Zimbabwe, Bangladesh are lesser competition, no more.
By Sujeet Rajan
What will it take? 500 runs in 50 overs; 50 runs all out?
When will the Test playing nations decide that in the name of grooming mediocre and minor cricket playing nations like the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, Scotland and Ireland, the World Cup is turning into a farce of embarrassing proportions, vexing for the paying public at the grounds and the global TV watching audience alike.
Quality at this World Cup has been inexcusably mixed with quantity, talent with mediocrity, the excitement of sharp contests between evenly matched nations blunted by the inexorable boredom of tame, foregone conclusion matches when Associate Nations figure in it – bar the match when Ireland beat the West Indies.
It’s important to make the distinction that the Cricket World Cup is not the Olympics, where every nation has the right to send in their best and brightest, and compete with the world’s best and brightest, never mind be relegated to the last place in the heats; rejoice in just the participation.
An event held every four years like the World Cup Cricket needs more respect, try to weed out the also-rans like the World Cup Football does. This is not a contest for teams like the UAE, Scotland and Afghanistan who could be beaten 3 out of 5 times by local teams in the Delhi or Mumbai leagues. Maybe 2 out of 5 those club teams might beat Ireland too. It’s a contest meant only for the professional big boys of the sport, not fledgling amateurs. Of course, some players in the Associate Nations have had some form of experience in some competitive cricket outside of their borders, namely Ireland, who has at least 10 players play County cricket.
The World Cup is for cricketers who live and breathe the sport, play it for a living, to raise the prestige and pride of their country. Not for those part-timers who are wondering if they can catch a few days of vacation sunshine in Sydney or Napier before they join their regular jobs as flight attendants, policemen, accountants, bankers, construction workers or whatever else they do for a living.
It’s ridiculous enough to have in a once-every-four-year-contest spanning over a month-and-a-half, a rained out match between Australia and Bangladesh not have a reserve day, rescheduled at an alternate venue – even at a retractable roof stadium. The players who get an off-day play poker perhaps. Who really care for the public fuming over the monstrosity of a wasted day, especially those from out of town, flying in from a different country for an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
However, it’s far worse to see cricket being reduced to a baseball Home Run Derby contest mid-way through a World Cup, with the likes of Chris Gayle, AB de Villiers and David Warner smashing records with impunity, hardly breaking into a sweat. It surely must leave players like Kapil Dev shake their heads in dismay, at the unfairness of it all. Of course, Bahamas must be relieved their name has been replaced by Afghanistan as the biggest whipping boys of the sport.
And for those who support the Associate Nations, saying it’s important to spread the wings of the sport, here’s a piece of advice: get realistic. Cricket is not going to flounder if the likes of UAE and Afghanistan are not playing the Test playing nations in the World Cup. In fact, it works the other way around when they get thrashed thoroughly. It demoralizes the fans, the audience. Makes some wonder as to why the hell are they playing the likes of Australia and India in the first place, when they are better suited for club cricket in Fiji.
It’s enough that the cricketing world has the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, whose potential has never been realized, and are considered the minnows in each and every tournament they play, unless it’s a grand tristate series featuring those two countries, and throw in any of the other Associate Nations. Good luck to those who tune in to watch those matches. If they are truly the minnows, then why have more inferior minnows, or Associate Nations.
Importantly, the hectic modern-day cricket schedule does not give breathing space for Test playing cricketers to play 3-day and 5-day matches with fledgling nations. It’s usually an under-19 or the second or third string teams who end up playing them occasionally. So then, why thrust these teams from countries who are trying to groom some international cricketers, into the coliseum, make them the jokers of the pack.
Unless cricket takes off in Europe or the US or Canada, or even China, Japan or South Korea – where there is money, the required facilities to groom the sport and tremendous fan interest to inculcate the sport – it’s not going to mushroom at rapid pace in countries like Afghanistan where coaches fear to go for fear of being killed, or the UAE, where there is no chance of playing full-time, as all players have day-time jobs. Who are the World cup organizing committee kidding then? The public.
Longer tournaments, more matches mean more revenue. However, it also means the younger generations who may have just started taking to the sport may just be tuned off by the abject display of the Associate Nations, who really don’t have talent running through their ranks to make a match of it every time.
Sports is not about waiting for a big team to fall to a small team. Yes, it may happen once in a while, as Ireland displayed, but even in Hollywood and Bollywood films featuring sports teams, the real heroes are teams who not only win once, but win consistently to win the championship.
The next edition of the World Cup is going to feature only 10 teams, with only the top 2 Associate Nations making the cut. It’s a good decision, but could have been made better by having only one Associate Nation play, and another team comprised of players from all the other Associate Nations sending in a team.
3 Comments
In response:
Your first paragraph is incorrect. The most competitive and compelling to view games of the world cup have involved associate nations. With the exclusion of Australia v New Zealand the games between full member nations being equally one sided (India v West Indies) as those between full members and associates.
Paragraph two just look at the Bangladesh Scotland game
To the rest of your paragraphs, you’re an absolute moron
I wasn’t sure if this article was attempted satire, or the author was just that biased against the Associate nations taking part in a *World* Cup.
Kids getting turned off from the game because Bangladesh beat Scotland? What?
Chris Gayle scoring a double century, de Villiers blasting rapid 150s… oh wait those were against Full Member nations, not Associates.
Does the author fear another 2007 tourney, where mighty India were sent home early? Would he prefer a tournament where the Big teams are automatically in the semifinals?
I could not agree with you less.
The amount of wrong in this article is simply astounding.