Associate news February 18, 2011

Canada coach slams ICC decision

ESPNcricinfo staff
108

Canada coach Pubudu Dassanayake has lamented the proposal by the ICC to cut down on the number of teams in the next World Cup, calling it a major setback for cricket's smaller nations.

Dassanayake, who played 11 Tests and 16 one-day internationals for Sri Lanka before moving to Canada, made the comments after ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat said there will be no going back on the decision to reduce the number of teams at the 2015 event from 14 to 10, in effect squeezing Associate nations out of the tournament.

"We are hugely disappointed and the decision is a big setback for teams like us," Dassanayake told reporters after his team's practice ahead of their opening match against Sri Lanka on Sunday. "Actually the ICC has helped us a lot in the last couple of years to come to this place and this decision will hurt countries like us."

There has been growing criticism over the ICC's decision from other minor nations such as Kenya, Afghanistan and Ireland, while several leading cricketers from Test-playing nations, such as Graeme Swann, Shaun Tait and AB de Villiers, have also come out in support of the 'minnows'.

A common thread, reiterated by Dassanayake, was that smaller cricketing nations desperately need opportunities such as the World Cup in order to improve.

"Right now we are in a situation where we have lots of talent in the country and we are not that far from the full member countries when you compare the facilities we have, that's good progress," he said. "It would have been nice to play continuously. If the ICC has decided we can't help it but it's a severe setback for us."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • FlashAsh on February 21, 2011, 14:02 GMT

    What happens if China becomes an associate? Will we then see some reversal due to the possible TV rights? Just more hypocrisy from ICC!! Its a disgrace that countries like Ireland, Afganistan etc are being deliberately excluded to ensure the trough is full for the Test playing nations.

    I suppose the ICC believes that 20twenty is the answer for associates? The problem is they have absolutely no long term plan about making any associates Test playing nations or the criteria they have to fulfill to do so, or for that matter the current Test playing nations having to fulfill a certain criteria to remain at the trough?

    ICC a joke! Its just an exclusive club that has absolutely no intention of opening its doors to anyone who might change the balance of power (Or votes!).

    A pity and a scandal

  • gr8teams on February 21, 2011, 12:53 GMT

    If there were room for only a few teams from the "smaller" nations why don't we take a "rest of the smaller nations team1" and "rest of the smaller nations team2" to the next world cup. The rest of the smaller nations should have a selection process of their own "rest of the smaller nations world cup" 2 months prior to the actual world cup involving 16 countries.

  • WalkingWicket11 on February 21, 2011, 2:29 GMT

    10 teams playing removes the "world" from the World Cup, and adding 4 punching bags makes it a "World" Cup. There are over 150 countries in the world, so how does increasing the number of teams from 10 to 14 make it a "global" game? If that is the case, I propose the following format. Put the top 10 teams in Group A. To make the game "global", put the top 50 teams in Group B. Then everyone from Group B plays everyone from Group A. Each associate team gets to play 10 games against top teams, and also makes the game global. Now you ask, what next? Well, we stop after playing these 500 matches. After all, the purpose of the World Cup is to give the associates a chance to play the top teams, and to make the game "global". Nobody really cares about who wins it.

  • Balumekka on February 20, 2011, 19:28 GMT

    If ICC not allowing associate members to compete in World cup, ICC should introduce a fair mechanism to include top associate members to regularly compete in other multi-nation ODI tournaments. Otherwise ICC might start digging its own grave. It will be very difficult for the game of cricket to compete with other sports to attract money, sponsors and spectator interest at the long run. A sport won't be that interesting if its played only by 10 countries at the highest level. Cricket still survives thanks to the sub-continent where many people still keep much interest on it. We can't guarantee that it will remain so!

  • 1trinidesai on February 20, 2011, 14:45 GMT

    Ireland, Canada, Kenya, Netherlands, ZImbabwa etc, don't deserve to be in the world cup end of story. These countries don't have a cricketing tradition to start with! The ICC along with the WICB should disband the West Indies break it up into manable, profitable, talant growing pieces, then maybe think about places like Canada. Who is benefitting from countries like Ireland, Canada, Kenya, Netherlands, Zimbabwa in the world Cup????

  • on February 20, 2011, 11:05 GMT

    Somebody tell ICC that this tournament is known as the World Cup and not the Elite Cup... Already Cricket is not famous in so many nations... The nations with growing interest in this sport should be given more confidence ... and not throw them out of one tournament they look forward to in whole 4 years... Bad decision from ICC Chief Lorgat...

  • on February 20, 2011, 9:31 GMT

    Let's go back to major upsets of 2007 which are blamed for the so financial loss and disinterest but it was West Indies , yes the home side who couldn't revive their cricket and they could have kept things interesting especially for home fans and others ( i, an Indian, was looking for it ) but what they do is providing a poor goodbye from us to Lara. So, its not associates to blame (who are good to compete which they have shown few times) for degrading quality of cricket, if there is , well is ICC listening to this? Thanks, Dipankar.

  • gothetaniwha on February 20, 2011, 6:57 GMT

    For those people who moan aboat getting rid of minnows .check the score Kenya all out 69 NZ win in 8 overs LOL . Lets see if Sri Lanka can beat that . Methinks they can . Hey Sanga why don,t you open bowling , and Murli can open batting LOL ,

  • Drew12 on February 20, 2011, 4:01 GMT

    @gothetaniwha if the logic of what you are suggesting is carried through, there may as well not be a world cup. It would be a tournament featuring the top few sides (then there would be no thrashings or upsets) playing against each other. Wait... more or less, that is how this world cup is formatted anyway, but there is still too much room for an upset or two occuring. Lucky the ICC are eliminating the chance of that in future tournaments. That way the world cup can distinguish itself from the champions trophy. Only test nations compete in the CT, whereas in the world cup even fewer compete. Reminds me of soccer, where in the world cup 52 nations compete, and in the confederation cup only the best compete... or is it, BY CHANCE, the other way around.

  • on February 19, 2011, 23:40 GMT

    Some of you seem to be unaware that the proposed format for 2015 is that all 10 teams play each other in a round-robin situation. The tournament will not be shorter by more than a day or two. Research it yourself! It's not the fault of the associate countries that the tournament is too long. In fact, it's the real fear that they have improved too much in the last 2 years and will knock out India or perhaps one or two other high profile sides - which in-turn affects advertising revenues.

  • FlashAsh on February 21, 2011, 14:02 GMT

    What happens if China becomes an associate? Will we then see some reversal due to the possible TV rights? Just more hypocrisy from ICC!! Its a disgrace that countries like Ireland, Afganistan etc are being deliberately excluded to ensure the trough is full for the Test playing nations.

