Worthy of its own discussion IMO.
I'm not sure there's a worse body at expanding their international footprint than the ICC. The decision the reduce the 2019 world cup to 10 teams is a shocker.
Dave Richardsons attempts to explain it seem pretty pissweak to me.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/826327.html
Talking up their pathways, despite the fact that it clearly is far more difficult for associate members to qualify for this world cup.
Then conceding
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/828365.html
Especially if playing and potentially dropping games to these sides threatens your own chances of playing premier events.
Numerous associate members have been attacking the ICC directly for their policy
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/837671.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/837477.html
Whilst, despite his media conference not being put up by the ICC, Mahela Jayawardene had this to say
There's also a petition going around on the net to stop them reducing the number of sides.
Now there's a fair argument that the current format is flawed, because it is clearly designed to get the top 8 to qualify, therefor makes the first month or so of cricket pretty academic (eg England are still a decent chanc eof qualifying despite being utterly dreadful, such is the allowances).
personally I'd favour a 16 team competition. Four groups of four. Top two sides from each group qualify for quarter finals and from there it is a straight knock out. Still allows for 31 games, and there can be higher value attached to the games given there is far greater percentage of meaningful competition involved.
I'm not sure there's a worse body at expanding their international footprint than the ICC. The decision the reduce the 2019 world cup to 10 teams is a shocker.
Dave Richardsons attempts to explain it seem pretty pissweak to me.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/826327.html
Talking up their pathways, despite the fact that it clearly is far more difficult for associate members to qualify for this world cup.
Then conceding
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/828365.html
Especially if playing and potentially dropping games to these sides threatens your own chances of playing premier events.
Numerous associate members have been attacking the ICC directly for their policy
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/837671.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/837477.html
Whilst, despite his media conference not being put up by the ICC, Mahela Jayawardene had this to say
There's also a petition going around on the net to stop them reducing the number of sides.
Now there's a fair argument that the current format is flawed, because it is clearly designed to get the top 8 to qualify, therefor makes the first month or so of cricket pretty academic (eg England are still a decent chanc eof qualifying despite being utterly dreadful, such is the allowances).
personally I'd favour a 16 team competition. Four groups of four. Top two sides from each group qualify for quarter finals and from there it is a straight knock out. Still allows for 31 games, and there can be higher value attached to the games given there is far greater percentage of meaningful competition involved.