not a World Cup. Otherwise, we might as well have the Small-world Cup and invite only two teams drawn out of a hat. At least then we know who's playing whom well in advance. That should help the ticket sales.

  • enigma77543 on April 25, 2011, 18:29 GMT

    @Notredam, you,Jonah & other Irl supporters are looking at the issue negatively, thinking what if Irl couldn't beat Ban,Zim in qualifiers for a 10-team WC but look at it positively, if Irl were to knock-out either Ban or Zim & stake a claim in a 10-team WC then just imagine what it'd do their confidence & also their reputation in world-cricket, they'd definitely get more bilateral/trilateral ODIs than they do now. @nzcricket174, I don't think the revenues brought in by Ban & Zim would offset 10 ADDITIONAL matches involving minnows that'll have to be played in a 12-team WC, that'd be 1/3 of WC, not worth it. If qualifiers are held for 10-team WC, I'm sure Ban would qualify anyway, Zim might get knocked out but not to worry as their supporters will still support their cousins SA while if Irl don't make it then they don't deserve to be there anyway if they can't even get past Ban & Zim who are also minnows even though they were idiotically awarded with the Test-status.

  • enigma77543 on April 25, 2011, 18:29 GMT

    @Jonah58, as for asking me to "think like a cricket-fan", do you think it is wrong for a cricket-fan to think about the sport's long-term future, about what will keep the sport viable in the times to come? Do you think it is necessary that a cricket-fan must make outrageous demands to cricket's administrators without paying heed to how it'd affect the sustainability of the sport? I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree.

  • enigma77543 on April 25, 2011, 18:28 GMT

    @Jonah58,if the sport had taken "morally high ground" like you then it'd've been dead & buried by now because it takes MONEY to run it & to keep it viable, just like you need it to run your house so when I talk about finance, I'm talking about what's good for the game & for its long-term future unlike your short-sighted view just to get your Irish boys 15 days of fame. Again, yes, I do support 10-team WC but I also wholly support a qualifier to give best Associates a fair chance but you're obviously scared that Irl mayn't be able beat Ban or Zim for the 9th or 10th place in qualifiers. Citing couple of good games involving minnows does NOT justify the financial burden that's put on the whole tournament by many dead games which you obviously didn't see & as I've said before, more losses for ICC = less funding for Associates & development of the sport = more dead/stagnant Associates but obviously, YOU don't care about about long-term future of sport, all you care about is your Irl team

  • Notredam on April 25, 2011, 16:28 GMT

    Justin vaughan shud resgin...and full wrld cup with 12 teams is to be played in australia..that wud do wonders...

  • PACERONE on April 25, 2011, 11:43 GMT

    Ireland is England's farm team.They can recruit good Irish players given them the chance to play test cricket. Why would England be in favour of 12 team? I would prefer to see Ireland and Bangladesh playing than watching England with Trott their best player playing those boring innings. The top 10 have lots of dificiencies..lots of poor cricket to be seen.

  • on April 25, 2011, 11:41 GMT

    I'm seething. Justin Vaughan should resign! How can he possibly STILL be entertaining the idea that there are 'challenges' to a world cup based on merit? Has he been asleep for the past three weeks? Does he not get payed to do difficult tasks? What other sport picks its world cup teams four years in advance... without qualification? Clearly, in Justin's case, the message hasn't got through. There is still some support amongst fans for a ten team format - but wherever you look, they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who want a bigger format. Just remind me who buys the tickets! I'm an Irish fan so I want our lads to be there... but who can say for sure that Afghanistan won't improve even more than Ireland over the next 18 months? If Justin Vaughan doesn't like uncertainty, what the hell is he doing in sport in the first place? Uncertainty is what makes sport entertaining. Justin... wake up!!

