Holding slams minnows

[Poker Boy]

I see Brian Lara's No 1 fan has now probably annoyed all of Bermuda with his comments about the WC minnows (including Bermuda) saying they shouldn't be there. So do you think he's right? Is 16 teams too many? Should there be 14 (as in 2003), 12 (as in 1996 and 1999) or just the big countries (as in 1992) I'd like to see what you think. Personally I think 16 is right as it cuts down on mismatches and all the teams (except maybe Bermuda) all have a match they have a realistic chance of winning. Besides, the minnows often supply unlikely heroes - remember Austin Codrington, JB Burger (who gave England a fright in 2003) and John Davison. But what do you think?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I actually like all the minnows in the WC. It is the World Cup after all. Don't give them ODI status, but 16 teams is nice IMO.

 

[Richard]

I don't have any problem with the current format (I do have a problem with ANY game involving a non-ODI-standard team being classed ODI), I think it's impossibly better than those used in 1996, 2003 and 1999 - get the one-sided games out of the way first, even if it does mean having 8 substandard teams in the competition.

There's no harm in having the substandard teams play up-to-standard teams if it's just making a quick, graceful exit and enjoying the time they spend there.

This current format is the best used since 1992, as I've said more than a few times. The Super Eight and the 1 group-game involving ODI-standard teams in each group should be great viewing.

 

[Richard]

........... by the way.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think the format is a fairly decent compromise between spreading the cricketing gospel & ring-fencing the quality of the premier one-day tournament.

Obviously the group stages look a bit unnecessary on paper & I can't really see there being any major upsets, but for cricket to grow as a sport in the non-test playing countries they have to have a chance to progress.

 

[Richard]

Ha! Fat chance they have of progressing.

The only way they're going to get better, incidentally, is not to play a couple of games in a World Cup but to have structures put in place and, shock-horror, get people to watch and play the game en masse in the country.

Until that happens, expecting anything from a country against genuine international-playing teams is just crazy.

But being thrashed constantly isn't the way to get better.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think that some of those minor teams playing in the World Cup will hopefully give them a bit of media and publicity in that country, to help create a better financial situation for the cricket boards, allowing them to put better structures into place. As well as the prizemoney they'd have earnt by making it to the last 16.

 

[Richard]

Well that didn't even seem to happen with Kenya in the last tourney, never mind Namibia...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well that didn't even seem to happen with Kenya in the last tourney, never mind Namibia...

It's pretty common knowledge that Kenya's cricketing administration leaves a fair bit to be desired.

 

[Richard]

Exactly, and while such a situation exists (is there any evidence it's any different in Namibia or, for example, Bermuda?) there's little chance of a country progressing from substandard to up-to-standard. Hell, the WICB are having a decent stab at making a transformation in the other direction using the tool of inept administration!

 

[vic_orthdox]

Tarring with same brush.

Another problem is that the one country who could have successfully progressed from associate member (or similar status) to full member, thus setting some example for others to follow on how to progress through the ranks, is now a basket case.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ha! Fat chance they have of progressing.

I didn't mean in the World Cup itself; for smaller nations progress is just being able to pit themselves against the best.

If cricket is to grow in the nations where it's a minority sport the biggest stage is arguably the best way of creating interest. Qualifying for the World Cup certainly gave Association Football a lift in Australia.

 

[Richard]

Well apparently it's always been a bigger sport there than Rugby Union...

 

[Richard]

Tarring with same brush.

Tarring who?

 

[Jono]

Holding didn't slam the minnows at all.

Such a misleading title on Cricinfo.

 

[Richard]

Well they're media - they're not concerned about the precise accuracy of headlines - they're more concerned about persuading people to read the article.

 

[Craig]

Well apparently it's always been a bigger sport there than Rugby Union...

At youth level yeah as Union is traditionally the rich private school sport.

But the game is a lot bigger here because of it, other then what was on SBS (your non-mainstream TV station and European porn channel on Friday and Saturday nights at 10pm ), in terms of coverage, media intrest, and during the WC it was the greatest thing since sliced bread as all the media jumped on the bandwagon (In that I mean it was great football got coverage here, but usually they never gave a rat's unlike I and loads of other people do)

 

[Kriketer]

If you won't let minnows play in the WC then cricket 'll never expand. And some of the minnows like Kenya, Ireland, and Scotland would give a tough time to the big guns.

 

[Richard]

Not really and certainly not.

The way to expand is not to play in WCs and be thrashed a couple of times, but to put in place infrastructure and networks.

And even then, there's no overwhelming evidence that the game can expand much further than it already has.