I went to bed (late, again, thanks #CWC19 timezones) deflated on a number of fronts, firstly at how Afghanistan’s performance belied their talent, and also lamenting how the best teams who qualified in Zimbabwe wouldn’t have necessarily progressed from an event played in conditions similar to those faced by the 10 sides in England and Wales.

There was also the weird feeling in the back of my head that this result would end up being used as a rod to beat up those who are in favour of a bigger world cup.

I wasn’t wrong.

Associate/Affiliate cricket keyboard warriors strangely absent from my timeline these days. Wonder why. #CWC19 — Anand Vasu (@anandvasu) June 18, 2019

- Advertisement -

After Afghanistan’s inaugural Test match against India last year, the same individual who correlated the Blue Tigers’ first-up Test loss in Bengaluru – against the number ranked Indian side no less – to the format of the 50-over World Cup. Former Scotland men’s Captain Preston Mommsen’s tweet was one of a majority lambasting the comments. There was what appeared to be a change of heart with a piece on global pathways, but the most recent tweet would appear a regression to an earlier point of view.

As I set out in reply on Twitter today, I’m not sure a tweet calling out “keyboard warriors” brings about the best method for constructive conversation here. Not to mention a) the ironic nature of delivering the message in true keyboard-warrior style, b) the fact that there have not been any Affiliate members for two years, and c) there aren’t any Associates playing in the event he dutifully hashtags.

The “keyboard warrior” tweet irony wasn’t lost on me, either.

If Anand was referring to those – like myself – who advocate for the (re) expansion of the sport’s premier global event it’s (again) disappointing to read, as it’s not about being an Associate “keyboard warrior”. It’s trying to help grow the sport for a common good.

It’s not the fact teams “weren’t good enough to qualify” nor the meritocracy of the pathway (it was the most meritocratic in history in terms of making 4 Full Members qualify – the first time some Test nations did not automatically take a place) but it’s that emerging nations are more competitive than ever and we are the only global sport contracting our World Cup.

Animated GIF showing the competing teams in the World Cups of 7 different sports in the following order;



2019🏏 = 10 teams

2018⚽️ = 32 teams (48 in 2026)

2015🏉 = 20 teams

2018🏑 = 16 teams

2014🏀 = 24 teams (32 in 2019)

2017⚾️ = 16 teams

2016🤼‍♂️ = 12 teams pic.twitter.com/m8pZ8LhKKF — Andrew Leonard (@CricketBadge) March 30, 2018

In fact since 2015, in all ODI matches between Associates and Full Members, AMs have more often (proportionally) produced competitive matches than those played between FMs:

With the 10-team @cricketworldcup almost upon us, it's time once again to bust the myth that Associates should be excluded because they "can't compete". In fact, since the last #CWC, AM vs. FM games are almost 40% more likely to produce a competitive match than FM-only clashes. pic.twitter.com/5nmdJgjHVp — Copernicus Cricket (@HeliocentCric) May 25, 2019

Nick Skinner – with David Ager’s help – is doing a heap of work at the moment for an EC feature on the “competitive matches” concept, analysing the correlation between ranking difference and results, building on what Russ Degnan did here.

In short though it’s not that those pesky Associates “shouldn’t be at the World Cup with all these blowouts”. It’s entirely possible to have an expanded format that front-ends the likelihood of one sided matches, leads into increasing stakes, and all with as few dead rubbers as possible. Take for example Russ’ 20 team format:

Similarly, most of you will be familiar with my proposed 20-team format that incentives first place and sends second and third to a repechage. Here is what it would look like based on the qualification for 2019. pic.twitter.com/84GBloodUx — Russell Degnan (@idlesummers) May 29, 2019

Or in either of Bertus de Jong’s 16 team structures:

You can ameliorate the early elimination risk in a 4×4 format quite significantly by adding eliminators and repechage. Also means nobody stays in the tournament that's mathematically eliminated, and reduces the overall proportion of mismatches. Two examples: pic.twitter.com/H97QvVujyN — Bertus de Jong (@BdJcricket) June 17, 2019

Or even Tim Wigmore’s, which is another take on 2015:

Cricket always struggled with its format – this is 8th different one in 9 editions – and probably never got it right. 2 groups of 7, with top team to semi-finals and 2 v 3 in quarter-finals, would provide incentives to come top and pressure at top end, plus a chance lower down — Tim Wigmore (@timwig) June 17, 2019

It also work with 3 groups of 5. But I’ll leave it there for now.

And then, someone “called upon” the ICC to strip T20I teams of their new status. But we’ll get to that a little later…