Quote:
Originally posted by Rocky Rockstar:
32 teams?! Is cricket even played in 32 countries?! You've got the "Big 8" in Aus/Eng/SA/SL/Ind/Pak/NZ/WI and maybe say Bangladesh but the other teams would shirley be a waste of time? The groups would be farcical, one of the "Big 8", one of Bang/Zim/Kenya/Scotland/Ireland/Canada/USA/Bermuda and youve still got to find two more teams for each group ffs |
well that's a bit like saying the associates are a waste of time now, because when push comes to shove, they aren't a hope in hell of winning it. it's hit and giggle ffs - this thing is going to suck baws if it's taken far too seriously. gilchrist was saying the other day that he really hopes the attitude towards the tourney is the same as it always has been (so far) for T20's: fun and entertaining. players doing commentary, wearing nicknames on their shirts, themed days (we had a 70's/80's T20 match against the kiwis complete with stupid wigs et al that maybe went a tad far, but was pretty good nonetheless a couple of seasons ago) etc etc. and he was spot on.
if you look at it that one day cricket is an ideal grounding for the associates to develop into test sides, then T-20 has to go one step further and be a platform for the associates to develop into one day sides. it's an absolutely perfect opportunity. i do not deny for one second that there are going to be horrendous mismatches - but that's case right now anyway.
and besides... five farking nil! mismatch of the century.
and we were there \o/
in regards to the number of teams, there are 12 full member one day nations: Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, England, West Indies, Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Kenya
That the top ranked associate side (Scotland) qualified for this tourney ahead of Ireland (who at the time of qualifying were obv still an ODI associate) says enough about the lack of opportunities afforded the associates for this tourney. Netherlands are the second rated assoc. side, just behind Scotland. It should also be pointed out that both the Scots and Dutch are a whisker away from being promoted to full ODI status according to the ICC. So 12 is already too few a number of teams, as we almost have 16 ODI sides. htf is THAT promoting the growth of the game when you're excluding 'emerging' nations from a competition like this? like i said, T-20 is a clean slate, and such an ideal time to bring the others in.
anyways... pressing on...
Canada & Bermuda are the next two ranked associate sides according to the ICC - although they are some ways off being promoted to 'main league' atm. both have recent world cup experience, and in the case of Canada, multiple world cups. 18.
The UAE are the Asian assoc champions, have relatively recent world cup experience. Switch Asian for African, and the same can be said of Namibia too (quite how money is still plundered into Zimbabwean cricket when Namibia continues to be so neglected is criminal btw). 20.
the USA has a relatively recent WC, but their assoc form has been apparently sketchy. still the next cab off the icc assoc rank after Denmark ( :eek: i didn't know they PLAYED creekit in Denmark), who are now ranked in the top 20 after their recent 2-0 clean sweep of Bermuda. 22.
from here though, i'll freely admit it's a bit of a grab to say the least... there are plenty more associates, but they've been on the wrong end of results against the other associates (or even the affiliate teams like Bahrain in the case of Argentina

).
but that's really the rub innit? the icc ranks 82 ODI nations (12 full, 31 assoc, 39 affiliate). from that you could easily go with 16 automatic qualifiers in a 24 team (8 groups of 3) competition. you'd ensure all of the strongest associates would qualify, and actually give the rest something to aim for (rather than the closed shop it is right now where even one of the full nations isn't present). or, they could have taken a REAL chance and gone for the 32 team format with the same 16 auto qualifying. the 24 team option is preferable, but the 32 team one is far more preferable to what we've been given
imo too.