    I suppose the ICC believes that 20twenty is the answer for associates? The problem is they have absolutely no long term plan about making any associates Test playing nations or the criteria they have to fulfill to do so, or for that matter the current Test playing nations having to fulfill a certain criteria to remain at the trough?

    ICC a joke! Its just an exclusive club that has absolutely no intention of opening its doors to anyone who might change the balance of power (Or votes!).

    A pity and a scandal

  • gr8teams on February 21, 2011, 12:53 GMT

    If there were room for only a few teams from the "smaller" nations why don't we take a "rest of the smaller nations team1" and "rest of the smaller nations team2" to the next world cup. The rest of the smaller nations should have a selection process of their own "rest of the smaller nations world cup" 2 months prior to the actual world cup involving 16 countries.

  • WalkingWicket11 on February 21, 2011, 2:29 GMT

    10 teams playing removes the "world" from the World Cup, and adding 4 punching bags makes it a "World" Cup. There are over 150 countries in the world, so how does increasing the number of teams from 10 to 14 make it a "global" game? If that is the case, I propose the following format. Put the top 10 teams in Group A. To make the game "global", put the top 50 teams in Group B. Then everyone from Group B plays everyone from Group A. Each associate team gets to play 10 games against top teams, and also makes the game global. Now you ask, what next? Well, we stop after playing these 500 matches. After all, the purpose of the World Cup is to give the associates a chance to play the top teams, and to make the game "global". Nobody really cares about who wins it.

  • Balumekka on February 20, 2011, 19:28 GMT

    If ICC not allowing associate members to compete in World cup, ICC should introduce a fair mechanism to include top associate members to regularly compete in other multi-nation ODI tournaments. Otherwise ICC might start digging its own grave. It will be very difficult for the game of cricket to compete with other sports to attract money, sponsors and spectator interest at the long run. A sport won't be that interesting if its played only by 10 countries at the highest level. Cricket still survives thanks to the sub-continent where many people still keep much interest on it. We can't guarantee that it will remain so!

  • 1trinidesai on February 20, 2011, 14:45 GMT

    Ireland, Canada, Kenya, Netherlands, ZImbabwa etc, don't deserve to be in the world cup end of story. These countries don't have a cricketing tradition to start with! The ICC along with the WICB should disband the West Indies break it up into manable, profitable, talant growing pieces, then maybe think about places like Canada. Who is benefitting from countries like Ireland, Canada, Kenya, Netherlands, Zimbabwa in the world Cup????

  • on February 20, 2011, 11:05 GMT

    Somebody tell ICC that this tournament is known as the World Cup and not the Elite Cup... Already Cricket is not famous in so many nations... The nations with growing interest in this sport should be given more confidence ... and not throw them out of one tournament they look forward to in whole 4 years... Bad decision from ICC Chief Lorgat...

  • on February 20, 2011, 9:31 GMT

    Let's go back to major upsets of 2007 which are blamed for the so financial loss and disinterest but it was West Indies , yes the home side who couldn't revive their cricket and they could have kept things interesting especially for home fans and others ( i, an Indian, was looking for it ) but what they do is providing a poor goodbye from us to Lara. So, its not associates to blame (who are good to compete which they have shown few times) for degrading quality of cricket, if there is , well is ICC listening to this? Thanks, Dipankar.

  • gothetaniwha on February 20, 2011, 6:57 GMT

    For those people who moan aboat getting rid of minnows .check the score Kenya all out 69 NZ win in 8 overs LOL . Lets see if Sri Lanka can beat that . Methinks they can . Hey Sanga why don,t you open bowling , and Murli can open batting LOL ,

  • Drew12 on February 20, 2011, 4:01 GMT

    @gothetaniwha if the logic of what you are suggesting is carried through, there may as well not be a world cup. It would be a tournament featuring the top few sides (then there would be no thrashings or upsets) playing against each other. Wait... more or less, that is how this world cup is formatted anyway, but there is still too much room for an upset or two occuring. Lucky the ICC are eliminating the chance of that in future tournaments. That way the world cup can distinguish itself from the champions trophy. Only test nations compete in the CT, whereas in the world cup even fewer compete. Reminds me of soccer, where in the world cup 52 nations compete, and in the confederation cup only the best compete... or is it, BY CHANCE, the other way around.

  • on February 19, 2011, 23:40 GMT

    Some of you seem to be unaware that the proposed format for 2015 is that all 10 teams play each other in a round-robin situation. The tournament will not be shorter by more than a day or two. Research it yourself! It's not the fault of the associate countries that the tournament is too long. In fact, it's the real fear that they have improved too much in the last 2 years and will knock out India or perhaps one or two other high profile sides - which in-turn affects advertising revenues.

  • on February 19, 2011, 21:55 GMT

    Worst decision by ICC. Well, I have devised a format where u'll have quality matches, where all the top 9 teams will meet;at the same time, associates will participate. Well, the WC will lose its charm if the new teams and minnows dont play. The no. of teams should always be more. But, the format cant be like 2011 wc where the league stage is useless. Let me share my wc format somewhere.

  • Cpt.Meanster on February 19, 2011, 21:10 GMT

    I seem some comments here that can only come from hypocrites. First you say the world cup is TOO lengthy. We all know the reason for that one - the inclusion of the lesser teams. The only way ICC can address a long world cup is if they get rid of these minnow teams which is exactly what they have done. What's the problem now? cricket will NEVER be played and embraced globally. The Canadian teams is made up of Asian immigrants. Ireland keeps exporting its ilk to England, Kenya are a sad story and I don't see the Netherlands improving their cricket by any means. To make matters worse, the ICC won't spend much in terms of funding to these associate countries. So the deal is scrap the minnows off and let some proper cricket be played. Remember why the past world cups have been so much better; less teams and more thrilling cricket. If you still want all the minnows it then live with a LONG tournament folks.

  • gothetaniwha on February 19, 2011, 19:48 GMT

    No drew12 you just don,t get it .This team - which masqerades as Canada is full of very average expats .Jeez i wonder if any of them know national anthem of Canada LOL. This is the WORLDCUP . Im sure if the Italian cricket selectors convinced Vettori to switch and then looked through the melbourne ist grade comp they find enough players of italian extraction to thrash this Canadian team. Lets hope they score more than 36 this time against Sri lanka .

  • kantipur on February 19, 2011, 14:42 GMT

    Those who said ICC has done a good job must be from the test playing nation who are guaranteed to be in the world cup in 2015. Imagine somebody like us who have been fighting for the place in 2015 world cup for last 2-3 years. We have been world cricket league seriously only to find this. It is a great shock to us.

    Infact, the number of teams are reduced not because minnows have been bad but rather the so called minnows have been really good. Remember what ireland and bangladesh did last world cup. In order to reduce any upset ICC has came with the idea of removing the minnows.

