Summary
The sixth edition of the ICC World t20 is underway, with eight teams battling it out for just two spots in the Super 10 stage. The first four tournaments featured the same or similar structure which included four groups of three teams, with the top two going through to the next stage.
The top ten nations, England, Australia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, New Zealand, West Indies, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, achieved automatic qualification along with two Associate nations who had qualified via a qualification campaign featuring their fellow Associate members. This in turn led to the opportunity for two Associate nations, along with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, to compete alongside the top nations.
 |
| Holland first beat England in the World t20 in 2009 at Lord's, before striking again in 2014 (PHOTO: Patrick Eagar/Popperfoto) |
The relative strength of the Associate nations has markedly grown a substantial amount in the past few years. Ireland were the original 'giant killers', performing brilliantly in World Cups as well as the Netherlands, who beat England in both the 2009 and 2014 editions of the World t20. Afghanistan are one of the most improved sides around at this moment and possess a dangerous line up which has the potential to trouble the best, if not on a regular basis at the moment.
The change to the format was first introduced in the last tournament, in 2014, where a group stage featuring eight nations was set up. In this group stage, the previous automatic qualifiers, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, featured alongside six Associate nations. Split into two groups of four, the remit was that only the top team in each group would progress into the Super 10, where the eight remaining full members are housed. This means that, despite being able to play three matches at an International tournament, only two sides will progress to the next stage, thus leaving six countries unable to test themselves against the best.
In contrast, the 50 over World Cup has seen a completely different format in terms of the amount of participants. There have been 14 nations partaking in three of the four tournaments this millennium, with 16 competing in 2007. Therefore, the 50 over World Cup has seen more Associate members able to compete against the Test playing nations.
Pros
Having the ten best teams in the world competing solely against each other makes for an enthralling contest and tournament. Not having any potential whipping boys, massively one-sided affairs or too many dead rubbers is something that would generally appeal to t20 cricket watchers. It could therefore indeed be argued that having two groups of five would be more aesthetically pleasing than four groups of four or two groups of seven, for instance. In these examples, the chances of having to entertain the aforementioned dead rubbers and one-sided games would be heightened.
 |
| Whipping boys? Afghanistan are somewhat of an emerging force, led by Mohammad Nabi (PHOTO: Christopher Lee-IDI) |
In contrast, having an intense group stage with just four games against the top teams to reach the semi finals will increase the quality of the tournament. You could even argue that the three games that the initial group stage gives the two Super 10 qualifiers will give them a competitive edge to increase their chances further. Again, this could level the playing field somewhat, given the fact that the two qualifiers are supposedly set up to be the whipping boys of the respective Super 10 groups.
The 'competitive' argument is one that could well ring true. Having the Associate nations and lower ranked full members battling it out for just two spaces in the Super 10 is likely to produce intense, highly-competitive cricket and will certainly limit those one-sided games, given the fact that the teams are similarly matched. It is therefore certainly, at least to some extent, a lesser, poor man's Super 10.
Cons
Having just ten teams competing in the final stages of the tournament greatly reduces the chances of any upsets or opportunities for Associate nations to create their own history by going close to or indeed beating the top teams. Instead of having an extra four, six or even just two extra Associate teams, the likelihood is that it will only be one. Improving sides such as Afghanistan and Scotland and established Associates such as Ireland and Holland are likely to be left fighting it out with other Associate qualifiers and the talented yet unpredictable Zimbabwe. Presuming Bangladesh will qualify given their significantly improved side and impressive form, only one place will remain. While it remains highly unlikely that any of those aforementioned teams will be able to make an impact at the business end of the tournament, it is still something that they will dream of and neutrals find thrilling.
 |
| Bangladesh stalwart Tamim Iqbal is seemingly finally getting the support his talent and service deserves; the Tigers are certainly on an upwards trajectory (PHOTO: AFP) |
Is it unfair on the Associate sides, particularly those in Group A? This is given the fact that those in Group A are joined by Bangladesh, a side who have improved immensely over the past few years and could in fact have been a dark horse to reach the semi finals, if they hadn't been given such a tough group in the Super 10. The likelihood of Bangladesh reaching the Super 10 means Ireland, Holland and new boys Oman will have next to no chance of facing the top teams in Group 2 - Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan and hosts India.
In Group B, it is likely to be a two-way fight for first place and Super 10 qualification between Zimbabwe and Afghanistan. That leaves Scotland and Hong Kong unlikely to face superior opposition in a competitive tournament and in turn denying Scotland a chance to face rivals England in Group 1. Given their relative pedigree and talent, it is not inconceivable that Zimbabwe will make it through unscathed, meaning there will be no Associate teams in the Super 10. A crying shame? Or will it simply mean the best possible quality will be on show?
Solutions?
Other than the current 10 team format, there are three other alternatives...
12-team
This was the format used in the World t20 for the first four editions, up until 2012. This format is short and sweet, with an initial three teams being placed in four groups. The top two in these four groups would progress to the Super Eight stage where the eight qualified sides split into two groups of four.
