Now Why Would You Do That?!?

SO, the dust has settled down on a very slow-burning Cricket World Cup. India were deserved winners, although had South Africa not inexplicably panicked like a tailender against the West Indies 1980s pace attack they may well have put up a stronger showing than Sri Lanka in the final.

By all accounts the event itself was a success, with the Bangladesh crowd getting right behind their only national team of any note; Sri Lankans cheering anyone and everyone as that beautiful nation comes out from its lengthy civil war; and naturally the Indian fans cheering their side to eventual glory 28 years after their first, albeit unlikely win.

Unfortunately for the International Cricket Council (ICC), just after the final they decided to limit the next world cup (in Australia and New Zealand in 2015, would you believe they've already released the logo?) to just 10 teams.

Not the best 10 teams in the world though. Oh no, that would have been sensible.

The ICC in their wisdom has limited the next Cricket World Cup to the 10 Test-playing nations.

Now theoretically, the 10 Test-playing nations should be the 10 best One-Day International (ODI) nations.

Nope.

Have a look at this page. Note that Zimbabwe are due to start playing Test cricket again later this year, then look at where they are on the ODI rankings.

Below Ireland.

Who won't be in the 2015 World Cup.

Huh?

It's a decision that quite frankly sucks. In the last two World Cups Ireland have defeated Pakistan, Bangladesh and England; in this World Cup the Netherlands gave England one hell of a scare; Kenya made the 2003 semi-finals after famously beating the West Indies in 1996; and Zimbabwe continually gave good accounts of themselves after shocking Australia in their very first game back in 1983.

All of these have added something special to the World Cup. While it can be argued that adding six non-Test nations (Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, Canada, Kenya and the woeful Bermuda) in 2007 was probably three or four too many, surely the concept of cheering on the underdog is something neutral observers can get behind?

Unfortunately, instead of focusing on getting the "best of the rest" to play longer cricket better, they've been left with the scraps of playing in the Twenty20 World Cup. Granted, this version is more suited to upsets - witness Zimbabwe beating Australia and the Netherlands besting England in previous events - it's not going to help develop cricket in other countries.

To use a metaphor, a good game of Test cricket is like reading a top novel - it twists, it turns, and unlike a novel, you can't turn to the back to see how it ends up. Nope, you've got to wait out the (sometimes) full five days to see where this bad boy's ending up.

ODI cricket is akin to reading a Bill Bryson travelogue or Robert G. Barrett book - entertaining, light-hearted, a good way of passing time and sometimes memorable in themselves.

Twenty20 cricket is like reading The Adventures of Asterix to gain an insight into Roman culture - you get something from it, much in the way you get nutritional value from a KFC Two-Piece Feed.

Sure, most people enjoy reading Asterix every so often - some only want something light. But you can't mean to tell me that you shouldn't try get people to move up to something a bit heavier, something with a few more twists and turns.

Then we can introduce them to the good stuff.

Unfortunately the ICC seems to have underestimated people's intelligence and desire for something more substantial.