New Zealand news April 24, 2011

Vaughan irked by 2015 World Cup uncertainty

ESPNcricinfo staff

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

  • Joe 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?

  • sachin 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

  • sachin 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.

  • sachin 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.

  • sachin 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.

  • Joe 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?

  • Siddharth 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 on..wats the harm in that..

  • Siddharth 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....

  • michael 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.

  • Siddharth 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 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 full countries..for 5 years.and See.

  • No featured comments at the moment.