Home > Cricket Development > Opinion: Upcoming associate games and the ICC ODI table

Opinion: Upcoming associate games and the ICC ODI table

Kenya will be playing 2 games each against Bermuda and Canada in August. Now if Bermuda win both, they would be in a position to get into the ICC ODI table. But they would have to wait till they play Kenya in November, because thats when they would complete their minimum of 8 games required to enter the table. So essentially, Bermuda has to beat Kenya 2 times in their next 5 meetings to get into the ICC ODI table. I do think that Bermuda has a chance, especially if they can remove TIkolo early. I dont think that Canada will be in the position to beat Kenya or Bermuda, but you never know about home advantage. Davision is still Canada’s linchpin, and he can make a match even against a test team, forget Kenya. Now for the sake of fantasy, you can even imagine that Kenya loses all 4 games, and both Canada and Bermuda end up being on the verge of the ODI table entry. This scenario, in my opinion, is unlikely to happen. But even if Canada wins 2 games against Kenya with Bermuda losing, Bermuda will start getting ODI table points based on their victory over Canada in Tirnidad in the Zimbabwe tri series. Bermuda will however, need to win another game to get an entry into the table.

I would like to see other teams enter the ODI table, because that would then open up the oppurtunity for Netherlands and others, when they play Canada and Bermuda in the double round robin in South Africa in November, to enter the ODI table as well. Scotland would have played 8 ODIs by the end of their 5 match series with Ken (not if the triseries goes ahead, because that would be only 4 games). They too would have to beat Kenya 2 times to reach the ODI rankings.

Ireland I think will not be able to get into the rankings table till right after the WCQS Div 1. They would not have played enough ODIs till that time. They would however need to win at least 2 games against their ranked ODI opposition in order to get in.

Categories: Cricket Development
  1. July 13, 2006 at 2:33 pm


    It seems from the above article that Kenya will return from Canada after August 6th. That means that they will not play Bermuda. Now, the article mentions that Kenya will play 2 full one day matches against Canada, but doesnt mention if they will be ODIs or not. They probably will be because the preparations are in place for them.

    I think what seems to be happenning is that Kenya will play 2 games against Canada, and then Canada will play 2 games against Bermuda. Bermuda v Kenya games have either been cancelled, or, if I were to be optimistic, they can probably be moved to the 3 ODI series that the two countries are having in November, to make that a 5 match ODI series. Though, if Kenya cant find sponsors for the Bangladesh matches, I wonder what will happen when Bermuda show up.

    All this throws my posting off target. Now the only way Any ODI table value can come out of this is if Canada beats Kenya in both ODIs, if they are ODIs at all, and then Bermuda beats Canada in at least 1 ODI.

    Nonetheless, they could have also postponed the intercontinental cup match and played the full tri series, keeping the intercontinental cup for later. 4 day game is not going to get any crowd in Canada interested, i.e. if any crowd was going to show up in the first place.

  2. July 14, 2006 at 6:41 pm


    I think that the way the table works is that to get on it, an Associate needs to win two matches against a FULL member. I had previously thought that just beating a team on the table was sufficient, but apparently not. An Associate can also get on a table if they have played the required number of matches and won 60% or more of their matches against other Associates.
    From this, it won’t really make a difference whether they beat Kenya twice or not, unless this is what gives them the 60%. Kenya got on as they beat Zimbabwe twice (they are still considered a full member). If I was in charge of an Associate wanting to get onto the table, I would be doing everything possible to get games against Zimbabwe.
    Postponing the I.C I don’t think is ever going to happen. I think the ICC see these games as having priority over ODIs, and in the long term, I think this is the correct attitude.

  3. Ram
    July 17, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    With the news that the top two Associates from the WCL Div I to be held in Kenya in Jan 2007 getting to play in the inaugural Twenty20 World Championship in SA later next year, I think the ICC has done quite well here because that gives greater credibility and importance to the tournament..Now, this will hopefully create more interest in the WCL Div I tournament in these Associate nations given that the first Twenty20 Championship will get all the hype it needs..