  • sammykent on April 25, 2011, 11:36 GMT

    It is important, as Vaughan pointed out, that there be certainty around fixtures. The World Cup needs to be an event that promotes cricket but also brings revenue to host nations. The continued success of the World Cup hinges on efficient organisation of games such as IND vs PAK, NZ vs AUS and ENG vs SA etc. These old rivalries inspire great attendance and excitement as well as providing surety to the host nations in terms of revenue. Increased revenue means increased investment in cricket and improved facilities for future tournaments and individual grounds. The big problem though is that the competition in ODI's has become tighter than ever. Ireland, as well as other associate nations, have shown in recent times that they deserve the big stage. A compromise must be found so that these burgeoning teams can be given the chance to test their skills against the best in the world and in doing so improve. Ireland above all deserve this and if it takes a bit of time to organise, so be it.

  • psy_spy on April 25, 2011, 10:39 GMT

    India played their first test match in 1932.Their first test win came only in 1952.So,india lost all test matches played in the 20 years.Just imagine if MCC, after the poor record of India, cancelled its test status...What would have happened?Indians gained experienced by playing against aus/eng etc.Any newer teams need some exposure like ireland.How ICC thinks that ireland will improve by playing amongst themselves in List-A matches?They have to be given a chance to improve and prove themselves.They should play a series against india,sa,aus ...You can be ignorant by saying that ireland won't win 2015 WC but by your same logic,india shouldn't have won 1983 WC.ICC should seriously think about having 12 teams. Even if 10 team format is followed,last 2/3 spots should be played between lowest ranked test playing teams and non-test playing teams to qualify for the WC.

  • Notredam on April 25, 2011, 10:20 GMT

    What great work did Akram khan and other bangdesh players did to deserve test status when they won intercontinental cup in 1998..Current irish times is much fitter..beter fielding unit..and bowling unit than tht bangladesh unit...

    It seems icc have made up their mind..to select the team elevating for test status form their own wishes..

    Soon we will have afgahnistan..playing..and no ameraican and european taking part..so it will be asian world cup..

  • Notredam on April 25, 2011, 10:15 GMT

    Well i couldn;t agree more wit 12 team format.

    Have 2 pools of 6 team each.

    2 options.

    Either top 2 teams square up for semis...Great cometetivenes..and every match maningfull with run rate and even associate matches and involving bangadesh becomin gmeaningful..

    Or has top 3 teams qualifying.. and in semis (A1) versus (B2 Vs A3 winner) (B1) versus (A2 Vs B3 winner)

    Bit of liberty but here 2 knockpout matches more and again every match is meaningfull..

    personally i would prefer first option as top 2 are gud enuf..and very strict league matches..

  • Dhoni_fan_from_a_dada_era on April 25, 2011, 10:13 GMT

    lets take top 6 teams for granted (and may be the host nations - Aus & Nz) and let the other 2 play qualifiers with associate nations and qualify themselves! Don't understand why ICC can't do something like that?

  • on April 25, 2011, 8:04 GMT

    Wow Notredam , I completely understood what you said. I think the 12 team format solves all our problems . Two Groups. Six members in each group. Top team makes it to semis direct. Two and Three of opposite groups play-off in 2 quarters for the other semi spot. Total number of group games : 30 . Total number of knockout games : 5 . Every game is meaningful . Have to finish in top 3 of your group . Spots become important. Bonus for top ranker - direct route to semis.

  • Nathan_123 on April 25, 2011, 7:52 GMT

    I like to see a 10 team format to a 12 team format. This is because I don't get to see consistent competitive game with the Associate nations. Yes! We have seen couple of grate games by Ireland and Netherland I think these performances were due to these associate nations plays in the English domestic competition and they are very familiar with their English players. What I like to see is a qualifying competition with 4 Associate teams and 2 full member teams (last 2 in the ICC ODI table) and the top 2 teams to qualify for the world cup finals. I also well come the idea of including more associate teams in world T20 cup. This is because shorter the format more competitive these team can be. I also would like to see ICC helping the Associate teams become more competitive by organising fixtures with the top full ICC members.

