Was the ICC right in pruning the World Cup down to 10 teams?

There were rumours pretty much all through the World Cup that the next edition of the event in 2015 would have just ten teams as opposed to fourteen in the 2011 edition. In other words, the associate nations would be unable to take part in the event and quite expectedly these teams didn’t like the idea. Their worst fears were confirmed just two days after the completion of the tournament as the ICC made a formal announcement that not only the 2015 event, but also the 2019 edition would have just ten participating nations. To compensate, the ICC decided to expand the World Twenty20 to 16 teams. This decision was received with mixed reactions throughout the cricketing fraternity. In this piece, we look at the positive and the negative effects of this decision.

The local policemen are the only spectators as Australia take on Kenya

A fair number of pundits around the world praised the ICC for taking this step. The reason cited was pretty much uniform. Associate nations are hardly competitive against the top cricketing nations. As a result, there are a number of one-sided fixtures whose results are known even before the first ball is bowled. There are exceptions though, as Ireland showed a couple of weeks back against England. But by and large such upsets are rare, maybe one or two per World Cup, and they hardly affect the league tables. But once again you have exceptions. Bangladesh and Ireland qualified for the super eights at the expense of India and Pakistan respectively in 2007 and Kenya had a dream run to the semi-finals in 2003. But then that too has an adverse effect on the quality of cricket. In the latter stages of the tournament you would expect the better teams to face off so that the quality of cricket on show is of the highest level. And its tough to argue against that. Any non-Kenyan would have preferred an India vs Pakistan or an India vs New Zealand semi-final in 2003 instead of an India vs Kenya. Also, the length of the World Cup increases with an increase in the number of teams and things are not that bright financially either as stands are often empty and at times the attendance doesn’t even reach three figures. Bringing the number of participating teams to 10 has definitely ensured that the quality of cricket will be much higher and there will be a lesser number of ‘boring’ fixtures. The total number of games too will be lesser and hence the event will be more intense and interesting.

Kevin O'Brien celebrates his breathtaking century

To understand the point of view of those against the ICC’s decision, one has to go back to the very roots. The idea of starting the World Cup was not only to create a platform for the best in the business to come and showcase their talents, but also to draw more people and more nations towards the game. With time, the game’s popularity has increased manifolds. More and more countries are taking up the game and hence the number of teams too has steadily increased, from 8 in 1975 to 14 in 2011 (the 2007 edition had 16 teams, the highest ever). So the decision to reduce the number of teams doesn’t quite seem to be in synchronization with the objective of organizing a World Cup. Also with just 10 odd nations, will it actually be a ‘World Cup’? What does the ICC want to convey with this decision? Does it want the game to stay confined to just ten elite cricketing nations? The World Cup is pretty much the only stage where the players from various associate nations can rub shoulders with their cricketing heroes from the top nations. The experience of playing with the best is definitely a big boost especially for the youngsters. A Kevin O’Brien or a Ryan ten Doeschate will learn a lot more from a half an hour minute chat with a Sachin Tendulkar or a Ricky Ponting that he would from a half a day ssession with a coach. Knowing how the best in the world go about their business from themselves is irreplaceable.

Throughout the year, the associate nations play against each other in various tournaments. The ICC has so far been organising a qualifying campaign to determine the best associate nations and then the top few have been given an opportunity to play in the World Cup. This ordeal has been going on more than a decade but more often than not, the associates face heavy defeats against the top teams. They go back to where they were before the tournament and they return four years later and their fate is no different. Why does this happen? Why aren’t the associate nations competitive? In the four years gap in between successive editions of the World Cup, the associate nations hardly play a single match against a test playing nation. And so the gulf between the two levels remains the same. Its when you play against the better sides that you know your shortcomings and the areas you need to work upon. Four years is too big a gap to check if there is any progress. You know your problems in one edition and go back home and work on it. Then you face the other associate nations and things work out fine. You feel you have overcome your flaws and then you come up against a test side in the next World Cup and you see that things don’t quite work out as u had expected. You suffer another heavy defeat and at time more areas of concern come up. As a result you are back to where you were four years ago.

Ryan ten Doeschate has been the best Associate player for quite some time

If the ICC wants to encourage more teams to become competitive, it needs to ensure that the associate nations play a bit more cricket against the major teams. And this is not as difficult to implement as it may seem to be. Say for example the Indian team tours England. So instead of playing a practice match against a county side, the ICC can ask the respective boards to agree to a practice match between India and say Ireland or Scotland. Another way could be to introduce an associate nation as the third side in bilateral ODI series’. And it need not be a conventional tri-series. A couple of matches for the associate nation, one each against the two participating teams, is good enough to help the cause. A third way could be to involve the associates in the domestic competitions of the test playing nations. So Bermuda and Canada can participate in West Indies’ domestic competition, Kenya can do so in South Africa’s, Afghanistan and UAE can do so in India’s or Pakistan’s and so on. The domestic competitions feature a number of players who are on the verge of getting into the national team. There are youngsters who will be making it to their national side in the future and then you also have the national team players coming in when there aren’t any international assignments or when they are returning from injury. The ways are definitely there and the ball is in the ICC’s court to decide what’s best in the interest of the game.

Steve Tikolo, one of the top players from the Associate nations in the past decade or so. He was the skipper of the Kenyan team that reached the semis in 2003

The ICC has tried to compensate by increasing the number of teams in the Twenty20 World Cup to 16. But then is T20 the best format to promote the associates? If the idea is to increase the number of test playing nations, which is what it should ideally be, that T20s don’t seem to be the right format. T20 doesn’t test a few important dimensions of the game, things that a world class cricketer needs to possess. The adaptability of a batsman is hardly tested. There’s only one way to play in T20s, you have to smack the leather off the ball, irrespective of what the conditions are. There’s hardly any time to build an innings or to try and adjust your game according to the conditions. You cannot afford to play yourself in because by the time you are in the match might be out of reach. And its pretty much the same for bowlers. A bowler hardly gets time to get into a proper rhythm. You may take just two overs to do that but by that time your spell is over and you are off the attack for the next 10 overs. In ODIs, there’s much more scope to showcase various aspects of the game. Batsmen have time to build an innings, they have time to get themselves in and plan their game according to the conditions and there’s the option to make up for a couple of quiet overs somewhere in the innings. The bowlers too have more overs in their kitty which helps them to get into a nice rhythm and gives them more time to understand and adjust themselves according to the conditions. Even for the team as a whole, Twenty20 hardly gives you a chance to come back once you have fallen behind. Two to three poor overs while batting or bowling can cost the entire match. You can restrict a side to 120 in 18 overs but 30 runs in the last two overs can take the game away. Similarly while batting, you may need 50 to win off 5 overs but two quiet overs can make it 40 off three overs. Thus, if you want to judge a cricketer or a team, Twenty20 doesn’t seem to be the best available format.

The ICC’s decision to reduce the number of teams was probably taken keeping in mind the standard of cricket and the length of the tourney. The fact that the matches of the associates are not great profit making sources might have played a part too. But if the ICC wants to spread the game further it has to do something to ensure that the associates move up the ladder at a good rate, even if it means giving up a bit on a financial side. The World Cup is a great platform to popularise the game in the associate nations and to attract more people towards cricket. The very knowledge that their country is participating in a World Cup is enough for many people to follow their side and cheer for them, irrespective of whether they have any previous knowledge about the game or not. The ICC’s decision has invoked quite a few harsh reactions from the associates, mostly from Ireland, and now its upto the ruling body to take steps to ensure that the associate nations do not feel neglected and that they too receive a fair amount of attention and importance.