This format arguably gives the Associates the best chance of progressing in the tournament, given the fact that there are only two matches to play in the first group stage. The full members have been given a number of scares in this format, namely due to the weather. Of course, it is not just the weather that has got the top sides in trouble.
 |
| Minnows Zimbabwe beat Australia in their first game of the inaugural World t20 in 2007, but lost to England and in turn missed out on the Super Eight stage (PHOTO: Tom Shaw) |
The inaugural tournament in 2007 saw then-minnows Bangladesh go through over the West Indies and Australia, England and Zimbabwe finish level on two points apiece, only for the latter to miss out on net run rate.
2009 saw the first Associate side through, with Ireland taking their chance after being drawn in a group with Bangladesh. England and Pakistan were in trouble in that same tournament after Holland defeated the hosts at Lord's in the opening encounter, with all three teams tied on two points as the Dutch bowed out due to their inferior net run rate.
 |
| Ireland have caused problems for the full members in recent tournaments - England were saved by the rain in 2010 (PHOTO: Clive Rose) |
In 2010, it was eventual winners England that were again in relative strife, this time at the hands of Ireland. The Irish required just 121 to beat England, but the rain came to their rescue and they went through on behalf of their superior net run rate.
In 2012, the last tournament to date that featured 12 teams, it was again Ireland causing panic for the full members - in this case the West Indies. Again, like the previous tournament, the rain led to Ireland's demise as their net run rate let them down for a second successive World t20 campaign.
Overall, this is a good format for incorporating the Associates, even if it is only likely to give exposure to two or three. The chance for an upset and progression is heightened because of the quickfire schedule. Heavy losses, however, have been and will likely to be the downfall for the Associates if a return to 12 teams was to occur.
14-team
The format, or at least the number of teams, favoured by the World Cup in recent editions is one that gives Associate nations maximum exposure to four or five top class opponents. In the World Cups in the past, there have been two groups split into seven, with potential for four or five Associate sides to test themselves.
 |
| Hong Kong, led by Tanwir Afzal, are competing in their second World t20, following their debut in 2014 (PHOTO: Christopher Lee-IDI) |
However, the aforementioned dead rubbers are likely to be most prominent in this format, given the fact there are six games in each group. This in turn leads to Associate sides potentially losing their opening matches and having nothing to play for in the final few rounds - except pride and the potential to cause an upset. On the other hand, the form teams may well win the majority, if not all, of their opening three or four games and be all but assured of a place in the next stage.
The 14-team option provides somewhat of a conundrum for the Associate nations. They will get guaranteed exposure to at least four full member teams but because of this, their chances of progression are essentially non-existent. Furthermore, the chances are that one or two of the teams may come away without any points, with the only chance of picking up a win being against their fellow Associate nation.
16-team
The 16 team format has only been used once in an ICC competition, back in 2007. The tournament featured an initial four teams split into four groups, with the top two progressing to the Super Eight stage. Again, like the 12-team format, the short nature of the group stages means that an upset can be on the cards over the three games. There was a 50% upset ratio in the 2007 World Cup, with Bangladesh and Ireland overcoming India and Pakistan respectively to reach the Super Eight stage.
 |
| Oman, making their World t20 bow, will be hoping their opening victory against Ireland is the first of many on the big stage (PHOTO: Matthew Lewis-IDI) |
Upon reaching the Super Eight stage, particularly for an Associate team, the seven matches on offer is a huge opportunity for them to test themselves against elite nations. Indeed, in this format, an Associate nation progressing to the Super Eights have the potential to play up to seven full members, thus playing at least ten games in a major tournament.
Therefore, this could well be the best format in terms of getting Associate nations both a strong chance of progression and maximum exposure to full member sides. Of course, there are still weaknesses for Associate nations, in the fact that it is typically unlikely that they will progress and, if they do, there may well be a number of one-sided matches once they reach the Super Eight stage.
Conclusion
Overall, despite the latter two options providing more chances for the Associate nations to compete against full member teams, the 14 team and 16 team formats fall down in one main aspect - duration. The first four World t20 tournaments featured 27 games, with 2014 and 2016 containing 35 matches.
In contrast, the last two World Cup tournaments with 14 teams have featured 49 matches and the sole 16 team competition played host to 51 games. Evidently, the World t20 prides itself on a short, sharp, sweet schedule to reflect its similarly hectic 20 over format. The World Cup, on the other hand, features another three to four weeks' worth of matches in comparison to the t20. This is, perhaps, due to the relative regularity of the World t20 tournaments and the contrasting rarity of the 50 over competition, as well as the welcoming of Associate nations.
 |
| Scotland crashed out of this year's World t20 tournament after just three days (PHOTO: Christopher Lee-IDI) |
However, would it be worth the World t20 organisers pledging an extra fortnight for the sake of an extra two to four Associate sides to be given their chance to shine? Or would that simply interrupt the typical start date of the IPL?
Indeed, are the three qualification games that each Associate side play in the initial stage of the tournament enough? Along with the dangling carrot that is progression into the Super 10 stage and the compact style of the current format, would it be a bit of a non-event if the Associate sides had more opportunities against superior sides? Is the competitive nature, as evidenced in the first two rounds of this year's tournament, of the existing layout sufficient for both the Associate nations and the consumer?
The two stages of the tournament provide high levels of competitve cricket which, with a potential change in format, may be lost. Furthermore, any prospective alteration of the tournament's setup may also lose the attention of the baying audience that the competition currently holds - i.e. the lack of competitive games, one-sided routs, etc.
Comments
Post a Comment