  • on February 19, 2011, 13:51 GMT

    I dont understand how does ICC propose to add to the existing list of 10 test teams unless they try out the associates in the WC and similar tournies... another problems is that we will hav the same old teams playing the WC every 4 years... and the gap between them and the rest will jst keep on getting bigger.. definitely not what the cricketing world needs.. I hope...

  • Afta on February 19, 2011, 12:53 GMT

    How will you popularise the game in other parts of the world? Its the worst decision that the ICC has made. What a privilege to see cricketers from other than the test playing nations and also to note that there are players with immense tallent out there. Sorry, this is a poor decision.and a disaster. There should be atleast 12 nations taking part in all world cups in the future.

  • on February 19, 2011, 12:46 GMT

    Sack the ICC. The beauty about the World Cup is the non Test cricket nations having ago & we need to take the game globally. The ICC have done very little for these nations. Only 1 team has really stepped up in 30 years, thats Sri Lanka. You only improve against quality.

  • on February 19, 2011, 11:04 GMT

    i believe the decision is correct. But these smaller nations should be given more international tours against these test teams if this decision is implemented

  • cricket2011 on February 19, 2011, 10:36 GMT

    Very bad decission from ICC. instead of going to ahead ICC is going back. I don't know why every sports association enlarge the team numbers but cricket reducing. Its very cruel and very worst decision. Srilanka and Bangladesh and other some teams were associatives very year before. But they forgot every thing..... They don't make any voice against this decision....................

    Please change the title to world cup into ICC cup only

  • on February 19, 2011, 9:43 GMT

    I agree with whoever said it's not a world cup if the world can't join in. ICC risk turning the ODI World Cup into the equivelent of baseballs supposed 'wolrd series' How can they justify denying the minnows a place on the world stage?

  • on February 19, 2011, 8:08 GMT

    ICC Decision is fare. Otherwise matches and their respective attractions would fade with the increased addition of "lesser teams". A separate tournament for the "World's Second Line-Up" would be a better idea to screen the worst out of the "pit".....

  • on February 19, 2011, 7:40 GMT

    Whats the point in calling it a World Cup if only 10 countries( full members) are playing? all other sports like rugby and football increase the no, of teams in their respective WC's,why not cricket

  • on February 19, 2011, 7:14 GMT

    Haroon Lorgat and the ICC executive board are complletely right in their decision. Those of you who like drawing analogies with football must remember that it is first and foremosteconomics that drives the world cup and football in general. Fifa has no intrest in spreading the game as thier first and greatest mission , rather maximasing of theirs and sponsors returns. The world cup in south africa and indeed that in Qatar are all examples of money going before the "intrests" of football. The ICC does have an obligation to expand the game as well as maintaining the standards at such a level that the games integrity is not compromised. This is no the time for populist decisons driven by whipped upp emotions lacking in proper consideration. The decision to reduce the number to 10 teams at the world cupthough harsh at first sight is proper in the long run for the integrity of the game, its not a matter of having a cricket high class contra lower class, necesserily

  • hansie_gill_ on February 19, 2011, 7:09 GMT

    This is not a good decision ICC thinking about money not developing the game of cricket all over world.IRELAND ,ZIM,KENYA,CANADA,HOLAND should play against test playing natoins to gain experience.Otherwise ICC should make FOUR NATOINS EVENTS in which one non test team to be called (above mention) so that cricket can be made popular.ICC <PLEASE THINK AGAIN??????????? I

  • Muyeen on February 19, 2011, 7:06 GMT

    I do not see how a team will improve only by playing once in 4 years in World Cup. They need to play more than that. My suggestion is instead of having 7 match ODI bilateral series, lets have a tri-nation tournament,3rd team being an associate member. This will make sure they will get enough exposure and by the time next world cup comes they will be better team but if they do not improve in 4 years some other associate member will get a chance for next 4 years. This will ensure that matches arent boring in World Cups because associate members would also have some experience playing against big teams. Not giving them a chance even in WC is surely worst you can do to them.

  • Mike.Gojer on February 19, 2011, 7:04 GMT

    The ICC in recent years has taken a lot of strides in developing Cricket worldwide. To develop a game, you need to give exposure by way of participation for it to grow and improve in many other nations and not be a monopoly of a few. We need Minnows to develop & raise the level of their games & start beating teams in the Top 10, not keep them out. For an event that comes around once in 4 years, seems like a lifetime of wait, or eternity for a cricket developing nation to see their country perform at this stage. The world cup SHOULD be an open event and not the monopoly of a few. If you are talking about quality & not quatity, how would a country like India take it if the IOC told them they don't qualifiy to participate in the olympics based on performance standards not on par with other nations? (hence reduce burden of logistics,transport, housing on IOC). Haroon Lorgat should know that if a manager is not in line with the times, then the 'Company' will change him before >damage done

  • pvwadekar on February 19, 2011, 6:56 GMT

    This is a really stupid decision by ICC. Their goal is to promote cricket all round the world and when the associates are getting better, they don't allow them to participate in the world cup. How ridiculous is that ?. If ICC compares themselves with FIFA, then the so called football minnows still play and bring a freshness to the entire football worldcup. The greed of ICC and BCCI is responsible for this decision. Why is the world cup 42 days long ? because they want to play 1 ODI per day so that they can generate more "revenue" through advertisements. Just play 2 matches/ day and compress the tournament. and for goodness sake fix the tournament format once and for all .. why is the format changed from one point to other.. get 16 teams so that the associates still feel that they are doing something good otherwise they will just go to other sports

  • DLMcN on February 19, 2011, 6:13 GMT

    It is not yet 100% clear what will happen ... For example, the ICC authorities might insist that the lowest one (or two?) "major" countries will have to play in a qualifying tournament against the top two (or three?) associate nations ... to decide who goes on to compete in the World Cup.

  • on February 19, 2011, 6:07 GMT

    I totally agree with the suggestion of Mr. Panduka Jayamanne..Thats the correct way. People do get bored with this format..watching minnows being thrashed except for 1-2 upsets.

  • crickstats on February 19, 2011, 6:01 GMT

    One can understand ICC's position, it is better is they allow just one team, which wins the associate trophy, we all must remember Sri Lanka was one such team, I think the teams like Netherlands and Canada have hardly pulled a shocker, while Kenya and Ireland have a better record.

  • on February 19, 2011, 6:01 GMT

    A flat decision to reduce the world cup to just the 10 test playing nations will definately hurt. Though, the associate nations have more chances of playing ODIs and T20Is outside the world cup, the real platform for them to compete for a world cup title would be lost. Yes, it may sound to far fetched, but remember that Kenya made it to the semi-finals of the 2003 world cup.