  • Notredam on April 25, 2011, 6:19 GMT

    So..all my well wishers of bangladesh..crying they did white wash nz..on spin dusty tracks.. my question is..after getting test status...since maybe 2000..how many odi series,.,.test series..they have been whitewashed...

    they have lost maybe..more than 85% test against top 8..not considering zimmies...of course.. and odi..maybe..if we inculde top 8..then maybe win-loss ratio of 10:90..waT JOKE...

    so u say irish are not as gud as bangandesh..so...how many opportuinites have these guys got..in first place.. they pushed aussies in last odi..very close...eng also very close..windies..close././wrldcups..u guys obvoiusly know for sure..in 2007.11 wat happened.. they got inducted in ICC board in 1994..and see..now they are the best european nation..apart frm England..consistently past 8-10 years..

    My point..is..had tehse guys got so many opportuinites..wat u guys say..i am sure.,,,results have had been more favoured..towards them...

  • nzcricket174 on April 25, 2011, 5:53 GMT

    [continuing] A 12 team tournament would surely be the best. It allows all of the 10 full members to play and still allow 2 associate sides access to the world stage. This surely would be the best. If you shut out Bangladesh, you are going to lose audience and money through to their large population and interest in cricket. If you shut out Zimbabwe a similar thing will happen as there is a decent Zimbabwean population spread across Australia and New Zealand. If you shut out Ireland the rest of the world will turn its back on you in anger. I'm just glad New Zealand are co-hosts, meaning we won't be shut out. Also, if there is to be a qualifying tournament for 2 final places it should be held exactly a year out from the World Cup. Team won't change much over a year, but over three or four years teams can change dramatically.

  • Notredam on April 25, 2011, 5:49 GMT

    Well enigma let i make 1 point clear.. 85-90% o findian supporters were very much impressed with Ireland team..and they earned a respect of lot of cricket fans all over the world...Conduct a poll,,pakisatnis,,windies,,eng,,sl,,ind,,saf,,Aussies....evrone were impressed by their guts and performance,,attitide,, skill,,work ethic,,discipline..

    conduct a poll worldwide...

    and have bet with me...who the fans wud want to see...ireland..zimmies or bangadlesh........................the ratio wud be atleast..in india.. 60:20:20

    worldwide...more than 75 % wud want to see them in wrld cup...

    not sure bout bangandesh..or zimmeis..

  • nzcricket174 on April 25, 2011, 5:47 GMT

    Guys this year's format can not be reused. It was a success because of the games, not because of the format. If Ireland were not successful in the tournament the whole thing would have been boring. The first round can not be allowed to take as long as it did this year. This year I was bored silly apart from the few exciting games, Ire v Eng, Pak v NZ, Ind v SA, SA v Eng. The rounds proceeding is where all the main action takes place. Apart from the WI v Pak (QF) and SL v Eng (QF), the games were all great to watch, the best being NZ v SA and of course the final. As you can see from these readings the first round is important as it sets up the rest of the tournament, though you don't want it dragging on or else you will lose a lot of viewers and spectators through sheer lack of interest. The first round needs to be over and done with as fast as possible.

  • gothetaniwha on April 25, 2011, 5:41 GMT

    I agree with Justin 10 team round robin the best way to get top 4 S/F . Top six assoc plus BD and ZIM to play pre qualifying tournament to find last 2 . With thousands of english and indian SA supporters travelling from the other side of world it does help to know who there playing when and where for them and tour groups to organise hotels and flights .

  • Vinod on April 25, 2011, 5:02 GMT

    ICC Full nation members have to stop like acting like crying babies.... what a state we have reached ? If Australia and New Zealand Cricket boards can't organize a cricket world cup with 12 teams, they should forfeit the hosting rights.! what a shame!

  • on April 25, 2011, 5:01 GMT

    The players from the associate countries deserve an opportunity to showcase their skills. After all they are playing out of passion for the game and not just for the money.

    Selling tickets or Television rights can't be the prime motive of conducting a World Cup.

    If money is the only motive scrap international cricket and have IPL go on all year long! ( Dread the fact that it might actually happen !)

