The disappointment of the 2019 Cricket World Cup being a 10 team World Cup

[andruid]

I am thinking a 16 team tournament. 2 groups of 8, with the top four from each group going to a straight knockout quarterfinals, semifinals then finals. Fairly simple, everybody gets a decent amount of exposure and the best teams win out, through a reasonable balance of consistency and game day alertness.

Generally I feel like the reason the ICC changes formats so much with the 50 over world cup is the obsession with trying to gerrymander high profit match ups at every WC, and occasionally failing at it. They don't seem willing to establish a simple purely meritocratic format and let that settle in and become standard because they are too tempted to try force a high stakes India v. Pakistan,or Australia v. England to guarantee a profitable tournament.

Consider that in 2003, they used this rule where teams would carry the points they won against fellow qualifying teams in the first group stage to the super six stage. No doubt the intended design was that if an associate snuck through by beating up the other minnows and NRR, (as twas the most likely scenario for an unfashionable associate team getting into the super sixes) they would be hamstrung by having lost points to the bigger nations they snuck through with. Lo and behold Kenya get into the super sixes carrying 8 points from New Zealand's boycott and the shock upset of Sri Lanka in Nairobi and ride those points, plus a win over a demoralized Zimbabwe all the way to a semifinal meeting against India. great fairy tale, bad for the pocket book.

Come 2007, and they set up a 4 teams per group, group stage in the hope that the cream would rise to the top and the weaklings get shunted aside ASAP, before the serious business of super 8 with lots of epic battles among the proper cricketing nations. Then India and Pakistan choked and and the world got to see Ireland v Bangladesh in a match slot the ICC though they would be India v. Pakistan. back to the drawing board. Numbers at the Cricket World Cup have been going down ever since, I suspect to reduce the risk of the wrong team (for various reasons) showing up at the business end of the tournament.

 

[stephen]

The ICC looks to the world cup as the money maker rather than the opportunity to expand the sport. That's fine but there needs to be a way of expanding the sport and injecting money into the associate nations that results in a long term wider revenue base. Currently they don't really have that.

 

[cnerd123]

The ICC looks to the world cup as the money maker rather than the opportunity to expand the sport. That's fine but there needs to be a way of expanding the sport and injecting money into the associate nations that results in a long term wider revenue base. Currently they don't really have that.

The ICC does have extensive grassroots devleopment programmes for Associate countries, but the effectiveness of them is questionable, as well as whether or not they're receiving the level of funding they should if the ICC is serious about growing the game.

For me funding into grassroots programmes doesn't mean much if those Associate countries don't gent sufficient exposure or opportunities to show what they're capable of. Taking part in big global tournaments like the World Cup, Asia Cup and WorldT20 does so much to raise their profile both domestically and overseas.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How much of the ICC funding developing associate countries is just throwing money away though let's be honest. Highly unlikely to ever make a return on the investment.

 

[cnerd123]

How much of the ICC funding developing associate countries is just throwing money away though let's be honest. Highly unlikely to ever make a return on the investment.

define return on investment

 

[TheJediBrah]

define return on investment

profiting in the long run, or even breaking even

To clarify, I'm sure that's not the only or even the key reason in funding emerging cricketing nations, just pointing it out

 

[cnerd123]

yea not only is that not the point, I'm not sure how you'd even begin to calculate it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

yea not only is that not the point, I'm not sure how you'd even begin to calculate it.

It's a pretty safe assumption IMO

how much income could emerging cricketing nations possibly generate for the ICC, if any, compared with funding?

 

[cnerd123]

it's not really relevant though is it. You're trying to get into a 'does cricket make money to exist, or exist to make money' argument, and that's a pointless argument to have.

And even If you do want to take the the stance that 'cricket exists to make money', then you should realise that how much you stand to earn is limited by how many people actually care about cricket. And no one is going to care about a sport they do not have access to. Increasing the visibility and participation of cricket in Emerging Nations can not feasibly make the sport poorer in anyway.

