Should only test playing nations contest the World Cup?

[Nige_Bix]

I'm sure there will be mixed feelings over this one. Would it be better to just have the top nations playing in a tournament like this?

The gap between best and worst is enormous, but then if we want the game to foster all over the world, it would seem that we should suffer the one-sided contests [which can happen between sides of similar ability as well].

Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka took a while to become competitive and yet were able to chalk up the odd win over a [then] more highly rated opponent in their fledgeling days! The recent performances of BangalDesh would suggest that perhaps there should be more stringent guidelines and qualifying criteria before a new team is admitted into the established ranks!

So after all this - my vote is NO - lets keep the fledgeling countries involved - but maybe it could be structured differently! dzm

[Port01]

Keep em in.

I know a Canadian that didnt even know the world cup existed until Canada won a game.

[Bomber Spirit]

Bangladesh shouldn't be a Test-playing nation.

I'd favour letting 2 non-Test countries in; but not 4. It's too many, and there's too many blowouts. Some of these floggings will do more harm than good for developing the game in those countries.

[Port01]

You also have to think of the amount of money the cricket associations of these countries earn simply by being there.

Compared to their normal income, it would be like Australia making the world cup in soccer, a complete financial boon, regardless of whether we get flogged.

[Destructive]

On the other hand, it may do those countries a world of good. Canada had their first ever win the other day. That can only be a positive. Bangadesh on the flip side, should'nt be there.

[Kenny_01]

I would probably prefer it to stay the way it is.

[Goo]

I don't think it matter, the lower countries get a chance to win a game when they play another low one in their group this way, gives them some incentive rather than just making up the numbers

I kinda think of it as the real contest starts with the super 6's

[ScouseCat]

The whole idea of the World Cup is to showcase this great game across the world and therefore I think it's a good idea that countries like Canada, Kenya, Holland and Namibia get the opportunity to experience playing at the highest level so they can improve their skills.

It's not going to happen overnight... look at Sri Lanka for example. They came into international cricket and copped belting after belting but eventually, after playing more and more matches against the better teams, they have developed into a good team as well and won the World Cup in 1996.

Zimbabwe are also a team who has improved a lot in the last few years, even managing to qualify for the Super Six stage at the last World Cup in England.

[CharlieG]

It takes a long time in cricket to make it as an international team. Sri Lanka has really only established itself as a team with international respect since they won the '96 WC, and they've been playing tests for 20 or so years now. Zimbabwe is slowly getting there as well. It will take years for Bangladesh to make it, but the only way they will is by going through that tough period.

It will eventually be the turn of Canada and Kenya to go through that phase, but they've got to start somewhere.

[GoEagles]

I like the current format.

It's good to invite a small handful of countries that have earnt the right (through the ICC Trophy) to compete with the test playing nations.

Having said that, I wouldn't like to see any more than 3 qualifying teams come into the World Cup. If any more came in, it would just get too one sided.

[Rob]

Part of the problem is that not enough is done to ensure the qualifiers get the matches in to gain enough experience to at least give them the chance to be competitive. I read an article on Canada which said they have spent the last few months before the World Cup training indoors because it's too bloody cold in Canada. Why couldn't the ICC have spent some of the money coming their way (over $4 million I think) to send them on a tour of, say, the West Indies to give them much needed match practice?
And of course, once the World Cup is over, who is going to hear of them again? Unless they qualify for the next World Cup, no-one.

In saying all that, some test playing countries are doing their bit in assisting the smaller cricketing nations to improve. The West Indies have had the USA, Canada, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands participate in their domestic one day comp in the past, Scotland are going to be part of the one day league in England this year, South Africa are letting Namibia into their OD league and on a quirky note, the Pakis have Afghanistan competing in one of their lower leagues.

[Nige_Bix]

Then again - just how many fully-fledged teams is it realisitic to have? It seems there is more than enough cricket being played now in order for all the better nations to play each other a reasonable number of times! dzm