T Cozier: World Cup Hopes And Impressions (28 Jun 1998)

28 June 1998

World Cup Hopes And Impressions

Tony Cozier

Providing they haven't been bought over by some American sports franchise in the interim and transformed into air-conditioned super-domes for televised basketball, gridiron and baseball, Kensington, Queen's Park, Sabina and the other cricket grounds of the Caribbean will be hosting the World Cup for the first time in 2007 - or, if the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) can have its way, by 2005.

England has staged it three times, India-Pakistan combined twice and Australia-New Zealand once. England again host the tournament next year and, by a strange process of wheeling and dealing within the International Cricket Council (ICC), South Africa have been granted it in 2003.

There are reasons why it has taken so long for the game's premier international event to reach these shores where it has been played with such fervour, and excellence, for more than 100 years. In the first instance - or, to be more precise, the first three, 1975, 1979 and 1983 - ICC members were satisfied that England, with its facilities, multi-cultural population and short, easily accessible distances between venues, was the best place to hold it.

Then, as the age of commercialism and sponsorship became more entrenched, its money-making potential was recognised.

Not surprisingly, India and Pakistan were in like a flash and, with their huge crowds and gigantic markets, have twice literally bought the Cup, in 1987 and, tagging Sri Lanka along to make a trio of hosts, in 1996.

Australia and New Zealand combined to stage the 1992 event.

Belatedly recognising its obvious value to the tourism-based economies of most of its constituencies, the West Indies Board finally bid for and were tentatively awarded the Cup for 2000, following England in 1996 but two factors threw that arrangement out of skelter - the intervention of India and the admission to the ICC of Zimbabwe and the return of South Africa after their ostracism caused by apartheid.

Quick to spot the substantial returns from TV rights and commercial sponsorship from another World Cup, India argued that the configuration of the ICC had changed to such an extent with its two new members that the subject of the World Cup should be revisited.

They then held hands with Pakistan and Sri Lanka, got the backing of South Africa and Zimbabwe and promised the associate members of ICC - the likes of Kenya, Argentina, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia and Hong Kong - a sizable chunk of the profits in exchange for their votes for the 1996 tournament.

Money talked and made the difference. India-Pakistan-Sri Lanka duly held the Cup again, England had to wait another four years and South Africa preempted the West Indies.

On reflection, the delay was not such a bad thing for the West Indies. It might well have saved us even more acute embarrassment than we have endured in the past few years when we have had to accommodate two teams at a time, not the 12 that are now eligible for the World Cup or the 16 being planned for 2007(5).

In the last decade of the 20th century, the West Indies have had a Test match abandoned for the first time in history because of a dangerous, ill-prepared pitch, and entire days lost to outfields that cannot be properly dried with the antiquated use of buckets and sponges.

In our own one-day competition, we have found it impossible to get team uniforms from Kingston to Georgetown in time for a match, two years ago the New Zealanders were within a couple of hours of abandoning a one-day international in St. Vincent because their gear was still in Guyana, ticket sales remain a shambles and the scoreboard of at least one ground would shame even the most destitute club team.

Nowhere is there yet floodlights that are now part and parcel of limited-overs cricket and that abound almost everywhere else and, as we experienced during the recent England series, our stands are still inadequate.

There is, dare we hope, ample time to have all these problems cleared up by 2007. By then, there should be no chance of Zimbabwe turning up in Anguilla and finding that Holland, their scheduled opponents, are waiting for them in Dominica or that a match has to be called off because of a sub-standard pitch or a damp spot on the outfield.

These are logistical matters that any planning committee should be able to handle. The most serious threat to the West Indies living up to the slogan "A great place for the World Cup!" is one that continues to affect every aspect of West Indian life, insularity.

The potential for bickering over where matches should be held - and, more especially, the semi-finals and final - were placed in sharp focus last week as two current Test players, Curtly Ambrose and Kenny Benjamin, publicly questioned why Antigua had not been scheduled for a one-day international since 1988 while others (Kensington, Queen's Park and Arnos Vale) have sometimes got two a season.

It is a fair question since Antigua has invested heavily in upgrading the Recreation Ground. But others are also spending plenty of money - Grenada's new stadium is costing US$20 million - in the confident expectation of gaining future, and regular, internationals.

There should be plenty of matches to go round - there are 42 in all in next year's Cup in England - but Bermuda, Canada and the US also have to get some. The WICB is bound to find plenty of argument over who should get the West Indies' matches - not to mention the semis and final.

Source :: The Barbados Nation (https://www.nationnews.com/)