Associate Nations.

[Timbo]

What is actually happening to growth in cricket in associate countries?

I will allow one exemption here: Ireland. They've come ahead leaps and bounds and appear to be on the verge of crossing the threshold and becoming a test playing nation. They've even got someone like Ed Joyce going back to them having represented England.

But, what's happening with development in the other associate countries? Kenya, who looked so promising, have gone backwards at a rate of knots. Yes, Kenyan cricket had rampant systemic corruption but I seem to recall the ICC promising to 'clean it out' about 4 years ago: whats happened?

Canada, one of the countries that not so long ago looked like perhaps they might become a full ICC member in the not-to-distant future seem stuck in the mud. Their world cup squad is very old, and most disturbing, only 3 of their 14 going to the subcontinent are actuallly Canadian born; most are ex-pats. One of those 3 is John Davidson who's only Canadian because that's just where his mum happened to be when he was born. What's happening with junior development?

Holland are another like Canada. To be fair, the Dutch are mostly reliant on home-grown players. But where's the development? Again, it was 10 or so years ago that they first started to show promise. The Dutch government were funding international series at Amstelveen to get high quality cricket to Holland. The ICC has just let it slide.

I'm placing a lot of blame on the ICC here, but I think it is blame well placed. The associate nations have enough time getting sponsorship, etc. and really can't afford to run grass roots programs. The ICC, which constantly styles itself up there with FIFA and F1 as one of the most powerful - and profitable - sports orginizations on Earth. Why aren't they establishing academies in these countries and pressuring national sides to send 'A' teams to the better associates, or funding Canada or Holland to tour Australia or New Zealand for a first-class match tour?

I hate to go down this path, but there were of course rumours that when Bangladesh was admitted to test cricket, it was rushed because the Indian block wanted an extra vote on the ICC council. When Ireland officially applied for it 18 months ago, there where whispers that despite the fact the team was of high standard, there were sponsorship deals in place, the domestic competition could transit to first-class without much difficulty and that the nation had 2 ICC certified international grounds, that same voting block did not want Ireland as a full voting member as it was felt they would side with the Australia/England/New Zealand trio. It's probably a conspiracy theory, but who knows?

Starting with the 2015 World Cup, only the ICC full members will be invited. Why? Because Ireland beat Pakistan in 2007. Plain and simple. The full members where fine with the minnows playing as long as they were kicking the living sh*t out of them, but the second Ireland knocked over Pakistan - robbing the PCB of TV revenue from an India/Pakistan Super 8s match - the Pakistani's cried blue murder. In the same vein as WG Grace's 'they've come to watch me bat, not you bowl' they said that the associates must not be allowed to play anymore in case that ever happens again. How is that helping global cricket development?

The ICC came up with a terrible, weak response - associates would now be invited to play T20 world championships instead. Additionally, the nations that had won full ODI status (Ireland, Kenya, Holland) would only have full T20 status. Their 50 over matches would no longer be ODIs. How is only playing T20 going to get these countries ready for the big stage?

These countries are producing great players. Kenyans, Dutchmen and Irishmen have all played County Cricket on full contracts as overseas players. They've played IPL on massive salaries. They are producing players of this calibre with virtually one hand tied behind their back.

One can only conclude that the ICC simply don't want more countries playing cricket. Or at least, real cricket. They're quite happy to have them play hit-and-giggle and make up the numbers at the T20 world cup. But does the ICC (or BCCI) want Ireland playing Sri Lanka in a test series when they could be televising a meaningless T20 series between India and Sri Lanka?

I'm actually starting to wonder how big a conspiracy theory it actually is.

 

[IanG]

Well we all know who's running the ICC dont we. When India dont get what they want they act like a bunch of cry babys and spoiled kids and play the race card.

I've been following Afghanistan's emergence and its been remarkable. It would be a crying shame if they get deprived of playing on the world stage. They've come from Division 5 of the World Cricket League to only just missing out on qualifying for the World Cup. Lets not forget too they made last years World Twenty20.