    But, more importantly the participating fee that these two Associates will get from such a tournament should be invaluable, not to mention the added visibility of the game in those countries from participating in two World class events within 6-8 months of each other..The Associate boards should now start working on getting TV companies interested in covering not just their World Cup matches but also prospective Twenty20 matches, not to forget the Div I tournament..

  4. July 18, 2006 at 1:11 am

    Lets say that Scotland and Kenya get the top two spots….. then at least for 2007, they will have a fairly packed calender with the world cup, the WCQS Div 1 Championships, the 20 20 World Championships and the other ICC games that have been scheduled for them…… that should enable some big sponsors to step up and back the national team…. and the advent of money can lead to other things.

    I still believe that 20 20 is a silly tournament, but if all that its supposed to do is to get people interested in the game who are new viewers, then it should be fine.

    A little surprised that the 20 20 world championship qualification is based on 50 over ODI games …..

  5. Cuen Lucas
    July 18, 2006 at 1:13 am

    I agree with that Ram, now that that there is some continuity in the amount of matches, and also something at stake in the Div 1 tournament, it is more than worhtwhile for the boards to get the TV broadcasters involved. These could be the beginning of exiting times for cricket in these countries! šŸ™‚

  6. Ram
    July 18, 2006 at 6:19 am


    I think even the ICC understands that 20-20 is a gimmickry aimed at attracting newer crowds to the game and thus maximize the revenue from the game which is vital for their development program..If the ICC realized 20-20 to be a serious format, it would have started a separate ranking system for this format as well and maybe even organized qualifying events for these Associates..But, using a 50 over tournament as a qualification to a 20-20 tournament shows that the ICC is more interested in making these countries participate so that they can financially benefit from the tournament..The kind of amount the Associates will get from participating in such a format is something they would never be able to make from sponsorship despite boasting of regular fixtures..

  7. July 18, 2006 at 10:09 am

    I dont understand one thing….. why cant people just switch into the 50 over match in the second innings if 8 hours is too long for them? Just watching the second innings will give them 3 hours game, the result would be there, and most of the excitement. Or, networks can only show the second half and not even show the first half of the match if ODI is not a TV Friendly game.

    I would like to give the example of the tour de france, which is followed quite a lot in the US. The tour is for 2 weeks, with 8 hours of cycling everyday. But in the US they only show the last 2 hours everyday.

    From the recent stanford 20 20 I have come to the conclusion that 20 20 IS slogging, and that you can also end up in a boring mismath in that format. One team making 180 while the other meanders to 90/9 is as boring and predictable as a test match on a flat batting pitch would be.

  8. Cuen Lucas
    July 18, 2006 at 11:20 am

    Nasir, I think the main thing about the 20 over games is that they do a lot more than 50 over games to dispel the notion that cricket is a tedious game, as well as erasing the whole “tea and crumpets” imagery that people associate with cricket.
    This isn’t just about T.V; this is also about getting people through the turnstiles at the games.
    I’ve watched two seasons of the Pro20 and despite having lost some of its articulation, it’s still highly exiting to watch and has produced many a close finish. So it’s not supposed to be the be all and end all of cricket, but it’s a great way to introduce cricket to new markets.

  9. Ram
    July 18, 2006 at 3:20 pm


    Infact, I was also thinking along similar lines…I was wondering if the reason behind Twenty20’s popularity was it being a 3 hour affair held after office hours, in which case an ODI can be made as attractive to fans by being held over two evenings with an innings (of 3.5 hrs duration) each day or maybe split ODIs into two innings of 25 overs each so that fans get to see both teams bat both days..But, I think the main factor behind Twenty20s popularity seems to be the non-stop entertainment in the form of 4s and 6s unlike in ODIs or Tests, which probably prevented this ‘new’ Twenty20 audience from turning up..

    I still feel that it’s worth trying to split ODIs into 2 innings spread over two evenings and then see its impact on the game’s pulling power and fan base, especially in countries like SA and NZ where crowd attendances aren’t truly reflective of the game’s following just because each game consumes a full day..