The question right now is if the ICC is doing enough towards achieving that. Money is nice, but increasing opportunities for Associates to play against Full-Members, or on a high-profile platform, is what's really key. Blocking Associates from the World Cup is clearly a backwards move, as is the BCCI refusing to let cricket be in the Olympics simply because they don't want to work with the IOC.

 

[TheJediBrah]

it's not really relevant though is it

Of course it's relevant. It was the whole point of my post. I never claimed it was, or should be, the primary decisive factor for funding emerging nations. In fact I directly said quite the opposite.

Everything that you said however, is irrelevant to my post tbh

 

[cnerd123]

Of course it's relevant. It was the whole point of my post. I never claimed it was, or should be, the primary decisive factor for funding emerging nations. In fact I directly said quite the opposite.

Everything that you said however, is irrelevant to my post tbh

whatever brah

 

[TheJediBrah]

I mean, I even said this before your response:

To clarify, I'm sure that's not the only or even the key reason in funding emerging cricketing nations, just pointing it out

but you still seem to have ignored it pretended that I'm saying that they shouldn't be funded because of profits

whatever brah

you just need to read a bit more carefully bud

 

[Flem274*]

if cricket was solely about money then it would be confined to subcontinental t20 leagues

 

[andruid]

if cricket was solely about money then it would be confined to subcontinental t20 leagues

By the powers vested in me, and the need to make this post fully accurate, I hereby determine that Australia shall henceforth be a subcontinent cricketing nation

 

[TheJediBrah]

if cricket was solely about money then it would be confined to subcontinental t20 leagues

no one said otherwise

 

[trundler]

By the powers vested in me, and the need to make this post fully accurate, I hereby determine that Australia shall henceforth be a subcontinent cricketing nation

Australia broke away from the subcontinent (and by extension Gondwana) some 180 million years ago.

 

[StephenZA]

The question right now is if the ICC is doing enough towards achieving that. Money is nice, but increasing opportunities for Associates to play against Full-Members, or on a high-profile platform, is what's really key.

I don't think anybody really likes a drubbing so associate nations playing against full-members does not always help a situation. Particularly in what is meant to be a showcase tournament. Having qualifying nations and a ten team tournament seems more sensible. But actually advertising and creating a proper showcase of the associate nations getting into the WC, and the pre-tournament played to do so, could probably be done much better. From a money point of view, obviously ICC can always do more but it is also a problem for the associate nations boards and governments to make a step up and fund if they want a competitive team, ICC can not do it alone for every associate nation. Quite often the lack of development is not just about ICC but in country support.

 

[cnerd123]

Yup couldn't agree more.

But to me, right now, the reason a lot of country support is not available because the Associate teams are not being displayed

When HK lost ODI status, our government funding got cut. Had we lost every single game and kept ODI status, the money would still be pouring. Instead, we won a ton of games, performed way beyond expectations, and were popular and recognised all over the ****ing world. We were a stunning success when you compare resources available to performance delivered. Without a ****ing doubt

Now look at us. The ICC doesn't give us ODI recognition. Our performance Vs India in the Asia cup got us literally nothing from the government. But had we best Namibia or ****ing Canada they would give us a million more dollars. Because ODI status.

This **** is sometimes so much more complicated than simply blaming the lack of country supports it. The country will support it if the ICC supports it first. And they do, but just not in the way that matters.

Giving countries T20I status and creating this pathway to the world cup, now that might be the best idea they've ever had...

 

[James90]

I'm genuinely conflicted about this because I understand how important these tournaments are for associate nations. It undoubtedly helps them to grow the game, which is certainly good thing.

On the other hand, this World Cup has been fantastic with few guaranteed wins against minnows. I was also captivated by the qualifiers. I've never watched associate cricket as much as I did during the qualifying tournament.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It seems as though everyone is pretty much in agreement that 10 team WC was a good thing, but that the qualifiers for the last few spots among the associates/lower-ranked sides should be held directly before the tournament (essentially part of the tournament) and given a higher profile.