  • on April 25, 2011, 4:56 GMT

    Why do you want to have 45 matches of non-significance and then 2 SF and a final? The QFs in this world cup were amazing. India v Aus and NZ v SA were the prime example. The knockouts bring the pressure with them, which gets the best out of the teams as well. Would SA have lost to NZ had it not been a QF?Keep the current format to get best of both worlds.

  • bharath74 on April 24, 2011, 23:57 GMT

    For a game to be popular or become popular in any country, its participation in the world events is necessary. WC offers the best platform to increase the popularity.If you dont give these associates a chance they will remain associates forever.

  • atulan on April 24, 2011, 22:16 GMT

    I luv New zealand and vaugney needs to make better decisions

  • Jonah58 on April 24, 2011, 18:36 GMT

    Kalan9211 I think it was you that did not watch a single match of WC2011 if you think all the associate matches were boring. In 2011 an associate team chased over 300 runs TWICE setting the record for the fastest century, the highest ever run chase, the 3rd highest ever run chase, the youngest player to score a century at a world cup. Oh and Bangladesh a TEST nation were bowled out TWICE for under 80 runs! England a test nation were beaten by 10 wickets and NZ and WI both suffered heavy defeats as well.

    Nad if you think that a 45 match round robin featuring 10 teams will not produce a boring world cup that takes far too long with 45 matches in the group phase alone many of which will be pointless matches as teams featuring in them will have nbothing to play for after the 4th or 5th round of 9 then gpood luck to you!

  • enigma77543 on April 24, 2011, 18:27 GMT

    @Rakesh Sharma, the same question again, who bears the expenses of the additional 10 matches involving 11th & 12th team in case of a 6X2 format you're suggesting? These matches almost never even cover the expenses & thus, obviously the organising parties don't want to bear that burden. Every match played has certain costs involved & organisers will only be willing to incur those costs if they can make a profit off it. Are you & your fellows here asking for more teams willing to contribute a generous charity to ICC to cover the expenses of such unprofitable matches involving minnows? I'm sure neither ICC nor anyone else would mind a few more teams then. And just because its called "world cup" doesn't mean it must include all 190+ countries. IMO, 10 teams, 2 groups with a qualifier for top Associates is good enough. On a different note though, I completely agree that QFs render the group-stage absolutely pointless when there're only 8 teams who're comfortably ahead of others.

  • gdalvi on April 24, 2011, 17:47 GMT

    I wonder if following approach makes good compromise for the 2- group format. The top team from each group gets stop in semis. The 2nd and 3rd teams in each group play 'quarter final' to secure the other 2 spots. This way, the league matches will have even more importance to get the top spot. And you still need to finish in top 3 to advance. The means of the top 8cricketing teams at the moment - 2 won't qualify - adding to the uncertainty. This will also addresses Rakesh's funny note about QF (which I agree with) when you only have 8 strong teams. But as I said before, good performance in league matches is crucial to have smooth way to finals.

  • sanjaya123456 on April 24, 2011, 17:42 GMT

    Ok this format is there because it is easy to host the world cup. But what comes first, have a world cup that do justice for all the teams that contribute to the game of cricket or making the life easy to hosting country. If we have top 10 teams, it will not provide anything to the non test playing countries. If we look back on past ten years only Bangladesh has made it to test cricket and that was after they got a world cup win. Don't you like to have good American cricket team playing test cricket or china cricket team a Brazil, France, Japan, play competitive cricket. Seems like not. Marketing is not only a shot term thing it is an investment for the future. 10 teams format may make some money form this world cup, but no investment for the future. I hope they will do what's best for the cricket. If super six don't work, find a deferent method. I personally don't think that 10 countries can represent the world. It would be the cup of test playing countries plus. Not the world cup.

