World cup down to 10 teams

[maehara]

The phrase "turkeys voting for Christmas" comes to mind. Unfair to point any fingers at Zim and Bangladesh, though, as by most accounts the Full Members were unanimous on the matter. Shocking, I know.

[Kriterion_BD]

If Ireland are better than BD, but not as good as ZIM, doesn't that imply that ZIM is better than BD?

As far as my personal choice is concerned, ask me anywhere, anytime and my answer would be- Zimbabwe is much better side than Irl or Bang. full stop.
Plz incorporate the 'like button' for other users

understood.

[maehara]

Hark, the sound of gears grinding as they're thrown into reverse.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 11767.html

[eugene]

As I predicted the ICC are going to change their minds. They don't have enough backbone to ever stick to anything they decide.

[maehara]

As I predicted the ICC are going to change their minds. They don't have enough backbone to ever stick to anything they decide.

Well, it's not over yet. The 10 people who made a stupid decision have been asked to think again, but there's nothing stopping them making the same stupid decision again. Apart from a small army of sports lawyers just aching to haul them to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, I suppose...

[JHunter]

As I predicted the ICC are going to change their minds. They don't have enough backbone to ever stick to anything they decide.

Well, it's not over yet. The 10 people who made a stupid decision have been asked to think again, but there's nothing stopping them making the same stupid decision again. Apart from a small army of sports lawyers just aching to haul them to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, I suppose...

I actually don't think it was a stupid decision.

I recall reading some time ago that all ICC full members are obliged to appear in the Cricket World Cup. I don't know if that has anything to do with the TV contracts for the World Cup that also require a minimum number of matches (40+), but as much as people berate the ICC over the World Cup formats the impression I got was that their hands were tied by these contracts. They should probably be berated for signing a silly contract that practically ensures a bloated World Cup, but once that was signed by previous admins in the ICC it would be unfair to castigate the current admins of the ICC for attempting to actually honour the binding contract.

As for the associates - well I'm actually a bit tired of them. They whine way too much. In fact had it not been for England being one of the most inconsistent teams at this years World Cup then they only match of note by the associates would have been when Canada had a chance to beat Pakistan. There really is no way England should ever have found themselves in a position where the Netherlands could have beat them, where they let India plunder almost 350 runs off of them and then let Ireland beat them with ease. Not a single associate though apart from Scotland (which is the latest non-full member to have plans for multi-day domestic cricket) seems serious about trying to become a full member and thereby ensuring their near automatic participation in the World Cup. It's just odd now that countries which almost always seem to make it to the World Cup (Canada, Kenya, Netherlands and to a lesser extent Ireland and Scotland) aren't full members yet.


Anyway it now seems Australia is all for "the best 10 teams": http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/c ... 11885.html . It would be awfully ironic if between now and the end of the 2013 ICC Trophy/World Cup Qualifier we see New Zealand (the co-host) drop to point of needing to qualify. I wonder what Australia's board would say then? Also just as Australia dropped precipitously in the test rankings there is no reason the same won't happen in the odi rankings before 2019. If Australia then need to qualify for 2019 what will their line be then?

[maehara]

There's no defensible justification for restricting World Cups to a predetermined list of 10 sides. All there needs to be is a qualification process, so that any ICC member - full, associate, affiliate, tea maker - has a path to get there. Once that's in place, I really don't care who the 10 sides are. If Ireland or Netherlands or Afghanistan can't get the wins they need to boot Zimbabwe or Bangladesh or West Indies out, then that's their problem and not mine (and to be honest, I doubt you would hear any complaining from them in those circumstances); likewise, if Zimbabwe did screw up and fail to qualify, that's our fault and no-one else's.

Perception of fairness and opportunity, nothing else.

Now, if the World Cup TV contracts specify that the 10 full members must play, then you make the 2015 event 12 teams, and wind it down to 10 for the 2019 (when there'll be new contracts in place and they can work out the wording appropriately). Simples.

[eugene]

In response to JHunter: I would think Australia and New Zealand would be guaranteed berths at the next World Cup as co-hosts - this is standard procedure for any sporting event around the world. Plus it is a moot point most likely as I seriously doubt either New Zealand or Australia would be in danger of not qualifying. I am not sure why New Zealand is always getting disrespect - particularly given that we have finished in the top four at the last 4 World Cup's.

[bayhaus]

I am not sure why New Zealand is always getting disrespect

I am guilty of that, but mainly based on their result in Bang recentle and thought we really had a chance. NZ arent as strong as they used to be but they Punch way above their weight class and have heart. What I expect from Zim. But even during the Fleming years they wree not really special. But Fleming was such a good leader that the punched above again. But I think if each Zim player played to half their ability consistantly we would be better than NZ.

[JHunter]

In response to JHunter: I would think Australia and New Zealand would be guaranteed berths at the next World Cup as co-hosts - this is standard procedure for any sporting event around the world. Plus it is a moot point most likely as I seriously doubt either New Zealand or Australia would be in danger of not qualifying. I am not sure why New Zealand is always getting disrespect - particularly given that we have finished in the top four at the last 4 World Cup's.

I certainly didn't mean to disrespect New Zealand. I only used New Zealand as an example because it is unlikely that Australia would lose enough matches between now and 2014 to drop from 1st to 11th, whereas any number of unfortunate circumstances could combine to make that more likely for New Zealand.

Even though hosts have an automatic berth in most sporting events I've noticed that this has never come up in the discussions on full members qualifying. So I'm not about to assume that they would have factored it in rather than believe that the host nation is likely to be among the top 6, 7 or 8 teams or whatever cutoff number they use.

But let's say that they institute qualifying and New Zealand doesn't have to qualify for 2015 (it was unlikely anyway, I was only using it as an example of how Australia's theory of having the 10 best teams might hit a snag if one of the hosts wasn't among the 10 best teams and you then had New Zealand being asked to help run a world cup in which the Black Caps were just sitting in the stands). Let's look further to 2019. England is supposed to host that, but England could quite easily drop to number 8 (they used to be number 7 and sometimes number 8 under a decade ago). So they drop a bit further to number 9. What then? If they haven't instituted a "host automatically qualify rule" and England then lose to Ireland and the Netherlands or something and don't make it, what would happen then?

The way I see it is that maehara has the right idea for 2015. If the full members are still all contractual required to show up, increase it to 12 and then allow for full member qualification in 2019. However I would go further with 2019 and require that only semi-finalists and the host automatically qualify for the 2019. Since for cricket the world cup is often hosted by region than by individual nations (England 2019 and WI 2007 being the exceptions), there could arise a situation where the 2023 WC is hosted by India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh (4 spots already taken up out of 10) and then the top "X" teams (6 or 8) qualify. Already at that point it would mean just 1 qualification spot available in practice if Bangladesh doesn't automatically qualify according to the "top teams" rule. And heaven forbid if it turns out that Pakistan and Bangladesh for instance are ranked 9 and 10 whilst the rest of the full members are in the top 8. Then the qualification process would have no purpose as all the spots would already be taken up.