ICC entrenches the decline of world cricket

After a memorable 2011 Cricket World Cup, culminating with a great match between India and Sri Lanka, the ICC has once again shown its inability to see the big picture for the sport. The ICC has chosen to cut the number of teams from fourteen to ten - effectively freezing out the top Associate nations until 2019. This is despite the Associates providing some of the most entertaining matches and individual performances of the World Cup.

The traditional arguments that have been put forward by the ICC is that the Associates provide too many one-sided matches and that their inclusion increases the length of the already lengthy World Cup.

Both of these assertions are demonstrably false (and I have written previously on how the ICC can address the issues that lead to these assertions).

As we saw in this year's World Cup, the Associates provided some of the most entertaining cricket of the tournament - including the Netherlands putting together a total of 292/6 against England, pushing England to the last 8 balls of the match and Ireland's win over England. Although in some of the other matches the Associates were given a thrashing, the same could be said of Bangladesh- losing to the West Indies by 9 wickets (221 balls remaining) and South Africa by 206 runs - and Zimbabwe - losing to New Zealand by 10 wickets (99 balls remaining) and Sri Lanka by 139 runs. Even some of the stronger teams in the competition went down by big margins on occasion, for example Pakistan was defeated by New Zealand by 110 runs early in the competition.

The length problem is false too, considering that the ICC's broadcast contract guarantees a Word Cup of a certain length.

So the only conclusion that can be reached is that the ICC's decision is merely to entrench the interests of the test-playing nations to ensure that none of them are knocked out of the competition by the Associates. In other sports this would be tackled by those teams actually out-playing the Associates, but it seems that the ICC is intent on ensuring that incumbency defeats talent. As the chief executive of Cricket Ireland, Warren Deutrom, stated:

"It's a betrayal of the principles of sport and the principles of meritocracy and a level playing field. Surely the principle of sport is that if you are good enough you should have the chance to be involved. You have an Associate member who has been out-ranking a Full Member [Zimbabwe] for most of the last four years, who has got through to the Super Eights of the 2007 World Cup, and who has been genuinely been recognised as having performed even better at this one, yet on the back of those performances it [the ICC] has been seen fit to reduced the number of participants at the World Cup."

The true tragedy of the ICC's decision is that it will deny an entire generation of Associate players access to the premier ODI competition, most of whom will probably seek qualification with incumbent sides (particularly England, which is likely to deplete the Irish, Scottish and Dutch sides). In addition to the loss of players, the ICC's decision will also starve Associate nations of sponsorship. This will likely leave the Associates in the 2019 competition lacking in player depth and susceptible to the tired old arguments about one-sided competitions. This self-fulfilling prophesy will undoubtedly be used by the ICC to vindicate this decision.

William Porterfield, Ireland's Captain, was succinct, describing the ICC's decision as 'an absolute  joke'.

And indeed, if you were to look at the ICC's statement of values and see the following:

• Openness, honesty and integrity
• Excellence
• Accountability and responsibility
• Commitment to the game
• Respect for our diversity
• Fairness and equity

in the context of the decision to bar the Associates from competition, you could be forgiven for agreeing  that the ICC is a parody of a sports administration.

Cricket World Cup: How to put the world back into the World Cup

As we come to the finals stage of the 2011 Cricket World Cup, cricket fans around the world seem to be giving it a collective "meh". That is not to say that there haven't been some great matches, drama and upsets but the competition has gone on for too long (again) and the tiredness of the World Cup format is becoming more apparent.

So, what is to be done to salvage what is supposed to be Cricket's premier competition?

Predictably, the ICC's reaction has been to suggest that the competition ditches the Associates - assuming that they create too many boring one-sided games (and that they might accidently eliminate India) and that this is the cure to the length and the tedium that has become the Cricket World Cup. This neglects two things: firstly, the Associates have been extremely entertaining to watch and (apart from Kenya), have each pressed a full-member nation or two (although Canada did capitulate against Australia after their brilliant start); and secondly, if cricket is to expand and survive as anything other than a niche sport, it needs to have more countries playing it. Without anything to strive for, it's likely that the popularity and participation in cricket will plummet in Associate nations.

The implementation of the World Cricket League system of qualification has been one high point in the ICC's administration of the game - especially with stories such as the rapid rise of Afghanistan from Div 7 all the way to Div 1 (and narrowly missing out on World Cup qualification). The league system provides Associate and Affiliate teams a clear system of progression and something to strive for. There is no reason why this same system cannot be applied to the test-playing nations as well. Automatic qualification for the World Cup has made the top nations lazy and dismissive of the Associate and Affiliate teams.

The editor of Cricinfo, Sambit Bal, has suggested that a qualification system be in place for the World Cup by having a qualification round prior to the World Cup:

"Here's how it will work. The ICC is yet to decide how many teams will automatically qualify; this should be set at six. Which would mean four of the bottom-ranked teams among the ten Full Members - using this World Cup as an illustration it would mean New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe - would join the top four among the Associates in a qualifier, the first round of the World Cup. They could probably be split into two groups, with the top two from each group going into the second round - the Top Ten.

This will add to the tournament's length but these first-round matches can be played in a cluster of two or three a day and be finished within a week. It is now routine to play a few practice games before the tournament, and the top six teams can play their practice games concurrently."

Although this is a start, it doesn't get around the problems of the Associates not getting enough games against the test-playing nations and automatic qualification making the test-playing nations lazy and dismissive.

Here's how qualification could work:

• At the end of the World Cup the ODI rankings table is updated (rather than in August as it currently is, see the FAQ [PDF] for details)
• The bottom four sides in these rankings are relegated to Div 1. This method of determining the bottom four sides (on current rankings: Zimbabwe, Netherlands, Kenya, Canada) would only be used in the initial phase. Subsequently the teams not qualifying for the World Cup Second Round would be relegated.
• The remaining sides are "qualified sides" which, on current rankings would be: Australia, South Africa, India,  Sri Lanka, England, Pakistan, New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh and Ireland.
• The Div 1 qualifier is played 2 years before the next World Cup to determine the four sides that qualify for the World Cup. This will add four more sides to the "qualified sides"
• During the ensuing four years, each team must play each of the other "qualified sides" at least once, with rankings being determined in the usual manner. This ensures that all of the top associate nations get some game experience against top sides before being thrust into the World Cup. Obviously the full compliment of "qualified sides" wouldn't be known until two years before the World Cup - but all games in the four year cycle would be counted.
• If teams do not play against a particular team then the points are awarded as a forfeit game to the lower ranked side.
• No-result games are counted as a game played against that country, but not counted for rankings (as is currently the case).
• At the end of the four year cycle, these rankings would be used to determine the two-round system outlined above. As stated earlier, the four teams not going through to the second round would be relegated to Div 1.

This system gives the Associates games against the top sides before the World Cup and a clear system of progression to the World Cup. It also keeps the test-playing nations on their toes with the threat of relegation.