  • gdalvi on April 24, 2011, 17:34 GMT

    @Patrick Clarke - totally agree. Knock-outs are must - more the merrier. I can't understand this obsession of round-robins. WC is a tournament for prestige - NOT FOR RANKING. There is already a ranking process in place - so no need to have all countries play other. If you have round-robin - then why even bother with Semis and Finals? Shouldn't the top team automatically get the trophy? After all, a 4th place team barely scraping thru can upset top ranked team who dominated the round robins, throws the issue of 'fairness' out of window. Even if you want a final - semis makes no sense unless the teams are fairly close. Also folks who think all league matches is RR would somehow magically be more important than group formats don't understand that even at group stage you are still fighting hard to get highest rank so that you will play weaker teams in knock outs improving your chances of reaching finals

  • Kalan9211 on April 24, 2011, 17:11 GMT

    10 team round robin format is best, those who are saying to include 14 teams have not watched a single match of 2011 world cup of associate teams. quarter final format was used just to help inida and srilanks and it helped them to rwach final. this is not soccer, its cricket, no need of quarter finals and associate team boring matches.

  • Rakesh_Sharma on April 24, 2011, 16:24 GMT

    Nothing short of providing "FAIR CHANCE" for upcoming teams like Ireland and Afghanistan. To satisfy all 12 team WC is the ultimateand best two associates qualify. If 10 team WC (irrational decision) than qualifying tournament in scotland ( seaming condition) or Australia (extra bounce) so that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are tested with Associates. I for one actually does not want a situation where Full members play associates.The reason as the Full members regularly play among each other and even the last ranked team is homehow able to raise the game due to this experience.This is totally unfair to associates . Best is 12 teams so that Full members get automatic entry .

  • Rakesh_Sharma on April 24, 2011, 15:01 GMT

    Get over the wrong notion that 10 team format and round robin is the best. If you are open minded with right facts , everything will fall in line.

  • Copernicus on April 24, 2011, 14:58 GMT

    So how much organisation is (a) possible to have been done in less than a month from the official announcement of the format; (b) needed this far out from the event, or at all, given all the stadia and basic infrastructure are already in place and up to international standard? I can't imagine it would harm the 2015 world cup if the organisers were to wait until June 2011 for the format to be decided. Unless, of course, they knew the format well before the "official" announcement and had already started making plans accordingly?

  • Rakesh_Sharma on April 24, 2011, 14:55 GMT

    Round robin format without splitting for a wc is the most useless format. Split 12 teams in two groups.Have round robin within each group. Top 2 teams from each for SF.

    If Vaughan wants certain 9 matches involving his team ,he can arrange a bilateral series of 4 ODI against Bangladesh after the WC . Round Robin leaugue matches are just like Benson and Hedges Triseries league matches(Certainty) and useless. No Wc in any other sport has namesake round robins.If certainty and money is the main motive than scrap Wc and play bilateral series.

  • Ozcricketwriter on April 24, 2011, 14:40 GMT

    Soccer World Cup format works well. Copy it. Also copy the qualifying aspect. Simple. If you want 10 teams, fine, but stick with a format that has been tried and proven to work, not fumbling and bumbling around in the dark.

  • Rakesh_Sharma on April 24, 2011, 14:40 GMT

    Unable to understand Vaughan's views. Does he want certainty for WC tournament?This is not a bilateral series.So where is the question. The idea of certainty is what spoils cricket WC. I don't think anyone thinks about certainty for Football WC. If this is the preconcieved ideas of boards than these Full members must not be entitled to take unilateral decisions. As Mr.Deutrom said,it is the same 10 people taking decision. The worst thing is somehow media has been convinced for unknown reason that round robin format is good. I cannot agree. I can firmly agree on only one thing That Quarter Final is an absolutely funny decision when there are just 8 strong teams in cricket and everyone knows about the QF teams. Having QF makes a mockery of leaugue matches. 11 or 12 teams so that "WORLD" is included.Else shift WC to India.

  • Robster1 on April 24, 2011, 14:06 GMT

    Ten teams is ideal with all playing all in one group and then the top four from it qualifying for the semi finals - every game then means something. But have say the top eight in the world automatically entered and then the remaining two places decided through an ICC competition. Not rocket science etc.