    I am digressing, but on similar lines though, how does ICC play to check the test readiness of associate nations? This has intrigued me for years. Bangladesh have been one for a decade, but have never been ready for it. On the other hand, Kenya have been slogging for 15 years, outperforming Bangladesh, but to no luck. Ireland is another serious contender. Afganistan will be the next one. How will they be evaluated?

  • Poholiyadda on February 19, 2011, 6:01 GMT

    A very poor decision from the ICC. How can the ICC award test status to associates after only giving them chances to compete with quality teams in T20's internationally. And then what is the difference between the Cricket world cup and the ICC champions trophy ? ( Champions trophy is already a useless tournament) If a full member can't get in to the second round of the WC, it is the fault of that team, not the fault of the associate nation who beats them. I think Mr. Haroon Lograt and his co have got it completely wrong here. In 2007 there were two many minnows, but this time they have got the correct number. I think they still have time to correct their decision, if not cricket will not spread in to other countries. T20 is not proper cricket and it will not produce good test cricketers.

  • Drew12 on February 19, 2011, 5:49 GMT

    @gothetaniwha 'Judging by your warmup results getting above 100 and not losing by 10 wickets is going to be challenge' - Canada came within 16 runs of defeating England. @comments speaking of a minnows tournament, this already exists and I believe (but may be mistaken) that Afghanistan won the tournament in 2010. @Cricketfevers you have almost identified the reasoning but missed the point. That being that the ICC is taking steps to ensure that this does not occur again (SC teams being eliminated early) thus the format of the 2011 wc. The fact of the matter is that many of the non-test playing teams have shown their ability on the world stage and, unless it is a SC team like Bangladesh, beating a test playing nation is a no-no to the ICC and BCCI, for economic and political reasons. Ireland's performance in the 2007 WC should be rewarded, not punished.

  • Sulaimaan91 on February 19, 2011, 5:45 GMT

    this is the work of the BCCI who presently run the ICC behind the show.The only thing they are interested here is the financial loss that these associate teams bring which i think is minimal.Otherwise this decision doesnt make any logic especially since of late associate teams(Netherlands,Ireland,Canada,afghanistan) have been playing very competitive cricket.Its just sad that this has happened.This could only be changed once the BCCI's clout over the ICC is removed.

  • Lees_Legends on February 19, 2011, 5:34 GMT

    @ Panduka Jayamanne: They have that already. It's called the ICC world Cricket League Division One. It was played in the Netherlands last year and Ireland won. Afghanistan, Scotland, Kenya and Canada also played

  • no_second_chance_for_batsman on February 19, 2011, 5:33 GMT

    If there is a will then there is ALWAYS a way to fix this. There are enough solutions provided by others in the comments here. It will be a HUGE setback for the growth of cricket worldwide if the HOPE to play WC is killed. cheers, kumar

  • on February 19, 2011, 5:26 GMT

    I think we should to see if the ICC follows this change with something for the Associate countries. There have been a lot of talk and suggestions referring to leagues and more tournaments amongst these teams. If something like that is done, and they are given more opportunities amongst themselves, thereby providing them an opportunity to actually play, improve and move to the next level, then this decision seems sensible.

  • on February 19, 2011, 5:10 GMT

    Next WC will have more matches per team, so more advertising revenue per game if the minnows are not there.

  • on February 19, 2011, 5:08 GMT

    Icc is all about money now. They get nothing out of Non test playing nations, what they have forgotten that how Srilanka came up couz they were given opportunity to play against big teams infact the most toughest teams at that time, if they can see how Zimbabwe was hurt when they stopped playing Test cricket, cricket is not like Soccer, football or basket where u can evaluate the talent within short period of time, u need to give players an opportunity to play longer formats against big teams otherwise cricket will be left within 8 to 10 teams. ICC please forget the money and grow game all over world.

  • on February 19, 2011, 5:08 GMT

    mr.lorget tell me the meaning of 'world cup'?r u kiddinggggg?!!!i hoped u scence(atleast)?

  • 9ST9 on February 19, 2011, 4:58 GMT

    can't imagine the ICC is so mixed up in their decision making. Every world cup (soccer etc) does include the giants as well as the minnows. The ICC doesn't know the right number of teams for a world cup. The 2011 format is a joke why play 42 games just to select 8 teams who get knocked out in just 7 matches.. Group A has 21 games of which only 6 games hold interest. The league stages have to be like in soccer world cups 4 teams per group. 12 teams is the right number. the 9 test teams + Zimbabwe and 2 qualifiers. 3 groups of 4 each --18 preliminary games. A super six round and the semis.Always a fan of the associates. Kenya, Ireland even Canada have given us a glimpse of their true worth in the past.

  • crickstats on February 19, 2011, 4:55 GMT

    One can understand ICC's position, it is better is they allow just one team, which wins the associate trophy, we all must remember Sri Lanka was one such team, I think the teams like Netherlands and Canada have hardly pulled a shocker, while Kenya and Ireland have a better record.

  • splites on February 19, 2011, 4:48 GMT

    This is a poor decision by ICC. It takes away the opportunities Associates have to show their cricket on the world stage. I mean, they don't get much limited overs fixtures against the full members anyway. It will also take away from the value of the tournament. No one may be able to see for example, a Ryan ten Doeschante, who is arguably one of the shorter versions' better players at the moment, play for his country. These are the kinds of stages where opportunites are opened up for players from Associate teams to play in big domestic leagues. If the decision is to cut the Associates, then at least let them have proper series against the Test teams. Oh, and it seems the ICC forgot how Ireland and Kenya not only won, but dusted off Pakistan and Sri Lanka clinically. Where? At the World Cup....

  • powercric on February 19, 2011, 4:09 GMT

    It's a big blow to the hopes of aspiring cricket playing nations.never expected such a wise decision from ICC.ICC should be in first place to to encourage these countries.FIFA allowing no.of nations to play world cup football to just to increase the gaming standards.World cup is only the place where these child-cricketing nations meet strong teams.it means a lot when facing a strong contender weather it is a win/lose.it's a Gentlemen game.let them be a part of it.

  • on February 19, 2011, 4:05 GMT

    instead of giving chance in world cup alone, why not in other tournaments for these countries?

  • on February 19, 2011, 3:47 GMT

    pretty stupid. This is the only arena where the smaller nations gets the spotlight and show what they are capable of. This will only push those far away from the sport. There is no way that we'll get the world attention if it's only 10 countries out of 200 odd whose gonna play at the world cup. I say we should increase it to 15 next time and keep adding on a team with every world cup. Otherwise where is the progress? Even the crowd is getting tired of watching the same teams battle it out everytime. Let the others join the party too and make it more interesting. Sri Lanka only became a power house after their win in 1996 and only after that they got the enough money to develop the sport in the country to produce the talents we have today and whose aspiring to become tomorrow.

