ICC World Cup for all - providing they qualify

Tony Becca, Contributor

Minutes after the cricketers of the world breathed some new life into the game with an unforgettable tournament on the cricket fields of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and India, the ICC, the game's ruling body, for better or for worse, in one moment of madness, all but promised to destroy what they had done.

Hopefully, however, things will change. Following worldwide protests, the ICC has decided to revisit the issue of participating teams in 2015 at its June meeting in Hong Kong and maybe things will change.

After a memorable World Cup, after an estimated audience of over 1.5 billion people had watched the action, ball by ball, and after they had witnessed 14 countries, including two 'minnows', competing for the game's biggest prize, the ICC, as it had planned before, said next time, in the year 2015, the World Cup will be limited to 10 teams - to its full members, to its Test-playing members, including the now non-playing Zimbabwe, and nobody else.

Maybe at its meeting in June the ICC will show the world that although its important members are 10 in numbers, its membership, of which it loves to boast, includes a substantial part of the world.

The ICC has always been a weak body, untouched by reality and controlled by one or two countries, always siding with the rich and powerful, and more interested in money rather than guiding the development of the game.

This time around it is difficult to see which country, or group of countries, could have lobbied for such a change. The change, however, is for more money, and it is a change which threatens to destroy the game. In fact, it is a change which, if it happens, is almost certain to destroy the game.

After making many changes to many things over the years, some for better and some for worse, the ICC felt obliged to make another change to the World Cup for 2015, if for no other reason than to accommodate those who feel, as successful as this year's tournament was, that it was too long.

So what if the World Cup was too long, so what if a few weak teams were involved, and what if a few matches proved one-sided contests?

It was exciting for the most part, there were surprises and upsets, and the fans enjoyed it - especially those who love cricket.

To limit the World Cup to 10 teams, to only the full members of the ICC, and in so doing squeeze out the associate members is wrong, it will be wrong, inexcusably wrong, and with time not a problem, as the ICC has decided, with enough time to change it, it should be changed .

Misnomer

If the World Cup is to remain the World Cup, and not a misnomer, like America's World Series basketball tournament, it should continue to involve the world, or most of it as is possible, and the only way to do that is to invite them to participate through a qualifying tournament.

In that situation, teams like Ireland, Scotland, Kenya, Canada, and the Netherlands, as they have always done, will have a chance to play in the World Cup, and others, like Afghanistan, would have a chance of also playing with the big boys and dreaming of creating an upset.

That would also encourage the development of the game in the countries which are not listed as full members of the ICC, not because they played in the World Cup, but because they had a chance to play in the World Cup, to rub shoulders with the best in the game, and to display their skills, as Kenya did while beating the West Indies in 1996 and Sri Lanka in 2003, as Canada did while beating Bangladesh in 2003, and as Ireland did to Pakistan and England in 2007 and 2011 respectively.

It should also be remembered, for example, what Maurice Odumbe of Kenya did while taking three wickets for 15 runs off 10 overs against the West Indies in 1996, what Namibia's Rudi van Vuuren did while taking five wickets for 43 runs against England in 2003, what Collins Obuya did while taking five for 24 against Bangladesh, what Canada's John Davison did while hitting a century off a record 67 deliveries against the West Indies in 2003, and Kevin O'Brien did while smashing a century off a new record 63 deliveries against England recently.

No, it cannot be right that Ireland, the team which defeated Pakistan, played to a tie with Zimbabwe, and reached the second stage of the tournament in 2007, the team which defeated England this year, the team that is ranked at number 10 at the moment, above Zimbabwe, and the team that competed much better than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, regardless of what happens between now and then, cannot compete in the 2015 World Cup.

More than that, with the West Indies, Bangladesh, and Zim-babwe, the teams ranked at number eight, nine, and 11, guaranteed places in the 2015 World Cup, teams like Ireland, Netherlands, and Kenya are left without even a hope of getting there.

Ricky Ponting may be right, cricket needs a tournament where the big boys play by themselves, and Haroon Lorgat, the CEO of the ICC, may be right, the 50-over game is more skill and more suitable for the top teams.

If that it so, however, where do the lower teams test their skills, how do they improve, and equally important, where were the skills, just for example, of the West Indies and Sri Lanka in 1996 and 2003, of Canada in 2003, of Pakistan in 2007, and of England just two weeks ago?

Shaun Tait, Graham Swann, and A.B. de Villiers may also be right: it is a World Cup, everyone should have a chance of playing in it, plus it adds a bit of drama, a bit of colour to the event.

Surprises and upsets make up the romance of sport, all around the world, and there is no doubt about that.

Super sport

Cricket is not football, but an upset is an upset in any sport, and football would not be football without the memory of upsets, of the United States of America, for example, defeating England 1-0 in 1950, of Cameroon defeating Argentina 1-0 in 1990, of North Korea defeating Italy 1-0 in 1966, and of Senegal defeating France, the defending champions, 1-0 in 2002.

Most importantly, if the small teams, before they became big teams, were scoffed at in football when they were little teams in the same way they are being scoffed at in cricket, by the ICC, by their own governing body, football would not be the super sport it is today.

There would have been no growth, 16 teams, not 32, would still be the number that contests that World Cup, teams like Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago would never have got there, and neither would others like Cameroon. Ghana, Cte d'Ivoire, Nigeria, and Togo.

We would never, probably, have even heard of players like Roger Milla and Samuel Eto'o of Came-roon, Stephen Appiah and Michael Essien of Ghana, Didier Drogba and Yaya Toure of Cte d'Ivoire, and J. J. Okocha of Nigeria.