But having said that it would be a real shame that they'd miss out on playing in a real World Cup while at the same time the wankers at the BCCI keep propping up Zimbabwe. Its sad to say the least.

 

[Big_Bad_Shark_Fan]

On an unrelated note, theres a good documentary on cricinfo.com about the road to the WC for the smaller nations. Have a look.

On topic then I am with you. To me the nations with the best chance of taking off are Ireland and to a lesser extent Scotland. The reason is theyve already got some good infrastructure, knowledge of game, grassroots games. I played a very talented touring Scottish team a few years ago who were just club cricketers. The problem for Scotland and Ireland is if they dont get put forward soon all the talent just goes to England.

Holland are the most consistant and are at every wc and seem to go ok but theres no immediate future with them. There problem is they really lack the infrastructure etc, and only have 3 or so grass pitches in the whole country. They wont ever go forward to they get serious backing. One thing T20 is good for is it can bring people into the game so maybe that will help.

Kenya and Afghanistan are probably in the same boat. One thing these two have are the love from there country for the sport. They just dont have the facillities etc but they have the passion.

USA, Canada, Namibia, Bermuda are lightyears away from anything. Id say Japan are probably closer to being a good developing nation whenever there game kicks off, as opposed to these countries.

 

[Tom Shines]

They f**ked up big time with WC2007.

They only wanted to have four teams in each group, so they could get the three group games out of the way before the bloated Super 8s came in, where you'd have to play six more games just to make the semis. That would have been fine if it all went "to plan" for the Subbies.

But India and Pakistan lost and were out of the tournament over a month before the final.

Now we're back to the much more favourable (ie. you can lose a game or two and not be knocked out) like in 2003, but even then that's not enough to guarantee a slice of the pie.

I propose that for 2015, we just play a massive round robin, home and away, 18 games each, and the best team has the honour of losing to India in the final.

merkins.

 

[Red Bear]

Essentially, India can get f**ked re World Cup 2015. They got scared about TV Cash so they've blackballed the developing nations from this world cup. A Cricketing nation that thrives on self interest and has no concern for the welfare or prosperity of the game, only the prosperity of themselves.

 

[Patorick]

Don't forget PNG!

 

[TheDalek079]

i would like to have seen tri series happening involving one of the minnows. during a test series between two fully developed teams ( NZ V Paki, Aus V Poms) the minnow can come and play first class teams, then rather than a 6 or 7 ODI series it can be a tri series featuring a minnow too. that way they get regular games against top teams

 

[IanG]

Don't forget PNG!

Yeah they seem to be one of the countries that are always there in the Under 19s World Cups but struggle in senior level. Bit like Nepal.

 

[Matt23]

Essentially, India can get f**ked re World Cup 2015. They got scared about TV Cash so they've blackballed the developing nations from this world cup. A Cricketing nation that thrives on self interest and has no concern for the welfare or prosperity of the game, only the prosperity of themselves.

Great post...wait's for the Kiwi's etc to call us racist

 

[JJ]

:lol:

First, India are f**king most of us over, but to be fair when Australia had all the power they f**ked most of us over too

But as far as developing associate countries - pretty much the reverse - in reality Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, NZ and the Windies are closing in on associate member status...

 

[IanG]

I also wonder what kind of teams were playing in the Twnety20 Cricket at the Asian Games. Where Bangladesh won the Gold and Afghanistan won silver
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/485185.html

 

[griffo346]

do they still do the honk kong 6s

 

[IanG]

do they still do the honk kong 6s

As far as I know they do

 

[Red Bear]

:lol:

First, India are f**king most of us over, but to be fair when Australia had all the power they f**ked most of us over too

But as far as developing associate countries - pretty much the reverse - in reality Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, NZ and the Windies are closing in on associate member status...

When did Australia have all the power? We've had large periods of onfield-success but rarely been in a position of real power, it's always been the Poms and then the Indian lead sub-continent bloc.

Maybe post-world series cricket (that first ten years or so of one day tournies).

We've had two clear sh*t decisions I know of, those being ot playing against NZ for a period of time and Don Bradman being a stick in the mud re player payments (but then Bradman was, well, a jerk). Not sure when we've actually been in charge.

I think our current admin is terrible, a mini India (without the power or money) who only seems to care about the cash rather than the game, but i think alot of what has gone on in the last few years, particularly the disgraceful events of world cup 07 (games being spread out, huge ticket prices, way out of line with the average income of the locals which was pretty insensitive and efforts to curb any sort of local flair associated with Carribean cricket, largely for the cash goal at the end) and the removal of associate nations from the 2015 world cup (not to mention the fact that Aust/NZ should be hosting this world cup, it's been near twenty years since we've had any of the major tournaments whilst others have had all three, not to mention the fact that we have excellent infrustructure and a history of successful international sporting events) lie largely at the feet of an Indian cricket administration who use their power to get their own way, at the detriment to cricket world wide.

 

[Timbo]

There is more or less universal condemnation of the ICC's decision coming out:

ICC World Cup: Flower fury at decision to limit event in 2015


Sunday, 20 February 2011 00:20
0 Comments




Backward step: Zimbabwe’s Flower


Zimbabwe batting coach Grant Flower claims the ICC’s proposal to trim the next World Cup to 10 teams is a step “backward”.
ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat said on Friday the World Twenty20 would be increased to 16 teams instead of 12, while the 50-over World Cup would be cut to 10.
The plans mean the likes of Zimbabwe, Kenya , Canada and Ireland as ‘associate’ nations are unlikely to gain entry to the tournament, although the ICC are yet to reach a decision on qualification.
Flower said: “These (smaller) nations need exposure to develop. Obviously, there are pros and cons for that decision. If it does happen I see it as things going backward and not forward.”
Cricket Kenya chief executive Tom Sears termed the decision as “scandalous and bloody ridiculous”, in a recent interview with the Wisden Cricketer magazine.
Sears said: “I’ve no desire to be diplomatic.... Not to let anyone else in is scandalous. It’s all about money, power and votes - and that’s not good for cricket.”
Meanwhile, Canadian coach Pubudu Dassanayake has also branded the plan a setback for minor nations.
Dassanayake said: “The ICC has helped us a lot in the last couple of years to come to this place and this decision will hurt countries like us.”
By Staff Reporter



http://www.sport360.com/cricket/new...lower-fury-at-decision-to-limit-event-in-2015

