Saving the ICC from their own stupidity

Today brought the very welcome news that the 10-team World Cup format may not be so final after all. If they want to maintain the integrity of the sport by making the World Cup more than just an invitational trophy, the ICC face some difficult decisions - made all the more so by their own essential impotence. When the 10 full members run the game, it is easy to see why self-interest reigns supreme.

So it may well prove difficult for the ICC to get enough of the full members to vote for a qualification tournament; Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean turkeys are unlikely to be great fans of Christmas. Instead they may try and devise a new format. To the greatest degree possible, it must (a) match the ICC's TV contract with ESPN-Star, which requires a minimum of 48 games in the World Cup and (b) ensure India play as many games as possible. These are the depressing realities.

Within these not inconsiderable constraints, what is the best we can hope for?

My proposal would be for two groups of six, which would make for 30 round-robin games.
Ideally I would then like the group winners to progress to the semi-finals, and the second and third sides to play off against each other, but that format would mean the ICC would have to pay a lot of compensation.

Alternatively - and more financially viable (how depressing it is how finances cannot be separated from any discussion of World Cup formats) - the top four could go into a Super Eight phase. Now, I know - cricket has not had good experiences with Super Eights / Sixes in 50-over World Cups.

But two groups of four, along the lines of the format used in the World Twenty20, would possess an excitement wholly lacking in the miserable 2007 tournament, when the Super Eights seemed to never end.

These groups could consist of the top and fourth ranked side from group A in the opening stages, alongside numbers two and three from group B (and visa versa). No points would be carried forward, as this is always liable to be messy. But crucially, the positions of any sides level on points after the Super Eights would be determined by what position they finished in the first round groups. This would create a real incentive for sides to win their groups in the first round - one conspicuous by its absence in the recent tournament.

There would therefore by 12 Super Eight games (each side playing the others in their group), bringing the total number of games to 42. Add in semis, a third-placed play-off and the final and that brings us to 46, minimising the damage to the ICC.

Perhaps it's not quite ideal - what tournament structure is? - but this format both protects the full members and gives an incentive to the associates to progress. Above all, it would create a much more vibrant and exciting tournament than the current planned format for 2015.

We'll see what is announced at the ICC's meeting in June. In the meantime, what an opportunity for Ireland. If they were to win one of their two ODIs against Pakistan in May, let alone both, while getting large crowds in, the case for the reversal of the scandalous decision would grow greater still.

World Cup petition

Just a quick note on the World Cup petition we've put together - so far we have had over 1300 signatures, which is a great effort. I have also had an email from the ICC's legal team (some people were using their chief executive's email address, but I've since increased security to prevent this from being possible) - that they know about it must be a good thing.

Anyway, do try and spread the word if you can. In the meantime, check out this interesting article calling for a 20-team World Cup on Idle Summers - it makes business and cricketing sense. Not sure that would be my number one option but, but I'd certainly prefer it a great deal to a 10-team tournament!

Petition - Keep the world in the World Cup

In my outrage at the ICC's decision to (a) limit the next World Cup to 10 teams (meaning Bangladesh and Zimbabwe will be ensured of nine games each) and (b) make the tournament a closed shop - even though Ireland are ranked above Zimbabwe - I have made a petition.

Please sign it here - and spread the word if you can.

Helping out the ICC – and boy do they need it

Tim has covered the main points that are wrong with the ICC’s decision to restrict the number of teams in the next World Cup. I would only point out additionally that the next World Cup is in effect a closed tournament. There is no scope for anyone to qualify and in my mind is not a genuine world tournament.

However, where the ICC have got something right is that the tournament needed changing. The tournament goes on for far too long, there are still too many games and until something more positive is done to help the likes of Kenya and Canada, too many of the games involving the Associate teams were non-contests. Given the current spirit of “We’re all in this together”, here is my format for the next World Cup.

Number of teams: 12
The eight quarter finalists from the 2011 tournament qualify automatically. The other four have to compete against other interested nations to qualify. In future years, nine teams will qualify from the previous tournament Teams to be split into two groups of 6 playing round robin. The top four teams go into quarter finals. The other two teams go into a play off.

Two games per day. This gives 15 days for the first round of matches, but allows for 3 weekends of play.

The two play off matches between teams 5 and 6 in each group come before the quarter finals, filling the off days.

One quarter final per day(Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday). Play off final for a place in the next World Cup on the following Tuesday

Semi finals Wednesday and Thursday

Final on the Sunday

This gives us a tournament in four weeks, gives the best teams the best chance of winning the tournament but also gives the developing teams something to play for all the way through the tournament. More importantly, it means that the World Cup is not a closed shop for the established teams, but other countries get the chance to play on the biggest stage.

Oh ICC, what have you done?

So two days after the end of an enthralling World Cup, what do we get? The decision to limit the 2015 World Cup to ten teams and, moreover, give no opportunity whatsoever for other sides to qualify is staggering in its closed-mindedness. It suggests the ICC is nothing less than a cartel motivated solely by money. Which is probably about right.

There is simply no justification for the decision. Cricket should be allowed to grow in the countries that have shown progress - none more so than Ireland. Imagine, if you will, how well Ireland could have done with their best player - Eoin Morgan - not taken away from them by England?

Instead, the associates have effectively been told they are wasting their time trying to improve in the longer formats of the game. The message from the ICC is that they should stick to Twenty20 - made into a 16-team tournament in the most futile of gestures. Just when Ireland and a few others - most notably Afghanistan (who would have qualified for this tournament had the qualification process not been concluded two years ago, and almost certainly given a better representation of the minnows than Kenya and Canada, another mistake on the ICC's part)- seemed on the cusp of genuine progress, they have been told it's all a waste of time.

Instead we will witness a 10-team round robin, which will actually be more shorn of drama than this World Cup. Unless they improve a great deal, we will have to witness Bangladesh, ZImbabwe and even the West Indies being continually thrashed. A different format with more teams would actually have reduced the number of games between the best and those outside the top eight.

Today is indeed a dark day for the game, just as the Irish are proclaiming. As an interesting aside, I'd be fascinated to see the TV ratings for the games this tournament. Fans love underdogs and upsets, and I'd wager that Ireland's victory over England, as well as the Netherlands' game with England, pulled in significantly more than, say, New Zealand's game against Zimbabwe. It may actually be that, in limiting the tournament to ten and creating no scope for any sort of fairytale qualification (such as Afghanistan's to the last World Twenty20) the ICC are actually reducing the commercial value of their product - and how apt that would be.

William Porterfield was right when he said the 2015 tournament will now be nothing more than a "glorified Champions Trophy". It will be much the poorer for that.

Tell the ICC what you think - email enquiries@icc-cricket.com or complain on their twitter account. The Cricket With Balls campaign against the decision can be found here.