  • tfjones1978 on April 24, 2011, 13:46 GMT

    If the ICC wants (1) all 10 full members to play in the world cup, (2) Top 8 teams to be playing against only full members and (3) the associates to play in the world cup without affecting the top 8. Then why not expand from 14 teams from last world cup to 16 teams in next world cup and use an unorthodox system like is used in some other sports world cups (like Rugby League): Group[A] teams 1 - 8, Group[B] teams 9 - 16. Eliminater[E] 4th in A vs 1st in B. Semi Finals A1 vs E & A2 vs A3. Finals winners of Semis. This means that on current rankings the "traditional" 8 full members would be in Group A with Group B consisting of Bang, Zimb and 6 associates.

  • on April 24, 2011, 13:22 GMT

    That's the way Mr Vaughan. Don't worry about the millions of fans/players in the 95 countries that are fighting for their very survival here. It's you that matters most Mr Vaughan. It must be a hell of a challenge organising a handful of cricket matches with only a mere four years to get it all done. Struth, this six week delay is such an inconvenience. How will you ever cope?

  • rohanblue on April 24, 2011, 13:12 GMT

    icc suporing bangladesh jst because bangladesh is one of few cricket crazy nations, bt ireland is a much better side, and icc plz plz give ireland chance to play top teams,we asians loves cricket bt europe losing interest in it, dnt kill this awesome game.....

  • D.V.C. on April 24, 2011, 13:01 GMT

    @glatman: I disagree. It was terribly unbalanced. To have so many knock-out games after a low pressure round robin phase is silly. Only England really had to worry about not getting through. We have one World Cup every 4 years the idea is to find the best side. India were the best side, we got lucky this time. But for the top 8 to all qualify for the knock-out phase doesn't seem balanced.

  • enigma77543 on April 24, 2011, 12:29 GMT

    10-team round-robin would be totally ridiculous with fricking 45 group-matches, that's just overkill, there'd be so many dead matches, there's no justification for such waste of resources. I'd rather see a 10-team WC with 2 groups of 5 (only 20 group-matches in total), the top team in each group directly qualifies for the Semifinals while 2nd & 3rd ranked teams in each group can play-each other to fill the other two Semifinal berths & then of course the final; there'd be just 23 matches in total, all very important & hence, worth a watch. There could also be a pre-WC "sub-tournament" played as a qualifier, between 9th & 10th ranked ODI teams & the top 2 Associates, the 4 teams'd play a rectangular tournament worth 6 matches in total, the top 2 teams would secure themselves 9th & 10th spots in the WC, that way Associates would also get a fair shot at qualifying.

  • Gupta.Ankur on April 24, 2011, 12:26 GMT

    I really dont know what vaughan os on about? never heard anybody from ind/sl/bang complaining about these things

    It makes me believe that he has no plans in place for hosting WC

  • Anneeq on April 24, 2011, 12:23 GMT

    Seriously what was wrong about this years format? It was exciting, engaging and the associates actually put up a fight. Iv always said, that the goal for 50 over cricket should be 16 teams with 4 groups of 4, and top 2 from each group qualify for a knockout round. Although i think 2015 should have 12 or 14 teams like this world cup, we're not quite at the standard where there can be 16 teams. It worked this world cup and it should work again! For the 'minnows' play in a 1000 seater stadium then...

  • on April 24, 2011, 11:55 GMT

    What a complete load of codswollop....and how Justin Vaughan got to his position with 'thinking' as he has shown is beyond me and a lot of others who don't have to specialize in rocket science as a hobby. Plan for 10, 12 and 14 - put into immediate effect the generic parts of the plan and throw a penalty clause get out at the ICC if they don't get their act together by a certain date when the variant specifics need to be actioned.... As for the format..12..use the same as this year and instead of 3 eliminated in each group just 2. This wil effectively knock about a week off the tournament, making an overall tighter tournament with hopefully even tighter matches. Honestly, they almost have it...its staring them in the face !! Be bold, brave and fair.

    Go for 12....

    Desmond.

