There have been heated debates about ICC’s decision to pare down the next installment of the World Cup to 10 teams at the cost of some of the associate nations. Some have refrained to comment, while some have gone on to say that this decision will take the ‘world’ out of the ‘World Cup’. Some ask “Does every World Cup have to start in this ‘extended warm-up game’ mode where the minnows can show up only to be humiliated with ridiculous score-lines?”
It still had that one-off upset romance in some of the previous instances of the World Cup, but since that is all but ruled out in this installment, we need to question whether we are truly being fair and doing justice to the associate nations.
With this World Cup, have we come to a point where the widespread adoption of Cricket needs to find alternate avenues, other than including associate nations in the World Cup? Is asking these nations to participate on the biggest stage, only to hope for that one upset match that can justify their presence, helping or hurting?
On one hand, a World Cup that is 43 days long, with most people feeling that the real action only starts in the knockout stages, is providing an experience that is too start-stop in nature and asking a lot from the fans. It doesn’t result in a cohesive tournament that can engage global audiences seamlessly. And in the meanwhile, it probably is producing games that are too lob-sided, not too commercially viable and not providing a whole lot to the unbiased fan (which for this discussion is a fan from neither playing country).
To have less-prepared teams play each other almost exclusively, and then throw them into a tournament once in four years where they are suddenly pitted against the big dogs can not produce good Cricket. The objective shouldn’t be about including or excluding these nations from World Cups, but to help them develop their Cricket to a level where a match between Australia and Canada makes a lot more sense, both commercially as well as in terms of providing good Cricketing experience to fans. So the debate shouldn’t really be about whether we are taking the ‘world’ out of the World Cup or not, but about how we can develop talent across the world so that tournaments grow ‘naturally’ and not superficially.
Perhaps working out a process where players from associate nations can get assimilated into some of the domestic leagues in test playing nations may provide an option worth looking into. These players need exposure to top-class Cricket in order to lift their own game, and giving them this exposure once in four years isn’t helping. We can not lock them all up in a cocoon, only to let them out once in four years and expect them to wow us with upset victories. And when that doesn’t happen, we can’t simply turn around and question their very existence.
Apart from the insensitivities, euphemisms and the nuances, there needs to be an objective process that eventually develops both a short-term solution and a long-term realistic vision. ICC can then work on facilitating the resources that are needed to realize the vision, rather than being hostage to the commercial demands of the stakeholders.
And most importantly, the communication of these decisions has to be managed just as delicately as the discussions that lead up to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment