Six and Out - Some Serious Cricket

Cricket World Cup = Pointless ?

by SixandOut on May 4th, 2006

Well, maybe. We all know the ICC Champions Trophy is a bit of a lemon, and certainly why England and Australia are rightly placing more emphasis on the Ashes series that follows shortly after. But you wonder if the cricket world cup is destined to follow into oblivion. There’s been a great deal of coverage of some of International cricket’s “minnows” - i.e., the weaklings of the group, namely, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, teams that for all the will in the world, aren’t really cutting anyone’s mustard, just yet. Even former greats, such as the West Indies, are slipping that way as discontent and arguments over policy rip some sides apart.

So next year’s World Cup then, is there really any merit in seeing the like of Scotland, Ireland and Canada compete, teams that barely trouble a minor county side, let alone the likes of Australia, India and England?

The media has been full of key figures whinging about the volume of cricket being played recently, and it’s getting a little tiresome. But as injuries continue to afflict big teams, with stress fractures, knee problems and shoulder operations, many of which are career threatening or at the very least keeping players out for weeks at a time, the ultimate result is that International teams aren’t putting out full strength sides. This does two things:

1. Devalues the games they are playing, affects world rankings and makes a mockery of cricket
2. Disinclines supporters to cough up £30 a day to watch

So should these smaller nations really be playing? I think not. But don’t think I haven’t considered the various gaping holes in my argument.

1. It’s a World cup - teams from around the World should be playing, regardless of how good they are
2. If who could enter was restricted, then we’d be dangerously close to being like Baseball/American Football/Basketball - sports where the winner of the season gets crowned world champion, even though it’s not exactly a world championship
3. Who would decide who could enter? How would you set the criteria?
4. If teams aren’t allowed to play, where is the incentive for them to play cricket at all?

So yes, it’s an argument with many different possibilities and factors to consider. The World Cup is not just about the cricket - sponsorship deals alone will make it worthwhile for teams to participate.

My general feeling though is that in all forms of cricket, the volume of cricket being played should be restricted. The intended output would be:

• Less cricket = less injury
• Less cricket = more competition for places in the side = better cricket
• Less cricket = more affordable to watch = bigger crowds
• Less cricket = better cricket = more support = better players = better national side

The Australian cricket system seems to have had the intended result. Instead of the English county system, where there are 20+ sides, it is a state system, which means half a dozen teams. I have often wondered if this system, in addition to the well established academy system, has been the biggest contributory factor in Australia’s dominance in the game in the last 20 years.

Could England make such a change to the system? It’s not like it hasn’t been discussed. At length. Small changes have been made, here and there… “tweaking”, if you will. But no wholesale overhaul. Instead, 20Twenty cricket, C&G Trophy, County Championship and some crazy new Super 40 system, all trying to operate around the hectic International calendar of friendlies, World cricket, one day Internationals and Test Cricket.

Deaf ears. Deaf ears.

Share This

Related Stories

• Inzy quits
• The Philip Schofield report
• England don’t fail to disappoint
• Australia West Indies ICC Champions Trophy Final
• What’s hiding under the ICC’s carpet?

POSTED IN: Cricket