  • on February 19, 2011, 3:42 GMT

    Well the main objective of world cup should be more competitive.So in respect to that this is a good decision and i advocate it. Football world cup is global . Football is played each and every corner of the globe. So the level of competition is always sound. I sense that keeping that in mind this is a very bold statement.Look at last cricket world cup everyone got bored cause of it's length and less competitiveness.In football if there are 50 teams still that will be played very much at the same competitive level.So noone should compare soccer world cup with cricket world cup.

  • on February 19, 2011, 3:25 GMT

    With cricket getting the squeeze by other sports..... makes me think that the ICC is helping to diminish and destroy cricket, than to expand it ... I already think its bad enough ....not seeing too much of the games that are being played , tell me then, how are the youth gonna get exposure to the sport ? how are we going to spark their interest ?... we should be giving it to them to appreciate and enjoy... we need more Cricket .....

  • CHETHUMYSORE on February 19, 2011, 3:17 GMT

    I cant understand the ICC' s decision...If they doesnt allow the associate countries they will lose the interest on cricket and there is no need for them to play or develop cricket in their countries......Wat will India do if FIFA does the same thing ? ....Think twice before taking any decision....Sport is everyones....If they want to reduce the number of teams to ten then let them arrange Qualifying matches for the world cup as FIFA does then we can pick BESt 10 teams.....wat do u say friends ?.....

  • on February 19, 2011, 3:06 GMT

    This is absolutely ridiculous.....the ICC keeps saying and stressing the fact that they'd like to make the sport of Cricket global....how exactly do you plan to do this by involving just 10 countries out of entire world??? This decision totally negates the work that has been done in recent years by the sports/personalities in making Cricket popular in other countries - US, Argentina, Italy etc. The biggest surprise is not that this idea even came up but the fact that it was approved by everyone on the board....seriously?

  • on February 19, 2011, 2:44 GMT

    Pathetic decision by ICC. They should try to spread Cricket all over then world, but they are doing the opposite. Learn something from FIFA

  • priyatosh on February 19, 2011, 2:31 GMT

    I agree with ICC to reduce the no of country. WC can not be the place for minows to check how much they have progressed. ICC shold arrange other tournaments and series to do that. And never compare with FIFA WC. There 170 nations play football and only 32 teams play WC. In cricket hardly 18 to 20 countries play the game (and knows what is cricket) and there no meaning including 14 of them in biggest event.

  • on February 19, 2011, 2:08 GMT

    It seems to me that this has a lot to do with economics. If that is the case then why not have a round robin for the minnows and permit for example two teams to advance. On the other hand if this is the worldcup and as far as I can see there are not that many teams. I say bring everyone ; that is the only way that everyone gets exposure. Incidentally the minnows are making a lot of progress. Give them a break ! That is the only way that they will rise.

  • on February 19, 2011, 2:08 GMT

    Suggestion - invite all non test playing nations to play a 'mini world cup', 12 months prior to the the real event. This will improve the interest among the so called minnows and provide them to showcase their capabilities. Such an event will also test the strengths among them in a more competitive manner. Based on performance, the teams that come on top can then join the WC.

  • Ranura on February 19, 2011, 1:55 GMT

    good decision from lorgart!!! world cup should compete between strongest teams. minnows r destroying da global event. icc should give a chance 2 minnows in different ways but in the world cup.

  • MrArmchairCricket on February 19, 2011, 0:50 GMT

    I apologise for the caps in advance... BUT WOULD SOMEONE FROM THE ICC EXPLAIN TO ME HOW EXCLUDING CANADA, IRELAND AND THE FAST RISING AFGHANISTAN FROM THE WORLD CUP WILL HELP THESE COUNTRIES.

    {ICC} yes, here's an idea, we'll expand the game, by only letting the top 10 test teams into a world cup, no-one else can play, ha ha hah {/ICC} The ICC are a bunch of backyard bullies... they forget one thing... us fans do count

    What good is advertising revenue if people don't look at ads?

  • canuckcricketfan on February 19, 2011, 0:48 GMT

    Being a cricket fan in Canada, this is really disappointing news. What is contradictory is that there are 8 desirable teams that are meant to play in the quarter finals, yet there are all these other games to qualify and when there is an upset, non-associate teams get cut so they don't make sure the chosen 8 get jeapordized. What is the point of even having qualifying rounds? Come on ICC, Let the game grow internationally! GO CANADA GO!

  • landl47 on February 19, 2011, 0:41 GMT

    It's a desperately bad decision by the ICC and will reduce interest in the game around the world. Here in the USA the ability to watch cricket via TV and the internet is increasing interest in the game, but I can tell you flat out that if the US has no chance of playing in the biggest competition, then the game will go nowhere in this country. Americans are only interested in competitions in which America plays. Cricinfo itself is owned by the American broadcaster ESPN; it's this kind of decision that may cause them to pull the plug. Everyone who loves the game should let the ICC know what a mistake they're making.

  • on February 19, 2011, 0:35 GMT

    Maddness to cut number of countries that can play. Better to go with 20 teams. Four groups of five teams. Each play 4 games. Top two teams from each group [ 8 teams ] go straight to quarter final knock out match, then semifinal knock out and final. Max of 7 games to play for finalists. 47 games all up. But most important the second ranked ten teams [ those between 11 and 20th place ] get to play 4 games on the worlds biggest stage and includes two against two of the top eight test playing teams. Still wouldn't be too many surprises but world cups are supposed to throw up a few upsets. It would be far more interesting and exciting than reducing it to 10 teams.

  • Gherky on February 19, 2011, 0:34 GMT

    With the minnows in the World Cup I think it has a feel of the FA Cup in football in a sense that a minnow could cause an upset and I think that is great for the sport.

    Why is someone without any experience of playing for his country making decisions like this anyway?

    Harron Lorgat, please make way for a forward thinker!

  • WhatMustTheICCThink on February 19, 2011, 0:33 GMT

    In which other sport would a World Cup be cut from 16 to 14 to 10 teams, shutting out former semi-finalists and frequent giant slayers? This is a despicable move by the ICC, borne out of greed, thinly disguised by the lie that it'll somehow benefit emerging cricket nations. The Associates already have to go through a qualifying tournament to reach the World Cup. Afghanistan - not even in this tournament - would cake walk over some of the senior sides. It is the ICC, not countries, that should be shut out of the World Cup.

  • on February 19, 2011, 0:29 GMT

    This game has no future. It has market in one country only (India). Other countries will lose interest eventually and we'll be left with the undisputed (and unchallenged?) champion of world cricket :) They'd better disband the cup and make a four month long window for IPL, where 10/12 franchises play among themselves in infinite loop:)

  • Cricketfevers on February 19, 2011, 0:12 GMT

    I 100% agree with Canadian Coach. Those team have been able to make difference. How quickly ICC forgets that how Pakistan and India were out of the game in 2007 WC by Ireland and Bangladesh? Even this year Canada came very close to beat England in a warm up match. I think it all cricket playing countries should be allowed to go in to teh tournament.

