2019 & 2023 WC are again 10 Nations and World T20 back to 16 Nations

[jashan83]

As per the ICC meeting in Dubai, the 2019 and 2023 World Cup will be a 10 Nations tournament. However the 10 Full Members do not get an Automatic Entry as was the plan made for 2015 WC. The top 8 teams as per the ICC ranking get an direct entry, and the rest 2 teams will come through the qualifiers. Hence now the likes of BD, Zim and even to some extent WI cannot rest easily.

The good news is from 2014 onwards the World T20 will be back to 16 nations. Like the qualifier for 2012 World T20 had 16 Nations, the tournament in same format will be held every 2 years before the World T20.


I think ICC has got it right for the World T20. For the ODI Cup, though the format will make it interesting, however I would have loved to see at least 12 nations playing in it.The Full members like BD & Zim get a part of FTP and would keep improving while the likes of Ireland and Afghanistan will be devoid of the exposure and will have the Kenya story and thus the gap in ODI's between Full Members and Associates would decrease.

The ICC should accommodate the top 6 Associate as part of FTP getting them atleast 10 ODI against full members and 1 or 2 First Class Games each year if Cricket really needs to expand

 

[marc71178]

Good news reducing the numbers in the World Cup, any more than 10 just makes the Tournament far far too long.

 

[uvelocity]

nah it's the tv ****s that make the tournament too long. 6 lock ins and 6 qualifiers imo

 

[Hurricane]

nah it's the tv ****s that make the tournament too long. 6 lock ins and 6 qualifiers imo

I like this ten team idea. With 2 teams qualifying.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I would imagine you'd have something like the top 6 ranked teams qualifying automatically and qualifying for the other places. It makes sense from an ICC perspective because it would get meaningful, higher quality ODIs played for direct qualifying and it would give their rankings more context.

 

[andruid]

Lets stop fetishising the Number 10. Th 92 World cup was competitive cos there were closely matched teams playing a format with little room for dead matches. Not that there was 10 of them. I agree with Scaly. The elephant in the room is the 4 years non exposure that associates have to cope with between world cups.

 

[Debris]

Ten teams is a ****ing disgrace, 16 should be absolute minimum. The associate cricketing nations must be thinking "Why do we ****ing bother?". The tournament will be much poorer for their absence.

 

[Satguru]

Ten teams is a ****ing disgrace, 16 should be absolute minimum. The associate cricketing nations must be thinking "Why do we ****ing bother?". The tournament will be much poorer for their absence.

Nah... 16 is way too much, but i do agree that the associates have a right to be a little miffed... srsly, netherlands and ireland put up very respectable shows indeed, and without them WC 2011 wouldnt have been as interesting...

 

[Howe_zat]

FFS the number of teams is not the problem.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I wouldn't be surprised to see at least one more change of heart before 2019, never mind 2023.

 

[jashan83]

Lets stop fetishising the Number 10. Th 92 World cup was competitive cos there were closely matched teams playing a format with little room for dead matches. Not that there was 10 of them. I agree with Scaly. The elephant in the room is the 4 years non exposure that associates have to cope with between world cups.

The 10 Team World isn't making it any shorter. The 2011 & 2015 WC had 49 Matches and 2019 & 2023 will have 48 Matches. I guess that 1 match will not help them save 1 week . The tournament still will go on on 1 & a half month

 

[Howe_zat]

The 10 Team World isn't making it any shorter. The 2011 & 2015 WC had 49 Matches and 2019 & 2023 will have 48 Matches. I guess that 1 match will not help them save 1 week . The tournament still will go on on 1 & a half month

Thank you. The broadcasters will get as many matches as they want, regardless.

And if there are fewer teams involved there'll just be bigger groups to manufacture the required number of matches. So there's more practically meaningless mid-group matches between two teams that've played each other 34 times in the last year.

If you take more teams out of the World Cup, you're not shortening it. All you're doing is taking some of the colour, occasion and spectacle out of it. Frankly I can't see how you can support that and still call yourself a cricket fan.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I always enjoy watching the associates play in world cups.

 

[turnstyle]

I've got a better idea. How about we scrap all 10 countries and just have 10 Indian cities known only by their sponsors name play instead. They all have to play each other at least twice just so we know we have the true champion team.

 

[unam]

Should have at least 12 teams in the World Cup, 9 - 10 teams to qualify automatically (depending on Zim status/ political situation) and other 2-3 associates. I would say associates should have rating system like full members (points for every match and serious) and based on those ratings the top 2- 3 teams should qualify for World Cup.

 

[Camo999]

If they played 2 - 4 matches per day instead of 1 or 2 the length of the tournament would be no probs.

Who knows what the cricketing landscape will be by 2023. If it's still the showpiece cricket tournament by then I reckon we should be as inclusive as possible. Certainly everyone with ODI status should be in. Geez, imagine China qualifying and competing at the 2023 WC. Watching performances like Kevin O'Brien & Jon Davison taking it up to the test nations on the big stage is what it's all about.

Wouldn't be much of a world cup either if one or more teams with cricketing histories like Aus, Eng, India or West Indies for example missed qualification.