==================================

Players and coaches round on ICC Associates decision

Osman Samiuddin in Hambantota
February 19, 2011


Dissent and criticism of the ICC's decision to cull Associate nations from the 2015 World Cup intensified further on the opening day of the current tournament. Grant Flower, Zimbabwe's batting coach, and Canada's captain Ashish Bagai added their voices to a growing chorus of dissatisfaction that has, if not overshadowed the opening days, then dampened a little the celebratory nature of the occasion.
Already a number of Associate countries, foremost among them Kenya's chief executive Tom Sears, have hit out at the ICC's reaffirmation on Friday of a decision taken in October last year. Afghanistan and Netherlands have also weighed in: "Our players are always motivated but those comments were disappointing," Netherlands team manager Ed van Nierop told AFP.
"I can't see what it does for the global element of the competition by going back down to 10 teams. I guess the proposals for the Twenty20 are a bit of a bonus but the World Cup is still the premier ICC tournament." Notably, Graeme Swann also chipped in, saying the decision had taken the 'world' out of the World Cup.
But on Saturday came the most articulate and extensive questioning from Bagai, ahead of his side's game against Sri Lanka in Hambantota. "The World Cup should involve as much of the world as you possibly can," he said. "It's a shame and very disappointing for players like us who were looking for opportunities to play against the best in the world. That's the only way to improve as cricketers, as nations. It's really going to hold back the growth of the game. If they want to keep it to 10 teams, which they want to do, that's fine, but it's never going to be a global sport that way."
The trade-off, according to the ICC, is that more Associates will be involved in the World Twenty20: the next edition will have 16 teams now, but they have yet to decide how the final ten teams will be selected for the next 50-over world tournament. The recommendation to cut down Associates' participation, incidentally, was reached at the ICC's board meeting in October by a working party made up of David Collier (England), James Sutherland (Australia) and N Srinivasan (India) with no Associate representation, and only David Richardson of the ICC.
But the increased T20 participation doesn't tally with the efforts of Associate nations to ultimately push for Test status, the format, Bagai arguing, not ideal for that purpose. "You can see where the ICC is headed and the direction they think cricket is going. It might be a commercial move because T20 sells the best globally. I don't think it's going to help many countries produce top level Test cricketers."
Flower said the decision was a step "backwards", arguing that smaller countries need more exposure, not less, an argument echoed by Bagai. "It's a big challenge to get these games every four years," he said. "By the time we're used to playing these teams the World Cup is over. The only way to play well against them is to keep playing them repeatedly. The boards of the top Associates have asked for more games throughout the four years so we can get some practice against some good quality opposition during the years outside the World Cup."
This is the fourth time Canada - one of four associate teams in this tournament - is participating in the game's showpiece event and the third in succession since 2003. Though they only have a win over Bangladesh to show for that time Bagai believes the country's cricket has built an identity and homegrown base of players that deserves to be showcased more often.
"[The Sahara Cup games between India and Pakistan] did inspire a lot of people in the country," he said. "Back in 2000 we had a lot of new joiners and infrastructure development at that time tremendously helped us. Tournaments like that are always helpful for smaller countries to generate interest and get media involved and generate revenues, which is very important for us. More of those are needed."
On Friday, their Sri Lankan coach Pubudu Dassanayake said the move was a "severe setback". Rizwan Cheema, one of their key players, said the 50-over game was a must for development. "If you want to look at it from another perspective, you have to have competition and give small teams an idea to play against big teams and increase confidence. Otherwise cricket will stay in nine countries. We all aim for Test status because cricket really changes when you get to that level," he told ESPNcricinfo. "It's not a good feeling, because at Associate level we haven't really got anything else to play against big teams."
The most memorable recent Associate performances in the tournament include Kenya's semi-final run in 2003 and Ireland's performances in the 2007 edition.

Osman Samiuddin is Pakistan editor of ESPNcricinfo
Feeds: Osman Samiuddin © ESPN EMEA Ltd.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/502006.html

===================================

Players back Associates for World Cup

ESPNcricinfo staff
February 16, 2011
size: A | A
Several leading players have added their voices to the debate over the involvement of Associate nations in future World Cups, with England offspinner Graeme Swann asking: "Why would you want to take the world out of the World Cup?" Under current ICC proposals the Associate nations could be excluded from future World Cups from 2015, when the tournament could be reduced to just 10 teams, but Swann and a number of other cricketers from Test-playing nations interviewed by The Wisden Cricketer disagree with the move. "Yes, of course the emerging nations should stay in it," added Swann. "Shocks can happen."
While a bloated World Cup schedule and a preponderance of one-sided, uneven games in the early stages of the world tournament have drawn criticism in the past, it appears that the players themselves would not like to see the so-called 'minnows' excluded.
"There's no reason why you can't have those teams in the competition," added Australian fast bowler Shaun Tait. "To play against the best players and sides in the world is massive and I wouldn't want to take that away from anyone."
AB de Villiers added that he saw value in the smaller nations' involvement in major tournaments. "It makes it more colourful and it's good for the growth of the game," he said. "Playing on the subcontinent levels things out and they can be harder than the best teams because their bowlers are slower and it makes it tough for batsmen."
Brendon McCullum was not unequivocal in his backing of Associate involvement in the World Cup, but did highlight the potential for smaller nations to inflict embarrassing defeats. "It's great from their perspective that they're there," he said. "Does it diminish the value of the tournament? I'm not entirely sure. They're in at this stage, so we should respect that. It's a little bit scary actually. All you think about is playing the knockouts, winning the big games. But to be part of the big moments you've got to overcome the banana-skin games."
Indian batsman Suresh Raina added that he believed it was only fair that the Associates play in the World Cup as they don't take part in big international series and need some way to learn and improve, and veteran Kenya batsman Steve Tikolo strongly echoed his sentiments.
"The World Cup offers us the chance to test ourselves against the Test nations which we rarely do nowadays," said Tikolo, who was part of Kenyan teams that beat West Indies at the 1996 event and reached the Semi Finals in 2003. "If we can do well, then we can really push our case to have more games against the bigger teams. They're the matches that everyone will judge us by."
The ICC have indicated that they are yet to make a final decision on qualification procedures for the 2015 World Cup and have made the seemingly placatory move of announcing plans to expand the World Twenty20 to 16 teams. "How the 10 members are to be determined is still to be decided," insisted David Richardson, the ICC's general manager for cricket. "It could be the full members only but it could be not."