  • Meety on February 19, 2011, 0:10 GMT

    @gothetaniwha - that may be the case (although Canada I feel has made some grass roots improvements lately), the fact is countries like Afghanistan, Ireland, Kenya, Scotland & Netherlands HAVE made improvements in that time & deserve some sort of pathway to Full Membership.

  • Meety on February 19, 2011, 0:06 GMT

    Why wouldn't the ICC wait until AFTER this W/Cup to analyse the performance of the "minnows"?? There is strong evidence to suggest that the Associates are improving their standards. We have a Champions Trophy for the highest ranked sides - a W/C is for everyone. If there is a lopsided score line who cares? Thrashings are common in ALL sports. This is completely stupid. I agree with some comments that say that T20 is a good vehicle for minnows - but that would be for sides like Hong Kong, PNG & China. Sides like Afghanistan, Ireland, Netherlands & Scotland are close to "Test Standard" & need this format to prove it. Those 4 nations are better developed than the Bangas were when they got given Test status. This just yanks the rug out from under them. Its a real shame because the pathway provided for Afghanistan by the ICC was very good, they look like they have completely undone this.

  • Grutness on February 18, 2011, 23:34 GMT

    Gothetaniwha, "East Africa" was not Zimbabwe - it was a combination of Kenya and Uganda). However, you are right - Canada has not got any closer to full status, having been overtaken by Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Kenya, and Ireland. Two of those countries have since gone on to full international status - it's a real pity that removing the chance of associates appearing in future world cups has effectively removed the chance of Ireland, Afghanistan, Netherlands, or anyone else for that matter, joining them, and the chance for other minnow nations to have a chance to compete against the world's best. Every other sport encourages new nations to take part - look at Rugby sevens, for instance. No-one expects Georgia or Namibia to reach the final, but they take part and spread the gospel of the sport in their region. Rugby sevens also has the excellent idea of a plate/bowl/shield tournament so that these smaller sides have a full opportunity to compete. It's about time cricket did the same.

  • YYCcric on February 18, 2011, 23:21 GMT

    I think ICC made the right decision and the format is the best where every team play each other and last four team qualify for the semi-final, that way you know who is the best 4 teams of the WC. By thrashing minnows in the WC games won't make you the best team as we seen before.But ICC should let the winner and the Runner up of the ICC associate cup to qualify which make it competetive and intresting for all the associates members to qualify not like this time when you have 4-5 teams and hence 20+ meaningless games.

  • on February 18, 2011, 22:20 GMT

    Canada should be commended for trying to build for the future by selecting so many young players, but the ICC needs to ensure that Canada have a future to build towards. I agree with Graeme Swann, this decision is taking the "World" out of the World Cup. The ICC need to rethink their decision.

  • on February 18, 2011, 22:01 GMT

    Then it is not world cup... We can call it as "Test Nation Cup"

  • on February 18, 2011, 21:49 GMT

    Down with Lorgat, the destroyer of global cricket.

  • Ayaz-from-Toronto on February 18, 2011, 21:43 GMT

    Haroon lorgat has completely lost it. He does not possess the capability to run such an organization. Look at FIFA they never reduce the number of participants. World cup should be for everyone. This is the only way we get to see that how these associate members are progressing.

  • gothetaniwha on February 18, 2011, 21:42 GMT

    Lets get real Canada .You were the third assoc to go to WC in 79 after Sri Lanka and East Africa (ZIM) in 75 .Both these have since gone on to gain test status . You have now been overtaken by BD who have test status and Kenya and Ireland who are not far off .The game in Canada has gone nowhere in 31 years and has been and still is been propped up by very average asian nz wi expats . Judging by your warmup results getting above 100 and not losing by 10 wickets is going to be challenge .

  • on February 18, 2011, 21:33 GMT

    I would like the ICC to expalin to cricket fans around he world how the decision to limit the following CWC to 10 teams helps world cricket. Surely the ICC's mandate should be to grow and develop cricket and cricket markets around the world. They could learn a lot from FIFA who have decided to hold the Football World Cup in Qatar.The ICC must be made to realise that any organistion that does not grow and expand will eventually become increasingly irrelevant and will ulimately decline. Keeping cricket in a small 10 country elitist group will not in the long term prove to be a smart strategy. New markets and teams must be developed in order for crickets appeal to grow. The ICC was making some progress towards this goal but now appears to have pulled back from this path Behold the tortoise, it only makes progress when it sticks its head out of its protective shell.The ICC tortoise can stay safe in its shell or stick its head out of the shell and advance.

  • hocus on February 18, 2011, 21:33 GMT

    associate countries should teach ICC a nice lesson...all this for saving india and pakistan..they were so pathetic during last world cup..they deserved to be kicked out the way they were..

  • on February 18, 2011, 21:32 GMT

    what the hell is this....the main point of a world cup is to spread the game throughout the world.....if Canada,Kenya and other minnow countries play only T20s, I dont see them enuf to get sufficient experience.....Unless they play longer forms of the game, they cant get any close to the quality of the leading teams.

    I think ICC is missing a point here... they are thinking short-sighted and want to make maximum profit...consider the case if they can spread and develop the game in these minnow countries..... as they start to play well, they will get more fans and they ll start to generate enormous amount of profit..... in either case of profit or spreading the game, the ICC has gone wrong miserably

  • Amar_Pashya on February 18, 2011, 21:07 GMT

    worldcup with 10 teams will be a short one. ICC should try and pull in more countries to play cricket rather than scaring them.

  • on February 18, 2011, 20:59 GMT

    Excellent logic, Dhushan. BCCI doesn't want to risk losing in the first round against minnows; therefore let us reduce the risk by replacing them by contenders!

  • ABP235 on February 18, 2011, 20:52 GMT

    In the first place, it was crazy to have as many as 4 non test playing nations (5, if we add Zimbabwe which was kept out recently by ICC from playing tests) in a world cup where the importance was getting diluted and many matches threatened to be mismatches and an occasional one was putting the teams off balance. Now that we had reached so far, it would have made sense to reduce the teams to 12 so that there was at least some competition among the associates to qualify for that elite place. This would have brought down the number of matches by around 12. Then again, quarter finals could also be taken out which make no sense at all, unless a top 6 super league is scheduled from where a final could be held directly. ICC does not know how to handle this matter effectively,I know its a waste of my time commenting (yet my love for the game makes me do it).

