The irony of international cricket is that while the motivation for lower-ranked teams is to improve by playing against top teams, that of two of the stakeholders, television and the International Cricket Council, is money. The interests of the sport therefore often take a backseat.
Event Context
The last 50-over World Cup (in 2023) had only 10 teams, and was criticised for this. Fine, said the International Cricket Council, we will have 14 in 2027. The teams will be divided into two groups playing round robin thus guaranteeing the Associate members (those who are not Test-playing) at least six matches each.
Oh no, said the ICC. There may be 14 teams, but the “inconsequential” matches will be done away with. A governing body known for shifting the goalposts (if you’ll pardon the metaphor) has changed them again. The ICC has announced that the World Cup will be held in three stages, the first involving a round-robin among three qualifiers of whom only one will qualify.
This team then joins the top eight-ranked teams, the two Test-playing hosts (South Africa and Zimbabwe; Namibia miss out), the winners of the qualifying tournament and the winners of the first round robin, making 12 teams, which is effectively when the World Cup actually begins. The three-team qualifier has merely been tagged on to the main event, and bears no relationship with it.
The 12 will be divided into two groups, with the top three teams and the best finisher among the rest qualifying for a ‘Super Seven’ who then play a round robin. The four top teams get into the semifinals.
To change the format 15 months ahead of the World Cup with no assurance it won’t be changed again brings no credit to the ICC. Guaranteeing at least two India v Pakistan matches, perhaps even three, is a strong motivation. World tournaments seem merely backdrops to the real thing: India v Pakistan.
That match is the ICC’s biggest money-spinner both for the baggage it carries and because the countries don’t currently play bilateral series. If television is to be kept happy, the spread of the game will have to be pushed into the background. Television may not directly dictate to the ICC, but the governing body knows what it likes. And if it means Scotland, Netherlands, and a host of Associate members will have to be satisfied with the crumbs, the ICC sees that as a small price to pay.
It will be interesting to see if India and Pakistan are placed in the same group before the round of 12 commences. After all, they have been in the same group for 12 consecutive global events now (perhaps the ICC uses a magic hat for the draw). What if, drawn separately, Pakistan do not qualify for the Super Seven? The ICC might be loath to take such chances. This makes a mockery of a World Cup, but that too is a price the ICC is willing to pay. The ICC was badly scarred at the 2007 World Cup where both India and Pakistan were eliminated in the group stage and television viewership dropped by 50%.
The new format means that the top teams get to play more matches (if they get to the final), and the Associates fewer overall. Football showed in its World Cup how expanding the number to 48 showcased teams like Cape Verde which brought a special flavour to it. Greed and personal aggrandisement might have been the motivation there, but it was good for the game.
Kenya beating twice world champions West Indies in 1996, Ireland beating England in 2011 are just two of the more dramatic results in the World Cup. Upsets are good for the sport, but not always for television. When what is good for one is also ideal for the other, we will finally have a World Cup that is equitable. And the magic hat can be done away with.
Match Outlook
The Netherlands beat South Africa and Bangladesh in the World Cup, indicating the gap between teams may not be as wide as imagined, and with greater exposure, some teams could measure up. The Netherlands haven’t played any of the 12 Test-playing countries since then. Still, they expected to get their chance in the expanded version.