© ESPN EMEA Ltd.




http://www.espncricinfo.com/other/content/story/501082.html

 

[Timbo]

There is more or less universal condemnation of the ICC's decision coming out:

ICC World Cup: Flower fury at decision to limit event in 2015


Sunday, 20 February 2011 00:20
0 Comments




Backward step: Zimbabwe’s Flower


Zimbabwe batting coach Grant Flower claims the ICC’s proposal to trim the next World Cup to 10 teams is a step “backward”.
ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat said on Friday the World Twenty20 would be increased to 16 teams instead of 12, while the 50-over World Cup would be cut to 10.
The plans mean the likes of Zimbabwe, Kenya , Canada and Ireland as ‘associate’ nations are unlikely to gain entry to the tournament, although the ICC are yet to reach a decision on qualification.
Flower said: “These (smaller) nations need exposure to develop. Obviously, there are pros and cons for that decision. If it does happen I see it as things going backward and not forward.”
Cricket Kenya chief executive Tom Sears termed the decision as “scandalous and bloody ridiculous”, in a recent interview with the Wisden Cricketer magazine.
Sears said: “I’ve no desire to be diplomatic.... Not to let anyone else in is scandalous. It’s all about money, power and votes - and that’s not good for cricket.”
Meanwhile, Canadian coach Pubudu Dassanayake has also branded the plan a setback for minor nations.
Dassanayake said: “The ICC has helped us a lot in the last couple of years to come to this place and this decision will hurt countries like us.”
By Staff Reporter



http://www.sport360.com/cricket/new...lower-fury-at-decision-to-limit-event-in-2015