  • WASPUSA on February 18, 2011, 20:45 GMT

    Canada, Ireland, Kenya, and the Netherlands should refuse to play in this world cup until changes are made.

  • Cricket_Scholar on February 18, 2011, 20:39 GMT

    They should restrict the minnows to T20. But, the best 4 minnows should be given 3 tests, and 3 one day games to play against the 'A' team from every test playing country in the world. It should be compulsory for all the test playing nations to provide these tours in the 4 years between world cups. eg: Canada tours SL, and plays Sri Lanka A side for 3 tests & 3 one days, in say 2011, then Canada tours India & Bangladesh in 2012, then Canada tours Aus & NZ in 2013, then they tour Zimbabwe & SA in 2014, & 2015 they tour Eng & WI. Of course it is not safe to tour Pak. But since they are playing the A-team, it does not affect the host countries schedules, & the Canadian players will get good exposure playing future players. Also the host countries get chance to give their youngsters exposure. The same formula is applied to the other 3 best minnows. This way, minnows get a chance to play in different conditions; gets lots of experience; build team cohesion; eventual test status. Brilliant !

  • AKG0479 on February 18, 2011, 20:33 GMT

    the biggest mystery.. if the minnows can play World Cup ODI's.. why not regular series against other nations ! or are they only meant only to be a count when making a world cup schedule

  • on February 18, 2011, 20:32 GMT

    Haroon lorgat is destroying ICC and should be kicked out asap

  • Caveman. on February 18, 2011, 20:24 GMT

    Leaving the "world' out of "world cup" doesn't let it remain a world cup. It is a stupid decision. It might have some merit had there been no upsets - in other words if minnows performed badly in each and every game. But ever since 1996, when Kenya beat West Indies, each World cup has been some minnows upsetting the applecart of some of the bigger teams. It is a bad decision. The format in West Indies was fine. If some team (read India and Pakistan) couldnt beat them, they deserved to be booted out.

  • nadeemx9 on February 18, 2011, 20:20 GMT

    Its still in your hands Canada, Ireland, Zim, Ned. Go on and shock the world by beating the test countries at this world cup and reach the playoff stages. That will hopefully shut Lorgat and his ICC friends up.

  • addington4c on February 18, 2011, 20:15 GMT

    The ICC are a bunch of buffoons, desperate to stop the game improving or spreading. Why would you stop the aspirational dreams of cricketers throughout the world? Honestly throw this lot out base the ICC in a crcketing country and make one of their performance goals as growth in this great game

  • calvin_n on February 18, 2011, 20:15 GMT

    I completely support Pubudu. We need the associate members in the world cup. A massive signature campaign must be started. ICC is out of its mind. 10 countries is not the world.

  • on February 18, 2011, 20:12 GMT

    I agree with Pubudu. There should be some consistency in the decisions. Why call them up for the cup and tell them 'this would be your last??'

  • Scgboy on February 18, 2011, 19:48 GMT

    I actually agree with him. whilst there is a need to streamline the event , not to have the Associates there or give them something to aim for is criminal. 20/20 is good and great forum for them to compete in,with things being much even.Nevertheless , it doesn't do much for the progress beyond that.

  • on February 18, 2011, 19:47 GMT

    ICC seems to be making lot of decisions that are questionable. Is this due to it leaership or lack thereof. Sometimes they make BCCI look good in comparison. I know its not a direct comparison.

  • on February 18, 2011, 19:38 GMT

    what a shame for ICC for not appreciating the associate nations in the 50 overs matches and only pushing them forward in 20-20 matches.... a world cup without the world beyond test playing nations is a shame and bad management decisions by the ICC.... they only care about money that they can earn... and not the development they can do... all the hard-work of afghanistan, ireland, kenya, etc, etc... will be demonstrated only on 20-20 level.... what a SHAME...!!!!!!!

  • arnold_mccann on February 18, 2011, 19:34 GMT

    The decision to cut the number of teams in the next world cup is simply a farce. How could cricket become a global sport when you discourage the associate teams from participating in global tournaments. As a result of this decision the general public of these associate nations will get disillusioned and simply will have a thought that cricket is a sport of the "elites". Hence cricket loses popularity. Over the last two decades the ICC has been promoting policies that are equivalent to stabbing themselves on their own backs.

  • NikSaid on February 18, 2011, 19:33 GMT

    oh well...make them part of warm up games in each world cup and make those associates countries broadcast live entire worldcup including those warmups. I bet people will get excited and so called progress can be achieved WITHOUT having a MONTH LONG "WORLD CUP". Win Win?

  • on February 18, 2011, 19:31 GMT

    The cricket world cup will be one of the only major sporting championships where smaller nations are not involved.

    What would the Football and Rugby world cups be like if only the major teams were given an opportunity to participate; the brand would lose momentum quickly. It's a terrible decision by the ICC, very backwards looking and certainly not one that will grow the game outside of ICC member countries.

  • Tiptop32 on February 18, 2011, 19:30 GMT

    I feel that they should include more Associate teams for ODI WC. The format followed in 2007 WC seems to be good one except for some upsets(for India and Pak) but we have to live with that. The credit goes to minnows for beating the best teams. But now it seems the big teams does not want minnow bite. They simply want to escape. If you have that kind of problem then follow this 2011 WC format. Don't restrict cricket playing nations. Already this game is shrunken with only 8(4 in reality) top teams.

  • BoonBoom on February 18, 2011, 19:29 GMT

    Haroon Lorgat has no common sense. First he says he wants to globalize the game but at the same time he doesn't want more teams to play ODI. He does not understand that T20 is not the type of cricket that will help non test playing countries understand and learn temperament and technique of the game of Cricket. He is certainly not helping these associate members by eliminating them from ODI.

  • Danksl on February 18, 2011, 19:29 GMT

    I think they should have at least 12 teams. Every team in needs an opportunity at least to have a hope they can qualify to play in World Cup. teams like Sri Lanka before 96 they were not big. now they have come up to the level of WC contenders every year. we should feel sorry for the associate countries. Let's help them develop cricket

  • on February 18, 2011, 19:15 GMT

    Ridiculous thing to do...while ICC should ideally wish to take Cricket to other shores, they are coming back towards the roots.

  • on February 18, 2011, 19:11 GMT

    ICC should increase number of teams and decrease number of matches in the world cup similar to that of Soccer World Cup or else cricket will be a only sporting events in 4-5 countries, Countries who does'nt understand any other sports then cricket.

