IS 10 TEAMS WORLD CUP A BETTER FORMAT OR NOT?

          As we all know, the ICC Cricket World Cup is currently going on in England. It’s the third most popular sport after Football & Olympics in the world. Opinions are divided among cricket fans about ICC’s decision to have a World Cup consisting of only ten teams. After the 1996 World Cup (which had only 9 teams), all the other following World Cups had more than 10 teams. It mostly featured 12 or 14 teams with the 2007 World Cup being the exception as it had 16 teams. So what prompted ICC to take such a decision? What are its pros & cons? Let’s find out.

          When I first read the news that ICC had decided to go ahead with a 10 team World Cup, I would be lying if I say I was not disappointed. Instead of globalizing the game, ICC was taking a reverse direction. I understand that having 16 teams in 2007 was a bad decision. How about 14 teams? Is that a high number too? What about 12? At least having 12 teams is the minimum criterion that is required for a World Cup, right? Else how it can be called as ‘World Cup’? How can we increase the popularity of cricket in other countries by reducing the number of teams in the World Cup? With all due respect, even the 2018 Hockey Women’s World Cup had 16 teams. Men’s Hockey only doesn’t enjoy the same popularity worldwide as of Cricket. So forget about Women’s Hockey & still they had 16 teams.

          One of the highpoints of the World Cup in any sport is the upset victories that an underdog or a minnow team causes against a more fancied opponent who was a clear favorite before the match. Every World Cup has at least one such match. In the 2003 World Cup, it was Kenya defeating Sri Lanka & Zimbabwe. In 2007 World Cup, Bangladesh beat India & South Africa; and Ireland won against Pakistan. England lost against both Bangladesh & Ireland in the 2011 World Cup. Ireland repeated their act of causing upset victory, this time against West Indies in 2015 World Cup.

           2018 ICC Cricket World Cup Qualifier tournament was held in Zimbabwe where the two finalists West Indies & Afghanistan got qualified for World Cup 2019. Zimbabwe & Ireland sadly missed the bus. I can dare say that the niche “fans” of the minnows are thoroughly missing these two teams in the ongoing World Cup. Especially Ireland as they have made a reputation for themselves by getting at least one surprise victory in 3 consecutive World Cups. Zimbabwe couldn’t win a single match against any top side in the last World Cup but they had competed well in almost all of their matches & had certainly not played according to the usual minnows’ sub-standard levels.

                                        

          If the lower ranked Full Members nations like Ireland & Zimbabwe or the other Associate nations don’t get to play in World Cup then how or when will they test themselves against superior teams & grow their game? The counterpoint is that the World Cup is not a place for any team to learn & grow. It’s a platform to perform & win matches. They should learn before coming to the World Cup. Okay. Maybe it’s a valid point. But then they don’t get enough opportunities to play against top nations otherwise.

          Zimbabwe is an exception. They do play regular cricket against quality teams. Ireland is not that lucky but still, gets few games when teams tour Ireland for one-off or a couple of ODI or T20 matches to acclimatize the conditions before facing a sterner challenge against England on their backyard. The least I talk about the chances the other associate teams get, the better it is. Does anyone remember when was the last time a quality side has played against say Scotland, Holland, UAE, USA, Nepal, Namibia, Kenya, Bermuda, etc? A World Cup should have teams from all parts of the world. That’s why it is called that. This is the first time in the last two decades that Europe & Africa continents have only one representative each in the showpiece event.

                        

          So let’s try to understand what made ICC do this. The current format reduces one-sided games featuring lower ranked teams that get lower footfalls at venues, lower viewership on TV & digital mediums; all resulting in decreased revenue for ICC. Also, it enables the three big nations - India, England & Australia will each have 9 matches to play in league stage which means more revenue for their respective boards & ICC. If thought purely on economic terms, then yes, it makes sense.

          But is money everything? What about the growth of the game across the world? What about the aspirations of cricketers of lower ranked teams who look forward to taking part in this marquee event which happens once in four years? What about the sentiments of the fans from those nations who have missed out the fun of seeing their beloved country fighting it out against the best teams in the world? ICC seems to have no care for these concerns.

          Let’s explore the current format now. Surely there must be some pros & not just cons too. This format of 10 teams with no groups, playing each game against all other nations is definitely a competitive format. It’s more challenging as only 4 teams will qualify for the next round – semis & 6 teams will have to bear the disappointment of losing out. In the format of 2011 & 2015 World Cups where 14 teams participated, 4 teams from each group qualify for quarterfinals. So the topper of group A will play against the fourth-placed team of group B in the quarterfinal. Imagine that the topper team has only lost one out of six games & the fourth-placed team has won 3 matches against lower ranked teams & lost against 3 better quality sides in the group phase. Now, what if the topper team had one bad day in office during the knockout match & they lose against the fourth-placed team in quarters. The result will be that the most consistent & clearly better team of the tournament would not be in semis whereas an inconsistent & an unpredictable team would reach semis. 

          Although this has not happened in the last two editions of the World Cup, one cannot deny its possibility of happening anytime in the future. This kind of scenario will not happen in this year’s format. Only those four teams who have consistently played well will reach the semis & there won’t be much to differentiate even between the first & fourth-placed teams when they will face off each other in semis. So maybe this isn’t really a very bad idea as I once thought it was.

                                      

          So will we get to see any upset this time? We are already halfway through the league stage. Bangladesh has shed its minnows tag quite a few years ago. West Indies – one or two years back, I would have considered them as minnows without a second thought but in the last one year they have improved & now look like a team who can defeat any team on their day; although they still have problems with consistency & temperament.

          Thus we are left with two clear minnows – Afghanistan & Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is the new entrant in the minnows club as they continue to struggle for a variety of reasons like transition phase after the retirement of their legends, the woeful form of experienced players, domestic board problems & pathetic selection issues. So does Afghanistan & Sri Lanka have it in them to emulate Ireland’s feats? Is this really a better format than the previous ones? Right now I don’t have much of a clue. So let’s just enjoy the World Cup for now. And we may have a fair idea to analyze for the above questions after 14th July.