==================================

Players and coaches round on ICC Associates decision

Osman Samiuddin in Hambantota
February 19, 2011


Dissent and criticism of the ICC's decision to cull Associate nations from the 2015 World Cup intensified further on the opening day of the current tournament. Grant Flower, Zimbabwe's batting coach, and Canada's captain Ashish Bagai added their voices to a growing chorus of dissatisfaction that has, if not overshadowed the opening days, then dampened a little the celebratory nature of the occasion.
Already a number of Associate countries, foremost among them Kenya's chief executive Tom Sears, have hit out at the ICC's reaffirmation on Friday of a decision taken in October last year. Afghanistan and Netherlands have also weighed in: "Our players are always motivated but those comments were disappointing," Netherlands team manager Ed van Nierop told AFP.
"I can't see what it does for the global element of the competition by going back down to 10 teams. I guess the proposals for the Twenty20 are a bit of a bonus but the World Cup is still the premier ICC tournament." Notably, Graeme Swann also chipped in, saying the decision had taken the 'world' out of the World Cup.
But on Saturday came the most articulate and extensive questioning from Bagai, ahead of his side's game against Sri Lanka in Hambantota. "The World Cup should involve as much of the world as you possibly can," he said. "It's a shame and very disappointing for players like us who were looking for opportunities to play against the best in the world. That's the only way to improve as cricketers, as nations. It's really going to hold back the growth of the game. If they want to keep it to 10 teams, which they want to do, that's fine, but it's never going to be a global sport that way."
The trade-off, according to the ICC, is that more Associates will be involved in the World Twenty20: the next edition will have 16 teams now, but they have yet to decide how the final ten teams will be selected for the next 50-over world tournament. The recommendation to cut down Associates' participation, incidentally, was reached at the ICC's board meeting in October by a working party made up of David Collier (England), James Sutherland (Australia) and N Srinivasan (India) with no Associate representation, and only David Richardson of the ICC.
But the increased T20 participation doesn't tally with the efforts of Associate nations to ultimately push for Test status, the format, Bagai arguing, not ideal for that purpose. "You can see where the ICC is headed and the direction they think cricket is going. It might be a commercial move because T20 sells the best globally. I don't think it's going to help many countries produce top level Test cricketers."
Flower said the decision was a step "backwards", arguing that smaller countries need more exposure, not less, an argument echoed by Bagai. "It's a big challenge to get these games every four years," he said. "By the time we're used to playing these teams the World Cup is over. The only way to play well against them is to keep playing them repeatedly. The boards of the top Associates have asked for more games throughout the four years so we can get some practice against some good quality opposition during the years outside the World Cup."
This is the fourth time Canada - one of four associate teams in this tournament - is participating in the game's showpiece event and the third in succession since 2003. Though they only have a win over Bangladesh to show for that time Bagai believes the country's cricket has built an identity and homegrown base of players that deserves to be showcased more often.
"[The Sahara Cup games between India and Pakistan] did inspire a lot of people in the country," he said. "Back in 2000 we had a lot of new joiners and infrastructure development at that time tremendously helped us. Tournaments like that are always helpful for smaller countries to generate interest and get media involved and generate revenues, which is very important for us. More of those are needed."
On Friday, their Sri Lankan coach Pubudu Dassanayake said the move was a "severe setback". Rizwan Cheema, one of their key players, said the 50-over game was a must for development. "If you want to look at it from another perspective, you have to have competition and give small teams an idea to play against big teams and increase confidence. Otherwise cricket will stay in nine countries. We all aim for Test status because cricket really changes when you get to that level," he told ESPNcricinfo. "It's not a good feeling, because at Associate level we haven't really got anything else to play against big teams."
The most memorable recent Associate performances in the tournament include Kenya's semi-final run in 2003 and Ireland's performances in the 2007 edition.

Osman Samiuddin is Pakistan editor of ESPNcricinfo
Feeds: Osman Samiuddin © ESPN EMEA Ltd.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/502006.html

===================================

Players back Associates for World Cup

ESPNcricinfo staff
February 16, 2011
size: A | A
Several leading players have added their voices to the debate over the involvement of Associate nations in future World Cups, with England offspinner Graeme Swann asking: "Why would you want to take the world out of the World Cup?" Under current ICC proposals the Associate nations could be excluded from future World Cups from 2015, when the tournament could be reduced to just 10 teams, but Swann and a number of other cricketers from Test-playing nations interviewed by The Wisden Cricketer disagree with the move. "Yes, of course the emerging nations should stay in it," added Swann. "Shocks can happen."
While a bloated World Cup schedule and a preponderance of one-sided, uneven games in the early stages of the world tournament have drawn criticism in the past, it appears that the players themselves would not like to see the so-called 'minnows' excluded.
"There's no reason why you can't have those teams in the competition," added Australian fast bowler Shaun Tait. "To play against the best players and sides in the world is massive and I wouldn't want to take that away from anyone."
AB de Villiers added that he saw value in the smaller nations' involvement in major tournaments. "It makes it more colourful and it's good for the growth of the game," he said. "Playing on the subcontinent levels things out and they can be harder than the best teams because their bowlers are slower and it makes it tough for batsmen."
Brendon McCullum was not unequivocal in his backing of Associate involvement in the World Cup, but did highlight the potential for smaller nations to inflict embarrassing defeats. "It's great from their perspective that they're there," he said. "Does it diminish the value of the tournament? I'm not entirely sure. They're in at this stage, so we should respect that. It's a little bit scary actually. All you think about is playing the knockouts, winning the big games. But to be part of the big moments you've got to overcome the banana-skin games."
Indian batsman Suresh Raina added that he believed it was only fair that the Associates play in the World Cup as they don't take part in big international series and need some way to learn and improve, and veteran Kenya batsman Steve Tikolo strongly echoed his sentiments.
"The World Cup offers us the chance to test ourselves against the Test nations which we rarely do nowadays," said Tikolo, who was part of Kenyan teams that beat West Indies at the 1996 event and reached the Semi Finals in 2003. "If we can do well, then we can really push our case to have more games against the bigger teams. They're the matches that everyone will judge us by."
The ICC have indicated that they are yet to make a final decision on qualification procedures for the 2015 World Cup and have made the seemingly placatory move of announcing plans to expand the World Twenty20 to 16 teams. "How the 10 members are to be determined is still to be decided," insisted David Richardson, the ICC's general manager for cricket. "It could be the full members only but it could be not."