  • Meety on April 24, 2011, 11:54 GMT

    W/Cup should be 16 team comp. (4 x 4). Play 1/2 as many games as the 2011 & 2007 edition before the QTR Finals. I would have the 4 pools ranked so that come QTR Final time the Teams that finished in the top 4 get the possibility of a 2nd chance - like in the Oz football codes (McIntyre System - the best ranked losers go thru to a semi-final play off).

  • on April 24, 2011, 11:25 GMT

    Associate nations do not have enough matches with bigger teams and the only chance for them to compete in higher level is the world cup.By this format the associate nations will be associate nations forever and top ten ranked team will be in top ranks forever.I can understand why New Zealand is favoring the new format but this is not good for cricket.And we Sri Lankans have right to argue about it because we are the 3rd in ODI ranking but still we give chances to Ireland and Scotland to play with us.Still nobody is giving a straight answer to the question which why should world cup be among just 10 teams.Answer has only one word."MONEY".

  • itisme on April 24, 2011, 11:23 GMT

    The best, in my view, is to limit the event to 10 teams, but not to the 10 test-playing teams. The first 8 teams in the ICC ranking list should have automatic qualification, while the rest 2 teams should be chosen by staging a qualifying tournament (preferably, at least one year before the WC) between the teams ranked 9, 10, 11 and 12. That way the organisers will be happy as well as we will make the WC a global event.

  • on April 24, 2011, 11:17 GMT

    Not knowing who is playing whom doesn't stop the soccer & rugby world cups from being organised

  • on April 24, 2011, 10:46 GMT

    "A 12-team competition would necessitate the introduction of a Super Sixes stage in between two pools of six and an elimination round"

    Umm, no it wouldn't...You didn't need a super six round with 14 teams this year...I say have two groups with 6 each and top 2 go straight to semi-finals...at least that way you avoid the situation where the group stage is meaningless like this year. Another consideration should be the IPL format, with the top finishers in the group securing a better chance to make the final than the second place finishers.

  • themightyfenoughtys on April 24, 2011, 10:38 GMT

    The 10 team format would be better for Indian television because it gives a minimum 9 guaranteed Indian games. However, the ICC is already assured of their television income from this event, so there was no need to tamper with the format on these grounds.

    Where NZ/Aus will get increased revenue is from gate sales, so it is in their interest to have a round robin without uncertainty over which teams play at which venues (up to the semi finals), so that tour parties can book early. However, the income benefits of a 10 team round robin format are not dependent on the 9th and 10th ranked test nations playing. An 8 team qualifier for sides ranked 9 to 16 in odi cricket designed to deliver 2 teams to the finals would be much fairer.

    Where the ICC has made much progress in recent years is in creating a pyramid in which associates play meaningful cricket - an 8 team qualifier for the world cup is a very logical pinnacle to this pyramid.

  • on April 24, 2011, 10:25 GMT

    I think it is ok if the decision is delayed, if it leads to better justice for associated nations.

  • FaheemAhmed on April 24, 2011, 9:55 GMT

    WC should play b/w 8 best teams...

  • glatman on April 24, 2011, 9:53 GMT

    I do not see why the world cup format needs to change. I think I speak for all cricket lovers when I say that the world cup was a great success and a great ambassador for cricket, where all teams, even the associates played their hand.

  • PooN_ on April 24, 2011, 9:43 GMT

    Ireland and Co. don't need Your SYMPATHY.

  • D.V.C. on April 24, 2011, 9:20 GMT

    So compromise and make an 11 team round robin for this tournament. The Top Associate qualifies along with the 10 full members. Ok, it's slightly longer than a ten-team round robin, but you don't need a super sixes. And it sure as hell beats not giving the other 95 nations affiliated with the ICC a chance to qualify.

  • on April 24, 2011, 8:34 GMT

    To sell tickets and organise international tour groups or international visitors becomes hugely problematic when you've got a section of the tournament where you don't know who is playing where."

    Vaughan also highlighted the fact that the 2015 World Cup is yet to appoint a tournament chief executive.

