Mr Tree
bigger than massive
World T20
the competition started yesterday, with Ireland just managing a last-ball win in comical scenes after stumbling a bit at the end of their run-chase over Zimbabwe. anyway, a great and vital win for the boys in green.
i've become a big fan of cricket in the lesser countries - i guess it's a little akin to lower-league football. the ICC are taking weird protective directions with their "global" tournaments. this "16-team tournament" was sneakily changed (last year i think) into a two-round tournament, with Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and six associate member qualifiers having to participate in an extra qualifying round at the tournament. Ireland now have to progress past UAE and Netherlands in their group to qualify, while the hosts(!) have to beat Nepal and Hong Kong, having already beaten Afghanistan in the first game yesterday...
why? why not just have four groups of four? or two groups of eight? or whatever. "they'd only lose" hasn't stopped the football world cup including various standards of countries in their global tournaments. i think it's a real shame that Nepal and Hong Kong aren't getting their chance on their big stage, despite having already "qualified" last year (from the Associate qualifier).
it's so frustrating to see cricket shooting itself in the foot.
on the eve of the tournament, i saw the best article yet on the ICC's farcical "restructure" and how it's let a lot of these smaller countries down - http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/727223.html
the guy (Tim Wigmore) breaks it down superbly, building the case with the relevant numbers too, before coming to the depressing conclusion...
i've become a big fan of cricket in the lesser countries - i guess it's a little akin to lower-league football. the ICC are taking weird protective directions with their "global" tournaments. this "16-team tournament" was sneakily changed (last year i think) into a two-round tournament, with Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and six associate member qualifiers having to participate in an extra qualifying round at the tournament. Ireland now have to progress past UAE and Netherlands in their group to qualify, while the hosts(!) have to beat Nepal and Hong Kong, having already beaten Afghanistan in the first game yesterday...
why? why not just have four groups of four? or two groups of eight? or whatever. "they'd only lose" hasn't stopped the football world cup including various standards of countries in their global tournaments. i think it's a real shame that Nepal and Hong Kong aren't getting their chance on their big stage, despite having already "qualified" last year (from the Associate qualifier).
it's so frustrating to see cricket shooting itself in the foot.
on the eve of the tournament, i saw the best article yet on the ICC's farcical "restructure" and how it's let a lot of these smaller countries down - http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/727223.html
the guy (Tim Wigmore) breaks it down superbly, building the case with the relevant numbers too, before coming to the depressing conclusion...
The new world order risks entrenching the fundamental inequity in the treatment of the leading Associates and the worst- performing Full Members. Even if Afghanistan defeated Zimbabwe in the Test playoff and in every ODI between the sides, they would still receive around $20 million every eight years - while Zimbabwe, regardless of performance, would receive over $70 million. There is no sign of how this could ever change: the new ICC plans don't even contain a token mention of how any new country could obtain Full Member status.
For all the ICC's lofty rhetoric about "meritocracy" and expanding the game, a profound funding gap, unrelated to performance, would remain at the heart of international cricket. But it's not only Afghanistan and Ireland who should feel aggrieved: the 90 lowest-ranked cricketing nations, who carry with them cricket's dreams of becoming a genuinely global game, have cause for profound despair.

