Updated June 05, 2019 08:49:24

Photo: Kevin O'Brien (right) scored the then-fastest century in World Cup history against England in 2011. (Reuters: Philip Brown)

Some of the greatest moments in Cricket World Cup history have come when traditionally non-cricket-playing nations have upset the apple cart and caused a huge shock against established nations.

Be it then-associate member Zimbabwe beating Australia in 1983, unfancied Kenya destroying the West Indies in 1996 or Ireland handing out doses of humiliation against first Pakistan in 2007 and then England in 2011, the World Cup has long provided a platform for unknown teams to make their mark on the world stage.

And the trend of smaller nations getting one over the giants of the game has already continued this week, with Pakistan beating highly fancied hosts England and Bangladesh surprising South Africa on consecutive days.

All the tournament needs now is for an genuine minnow to knock off a full, Test-playing nation for the 2019 tournament to emulate its pioneering forebears.

Except, that won't be happening in England over the next month or so, as not a single associate member has made the cut.

Photo: England are thrilled at the prospect of not facing off against near neighbours Scotland or Ireland this World Cup. (AP: Kirsty Wigglesworth)

Where are all the minnows?

Not in England, evidently.

For this tournament, the International Cricket Council (ICC) made good on a decision initially proposed for the 2015 World Cup to reduce the number of teams dining at the top table to 10 from 14.

The decision was seen as being a huge blow to associate member nations — those nations that do not qualify to play Test cricket, nor have full voting rights at the ICC — and received a far-from-positive reception when it was announced.

The late Martin Crowe described the decision as "absolute bonkers" in a 2015 Cricinfo column.

Taking a more consolatory, yet no-less-damning tone, Indian batting doyen Sachin Tendulkar described the move as "slightly disappointing".

"As a cricketer, I want the game to be globalised as much as possible and, according to me, this is a backwards step," Tendulkar said.

"We've got to find ways of encouraging the lesser teams."

Limiting the opportunities for those nations to appear at a World Cup is not a conventional form of encouragement, yet since the 2015 World Cup, cricket has expanded its full membership list to include two of those so-called lesser teams.

The promotion of former minnows Afghanistan to Test-playing nation status with Ireland in 2017 means there will not be a single associate member nation in this years tournament, the first time this has happened in Cricket World Cup history.

Indeed, for the first time, two Test playing nations — Ireland and Zimbabwe — will be absent from the game's showpiece event — victims of a qualification process that saw the teams ranked ninth to 12th play off for the last two tournament places.

This in itself creates issues for the other eight associate member nations with One-Day International status, who have limited opportunities to improve their rankings with matches against nations ranked higher than them, making it harder than ever to qualify.

Why did the ICC reduce the number of teams?

Generally, governing bodies aim to expand tournaments they run, adding new teams to help grow the sport and offer more opportunities for those who tend to exist on the periphery of the global spotlight.

Football's world governing body, FIFA, only recently decided not to further expand its global showpiece from 32 to 48 teams for Qatar 2022, although the 2026 tournament in North America could yet feature that number of participants.

It would be incongruous to compare the global reach of cricket to football to say the least, but in reducing the number of teams at the World Cup, the ICC risks going against the grain and contracting its share of the market.

Photo: Ireland stunned Pakistan on St Patricks Day in the 2007 World Cup. (Reuters)

ICC chief executive David Richardson said that the aim of reducing the number of teams at the World Cup was to ensure that there were far fewer dud games.

"Every match should be very competitive," Richardson said.

"Having 10 teams at the 2019 World Cup will make sure that will be the case."

Richardson — who has been replaced in his role at the ICC by India-born former broadcasting executive Manu Sawhney but has stayed on to orchestrate this year's World Cup — would not have been impressed with a first weekend of action that saw four blow-out results in favour of England, West Indies, New Zealand and Australia.

Photo: No shocks for Australia after one match at the cricket World Cup. (AP: Matt Dunham)

Are matches between full members more competitive?

Not necessarily, particularly based on evidence from the 2015 World Cup.

In the pool stages of the Australia/New Zealand-hosted competition, some of the most entertaining games involved associate members, and although there were some blow-outs — Australia's 275-run victory over Afghanistan being one of them — those were not limited to matches between established teams and minnows.

Of the 20 matches between full members at the 2015 World Cup, only six could be considered close — that is where the sides were split by less than four wickets or 30 runs.

The 20 matches between full members and associate members provided five close contests — and both of the matches between associate member nations were nail-biters.

In pool A, Afghanistan beat Scotland by one wicket in a final-over thriller at University Oval in Dunedin.

Over in pool B, Ireland squeezed past the United Arab Emirates by two wickets in an equally enthralling game at the Gabba, a match that also went down to a dramatic final over.

The associates certainly provided the drama, but with those nations commanding a less-than-sizable TV market, the audience for those games has been judged to be too small and therefore expendable, much to the chagrin of New Zealand great Crowe.

"We must think bigger instead of smaller," Crowe said in his 2015 Cricinfo column.

"We must plan a competition that truly expands the game, and keeps it prominent in people's minds for long periods."

The ICC might not have got the "bigger" part of Crowe's plea right, but there can be little doubt that they have nailed the "long periods" aspect of the competition.

Photo: Afghanistan could still be considered minnows, but are officially a Test team and a full member of the ICC. (AP: Altaf Qadri)

If there are fewer teams, why is it still so long?

Good question.

The format of this World Cup is that each of the ten teams plays each other once with the top four teams at the end of the round-robin phase heading into the semi-finals.

The booing of Smith and Warner is a backhanded acknowledgement of the threat they pose to what is supposed to be England's perfect cricketing summer, writes Richard Hinds.

That means a team only needs to win one do-or-die game in the tournament to reach the final, a stark contrast to global tournaments in other sports.

However, despite reducing the number of teams taking part in the year's World Cup by four, there will be just one less match (48, down from 49) this year.

Incredibly, this tournament is set to go for 46 days from start to finish, with the round-robin group stage lasting a whopping 38 days.

That's an awful lot of cricket and even longer than the 43 days the tournament went for in 2015.

In fact, the 46-day length of this tournament is the same duration as the much-maligned 2007 edition in the West Indies — a tournament that earned plenty of criticism for its half-century-plus number of matches that seemed to drag on indeterminably.

Having said that, the 2019 World Cup still wont be as long as the 52-day marathon that fans were subjected to in 2011 in India.

So why are there so many games?

Photo: Australia had to win three knockout games to win the trophy in 2015. This year, it only needs to win two. (AP: Rob Griffith)

In reducing the number of teams at the World Cup, Crowe suggested that the needs of the few were being put ahead of the needs of the many.

"If we all, just for a minute, stopped and thought about what the cricket world really needs, we would soon realise that by cutting back we are only going to further feather the bulging nest of the Big Three [India, England and Australia].

Crowe's point is this: The length of the round-robin phase means that it is more likely for the 'Big Three' to shake off any unexpected results and still progress to the semi-finals.

That means the biggest teams, India, England and Australia, are likely to be in with a shot of being in the top four at the end of the group stage.

This would ensure the largest — and most valuable — TV markets are represented in the brief, knockout stages of the tournament.

So while there may be a number of surprise group-stage results over the course of the next month, none could be considered genuine shocks, and arguably will not affect the end result of the tournament regardless.

Which might have been what was intended.

Topics: sport, cricket, united-kingdom, england

First posted June 05, 2019 05:11:51