  • bala-chala on April 24, 2011, 8:34 GMT

    The NZ and Oz cricket boards clearly exhibit here lack of ability and creativity. The people in responsible positions on the boards are paid to create new solutions that can deal with all the current challenges in cricket. Going back to the 1992 format is really going backwards irrespective of it being harsh on Ireland or Timbuctoo. Cricket is a very different game to what it was in 1992 and a new car with an old engine is not good for the car nor is it going to sell.

  • ash_symby on April 24, 2011, 8:27 GMT

    More and more associate teams should be included. ICC should revert their decision of allowing to play merely 10 teams.

  • on April 24, 2011, 8:17 GMT

    I just don't understand the fixation some cricket administrators have for this 10 team round-robin format. A Cup competition needs knock out games for excitement, just like the dramatic New Zealand quarter final win over South Africa in this year's World Cup. This match would not even have taken place under the proposed round-robin format as there is no quarter final section. If implemented this format will be BORING with tons of meaningless matches between teams who can't qualify or who qualify quickly. Round Robin formats are not used as a format in other sports like soccer and rugby union so why is it needed in cricket? There are enough boring meaningless ODIs for the sake of television already. The 14 team 2 group format used this year fitted the bill perfectly. There were only one or two mismatches and those countries need encouragement, not being cast out. It's a price worth paying to have a truly global tournament.

  • on April 24, 2011, 7:58 GMT

    The 1999 WC format was the best format and it should be used.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on April 24, 2011, 7:58 GMT

    The 1999 WC format was the best format and it should be used.

  • on April 24, 2011, 8:17 GMT

    I just don't understand the fixation some cricket administrators have for this 10 team round-robin format. A Cup competition needs knock out games for excitement, just like the dramatic New Zealand quarter final win over South Africa in this year's World Cup. This match would not even have taken place under the proposed round-robin format as there is no quarter final section. If implemented this format will be BORING with tons of meaningless matches between teams who can't qualify or who qualify quickly. Round Robin formats are not used as a format in other sports like soccer and rugby union so why is it needed in cricket? There are enough boring meaningless ODIs for the sake of television already. The 14 team 2 group format used this year fitted the bill perfectly. There were only one or two mismatches and those countries need encouragement, not being cast out. It's a price worth paying to have a truly global tournament.

  • ash_symby on April 24, 2011, 8:27 GMT

    More and more associate teams should be included. ICC should revert their decision of allowing to play merely 10 teams.

  • bala-chala on April 24, 2011, 8:34 GMT

    The NZ and Oz cricket boards clearly exhibit here lack of ability and creativity. The people in responsible positions on the boards are paid to create new solutions that can deal with all the current challenges in cricket. Going back to the 1992 format is really going backwards irrespective of it being harsh on Ireland or Timbuctoo. Cricket is a very different game to what it was in 1992 and a new car with an old engine is not good for the car nor is it going to sell.

  • on April 24, 2011, 8:34 GMT

    To sell tickets and organise international tour groups or international visitors becomes hugely problematic when you've got a section of the tournament where you don't know who is playing where."

    Vaughan also highlighted the fact that the 2015 World Cup is yet to appoint a tournament chief executive.

  • D.V.C. on April 24, 2011, 9:20 GMT

    So compromise and make an 11 team round robin for this tournament. The Top Associate qualifies along with the 10 full members. Ok, it's slightly longer than a ten-team round robin, but you don't need a super sixes. And it sure as hell beats not giving the other 95 nations affiliated with the ICC a chance to qualify.

  • PooN_ on April 24, 2011, 9:43 GMT

    Ireland and Co. don't need Your SYMPATHY.

  • glatman on April 24, 2011, 9:53 GMT

    I do not see why the world cup format needs to change. I think I speak for all cricket lovers when I say that the world cup was a great success and a great ambassador for cricket, where all teams, even the associates played their hand.

  • FaheemAhmed on April 24, 2011, 9:55 GMT

    WC should play b/w 8 best teams...

  • on April 24, 2011, 10:25 GMT

    I think it is ok if the decision is delayed, if it leads to better justice for associated nations.