World Cup 2011- considering the place of the “minnows”

Much has been made in the commentary about the present Cricket World Cup about the inclusion of the so called “minnow” teams.  Some commentary has been good, some has been bad and some has focused on entirely another issue, the length of the tournament.

Firstly, which teams are we talking about?  In viewing much of this present tournament I have considered the following terms to be minnows:

• ·      Canada;
• ·      Netherlands;
• ·      Ireland;
• ·      Zimbabwe; and
• ·      Kenya.

These teams are quiet obviously identifiable at the base of the points tables in either of Groups A and B.  To focus though on their respective positions on the table would be to denigrate what some of these teams, at least, have brought to this World Cup.  Who will forget:

• ·      Ireland’s defeat of England – an exhilarating game and one for which the victory of Ireland has frankly been sullied by everyone’s focus on who poor England were.
• ·      The Netherlands pushing England to the limit thanks to ten Doeschate’s ton.
• ·      Canada’s opening batsmen flaying the Australian pace attack with a 19 year old pummeling Messrs Lee, Tait and Johnson.
• ·      Kenya batting through 50 overs against Australia.

Finally, this evening we have been served up a great game of cricket between Ireland and the Dutch to bring a close to the involvement of these teams in this tournament.

Sure there have also been some spectacular failures by these teams, but one could never question their spirit and their keenness to play on the “big” stage.

Pundits are also very quick to forget that in the early 80s Sri Lankan cricket and its team was clearly in the “minnow” category.  They won the whole shooting match in 1996 and are now one of the powerhouses in world cricket.  More recently, Bangladesh would have been considered to be true minnows but they now have Test status and are fast becoming competitive.  What is to say that with another decade of play under its belt, this young team could do a “Sri Lanka” in a decade’s time.

I am all for the “minnows” being in the competition.  It is not their respective faults that the tournament is too long.  Why does it have to be so long?  No matter what the pool and finals format, such a tournament is always going to run long when the timing of games is as it has been in this tournament and the one in the West Indies that preceded it.  It astonishes me that on most days there is only one game of cricket being played; at the most, two games. 

With so many venues available on the sub-continent surely there could have been 2 games per group per day.  Just by planning the tournament in this way the group stages would be compressed by a factor of 2 weeks by my reckoning; if not more.  

Of course this will never happen; TV rights will dictate one game a day OR if there are to be two games a day, then the second game will always involve a “minnow”.  This is ridiculous but is the trade off that cricket consistently faces; viz., playing the game versus who pays for the game.  Until this tension returns to the favor of actually playing the game (and in favor of the fans) tournaments such as this will continue to be ridiculously long. 

The “minnows” are not to blame for this tournament of ghastly length and deserve to be there in their in my view.  For the game to development the minnows are necessary and ought be supported.  Without support in the 80s, Sri Lanka would not be the powerhouse it is today.  Pundits the world over ought remember this the next time they are bagging the inclusion of the minnows.

It is more important to fix the tournament itself than to remove the minnows but I am pretty sure I know which step will actually be taken … and it will be to the detriment of the development cricket worldwide.