  • Dhushan on February 18, 2011, 19:09 GMT

    I maybe wrong but I won't be surprised if this decision is also to satisfy BCCI. As the ICC said before, the 2011 World Cup format is in favour of the top teams because India & Pakistan crashed out last time & there were huge losses financially but look at the strides CRICKET made. Isn't this why we're doing this? For cricket & not to fill cricket boards & their administrators with money? Let the other nations play & make it more competitive. Every World Cup there is an upset which makes the tournament all the more exciting & interesting to follow & it gives everyone opportunity to talk about it for the next 4 years & thereon

  • kohatian on February 18, 2011, 18:54 GMT

    Poor decision by ICC. Its beauty of the world cup that big teams are afraid that minnows may upset them. At least they should have waited till the end of this world cup before making a decision. Instead of 10, they should make it 12 teams. Two groups with 6 teams each, and top 4 teams from each group goes to quarter final

  • on February 18, 2011, 18:35 GMT

    This is ridiculous. ICC should be working on adding more and more nations to the world cup to make cricket more more popular in nations which are behind cricket rankings. I don't know whats the logic behind it but this is a bad decision. If Canada or UAE play world cup they will inspire their neighbors and cricket will eventually flow in popularity.

  • FR3AKX on February 18, 2011, 18:27 GMT

    I think decision is only fair if the ICC sets up an ODI league where all the minnows play enuf of ODI matches against all other teams to improve their ranking and experience, and like the Football WC there should be a qualifiers too for the teams ranked below 7 to fight it out for the last 3 spots. The advantage of this would be that the World Cup will have good quality matches rather than one-sided feasts wich does attract interest from the fans. I sincerely hope ICC also sets up a Test Match World Cup as that would be the ultimate test for any cricket team to prove its supremacy in this game.

  • on February 18, 2011, 18:14 GMT

    this is really right and worst thing being done by ICC.. if such is the case.. I dont think there is any point of having ICC CHAMPIONS TROPHY

  • Kalan9211 on February 18, 2011, 18:13 GMT

    great decision by ICC to reduce teams in 2015 world cup. It would be good to see another great world cup in Australia in 2015. ALl matches will be worth watching in that word cup as only test playing teams will play. Non test playing teams should concentrate on T20.

  • ShashidharHundi on February 18, 2011, 18:10 GMT

    This decision is ridiculous. You want to popularize the cricket & you are cutting down the number of teams !!! On the contrary you increase number of teams of 16 and group them in to four groups of four each. Then select the top 2 of each group and move them to Quarter finals. There is lot of talent in other countries and WC is the best motivation for them to play and popularize the game in those countries.

  • sunnymachoo on February 18, 2011, 18:07 GMT

    Its very very unfair and unjust to reduce number of teams in ODI WC. All teams have equal rights to play. After all, we have hardly 14-16 teams in the whole cricket world. Whats the harm in giving all these a chance. However more than 16 would be too much but atleast maintain the current number.

  • Hassan.Farooqi on February 18, 2011, 17:54 GMT

    In countries like Canada, T20 has more place than an ODI. ICC should ensure these "minnows" participate in T20 world cup, but they should compete hard for a couple of spots for ODI World Cup. It is about time ICC set up a "Major League" and eliminate the status based on Test and Associate. MLC Test should have 10, MLC ODI should have 15 and MLC T20 20! Then the middle league and minor league should compete for the next league.

  • rohit_bhagchandani on February 18, 2011, 17:51 GMT

    this is the worst decision by ICC to decline the value of cricket in the associate/affiliate countries...their interest will lost..in cricket...

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • rohit_bhagchandani on February 18, 2011, 17:51 GMT

    this is the worst decision by ICC to decline the value of cricket in the associate/affiliate countries...their interest will lost..in cricket...

  • Hassan.Farooqi on February 18, 2011, 17:54 GMT

    In countries like Canada, T20 has more place than an ODI. ICC should ensure these "minnows" participate in T20 world cup, but they should compete hard for a couple of spots for ODI World Cup. It is about time ICC set up a "Major League" and eliminate the status based on Test and Associate. MLC Test should have 10, MLC ODI should have 15 and MLC T20 20! Then the middle league and minor league should compete for the next league.

  • sunnymachoo on February 18, 2011, 18:07 GMT

    Its very very unfair and unjust to reduce number of teams in ODI WC. All teams have equal rights to play. After all, we have hardly 14-16 teams in the whole cricket world. Whats the harm in giving all these a chance. However more than 16 would be too much but atleast maintain the current number.

  • ShashidharHundi on February 18, 2011, 18:10 GMT

    This decision is ridiculous. You want to popularize the cricket & you are cutting down the number of teams !!! On the contrary you increase number of teams of 16 and group them in to four groups of four each. Then select the top 2 of each group and move them to Quarter finals. There is lot of talent in other countries and WC is the best motivation for them to play and popularize the game in those countries.

  • Kalan9211 on February 18, 2011, 18:13 GMT

    great decision by ICC to reduce teams in 2015 world cup. It would be good to see another great world cup in Australia in 2015. ALl matches will be worth watching in that word cup as only test playing teams will play. Non test playing teams should concentrate on T20.

  • on February 18, 2011, 18:14 GMT

    this is really right and worst thing being done by ICC.. if such is the case.. I dont think there is any point of having ICC CHAMPIONS TROPHY

  • FR3AKX on February 18, 2011, 18:27 GMT

    I think decision is only fair if the ICC sets up an ODI league where all the minnows play enuf of ODI matches against all other teams to improve their ranking and experience, and like the Football WC there should be a qualifiers too for the teams ranked below 7 to fight it out for the last 3 spots. The advantage of this would be that the World Cup will have good quality matches rather than one-sided feasts wich does attract interest from the fans. I sincerely hope ICC also sets up a Test Match World Cup as that would be the ultimate test for any cricket team to prove its supremacy in this game.

  • on February 18, 2011, 18:35 GMT

    This is ridiculous. ICC should be working on adding more and more nations to the world cup to make cricket more more popular in nations which are behind cricket rankings. I don't know whats the logic behind it but this is a bad decision. If Canada or UAE play world cup they will inspire their neighbors and cricket will eventually flow in popularity.

  • kohatian on February 18, 2011, 18:54 GMT

    Poor decision by ICC. Its beauty of the world cup that big teams are afraid that minnows may upset them. At least they should have waited till the end of this world cup before making a decision. Instead of 10, they should make it 12 teams. Two groups with 6 teams each, and top 4 teams from each group goes to quarter final

  • Dhushan on February 18, 2011, 19:09 GMT

    I maybe wrong but I won't be surprised if this decision is also to satisfy BCCI. As the ICC said before, the 2011 World Cup format is in favour of the top teams because India & Pakistan crashed out last time & there were huge losses financially but look at the strides CRICKET made. Isn't this why we're doing this? For cricket & not to fill cricket boards & their administrators with money? Let the other nations play & make it more competitive. Every World Cup there is an upset which makes the tournament all the more exciting & interesting to follow & it gives everyone opportunity to talk about it for the next 4 years & thereon