© ESPN EMEA Ltd.




http://www.espncricinfo.com/other/content/story/501082.html

 

[Timbo]

And the ICC's response?

A typical, 'we don't care what you or the cricketing public want because we're in charge' response from the ICC:

ICC news

ICC sticks to plan for ten-team World Cup

ESPNcricinfo staff
February 18, 2011
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/501569.html#fcomments


Haroon Lorgat, the ICC chief executive, has said there will be no going back on the decision to reduce the 50-over World Cup from 14 to ten teams, despite protests from the Associate countries who are likely to be left out of the tournament in 2015.
"We have felt in the past few years that Twenty20 is the best format to develop the game world-wide and it provides a better environment for competition," Lorgat told PTI. "The 50-over format is more skill-based and suitable for the top teams."
To compensate for the loss of places in the 50-over tournament, the ICC has added four spots to the Twenty20 World Cup, making it a 16-team event, but Cricket Kenya chief executive, Tom Sears, told AFP that the ICC will not be acting in the interests of the game if the smaller teams were locked out of the next World Cup.
"If we have to improve on the standards, there is no point of denying us the opportunity of competing at the top level." Sears said. "We had a meeting with the other Associate countries during the World Cup training camp in Dubai last week, and we plan to raise the matter again at the World Cup. We are disturbed about the whole issue."
In an earlier interview with The Wisden Cricketer, Sears, called the decision "scandalous and bloody ridiculous", saying "I've no desire to be diplomatic... Not to let anyone else in is scandalous. It's all about money, power and votes - and that's not good for cricket."
Former Kenya captain Steve Tikolo and batsman Collins Obuya also voiced their concerns, saying the World Cup remained crucial for the development of the Associate countries. Kenya famously made the semi-finals in the 2003 World Cup, but remain the only non-Test team to have made it so far into the tournament.
Several leading players from the Full Member countries came out in support of the Associates as well, with England offspinner Graeme Swann asking: "Why would you want to take the world out of the World Cup?" He was joined by Australian fast bowler Shaun Tait, who said, "to play against the best players and sides in the world is massive and I wouldn't want to take that away from anyone," and South Africa wicketkeeper AB de Villiers, who saw value in the smaller nations' involvement in major tournaments. "It makes it more colourful and it's good for the growth of the game."


http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/501569.html

 

[skeepe]

I posted an article in the World Cup section about how the Indians organised the current World Cup structure with the aim of maximising revenue by creating a draw that should more or less ensure only the big nations make it out of the group stages.

The justification? The last World Cup didn't make as much money as it could have when some of the smaller nations actually won matches they weren't supposed to.

Ridiculous.

 

[Timbo]

I posted an article in the World Cup section about how the Indians organised the current World Cup structure with the aim of maximising revenue by creating a draw that should more or less ensure only the big nations make it out of the group stages.

The justification? The last World Cup didn't make as much money as it could have when some of the smaller nations actually won matches they weren't supposed to.

Ridiculous.

As I said in the original post of this thread mate, this has all come about for one simple reason: Ireland beating Pakistan at the 2007 world cup.

 

[Twizzle]

what is the point in having a world cup if its not the world teams ?

how are they ever going to progress ?

dickheads