  10. July 18, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    If it is so important for the person to see both teams bat, then they will not have a problem with just watching the full game.

    Just the second innings can package the climax, and also do so in a short period of time (3.5 hours). It can definitely whet the appetite if people are interested at all.

  11. Bruce Gaskell
    July 19, 2006 at 6:20 am

    I don’t think it is TV or TV networks that are pushing 20 20 cricket. The format as it originated in England, and implemented in South Africa and Aus, was all about getting people to watch domestic cricket and help subsidise the domestic game.

    In this respect I think the organisers of the 20/20 tournaments in Pakistan and WI are really missing the point. Playing 3 games a day over a couple of weeks in one neutral stadium doesnt make it a lot more desirable for spectators and doesnt help people connect (or reconnect) with local teams. It may make good TV, but so would an ODI tournament.

    As for 20/20 cricket itself, while I certainly agree it is a pale imitation of the real thing, It has grown on me. When it started in England I feared that (a) it would be seen as a joke sports wise, and (b) crowds might not turn up and Cricket would be seen to be trying to be trendy and failing miserably. Fortunately neither of these has come about.

    I will post later relating this to associate nations, but I really should do some work now!

  12. Bruce Gaskell
    July 20, 2006 at 3:15 am

    One thing about 20/20 is that the bowlers often come out of it with more credibility than the batsmen. With each bowler only having 4 overs good clever bowling is rewarded, in fact spin/slow bowling is often the most successful. Wickets and economical spells are lauded while people don’t seem to notice much if bowlers get flogged because it’s expected from the format.
    It is in fact batsman who have to prostitute themselves, forcing themselves to play unnatural Cricket.

    I think 20/20 could be an ideal format to popularise Cricket in the Associates. Surely Dutch Cricket would have a far easier job promoting a 3 hour match than an ODI on a working day. It’s a shame the European associates can’t be incorporated into the English 20/20 in some way. I can’t see that the logistics would be too much to cope with given that the tournament makes a decent profit, and Scot, Ireland +Holland would fit easily into the 3 existing 20/20 groups.

  13. Ram
    July 21, 2006 at 1:20 pm


    It’s not about people being interested in watching both teams bat, rather the absence of it, that prompted me to split ODIs into 2 days so that each team bats 25 overs a day..In the case of having one team bat the first day while the other team chases the next day, the crowds for the 2nd day would be highly dependent on their team’s performance the first day and on whether their favorite players will be in action the next day..So, while we may end up with bigger crowds for day 1 than we would have otherwise got for an 8 hour game, we may end up with very low turnouts for day 2..

    Bruce..I agree with your point about the PCB’s and WICB’s mistake of holding the 20/20 tournament in one venue..I feel such an effort defeats the entire purpose of the new format which aims to make the fans identify themselves as much with their domestic team as they do with their national team..By holding matches in one venue, the culture of going and paying to watch domestic games on a consistent basis (as you’ve in soccer) is not being encouraged..

    About your second comment Bruce, I agree that 20/20 will be the easiest way to attract people to the game..But I think the ECB was principally opposed to involving the Associates in their domestic tournament because they felt participation in such a tournament could, in the longer run, hamper the progress shown by these Associates in the more traditional formats..Clearly, logistics such as money, players taking time off work etc. aren’t the reasons..

  14. Cuen Lucas
    July 21, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    Well, why don’t those three countries (and maybe even Denmark) have a tournament amongst themselves? It would be a lot easier to arrange because they can work to the schedule that suits them and not have to worry about fitting into the county schedule. A three team tournament could run either 3,4, 6, or 7 games, and a four team toruney could be 6 or 7 games (with a final), so they have options open, plus it’s guaranteed that every game will be played in an associate country.

  15. July 21, 2006 at 5:00 pm

    Cuen, you mean a 20 20 tournament? I think that for the 20 20 format even other countries such as Guernsey, Jersey would be fairly competitive (at least with Denmark!). Even 8 teams is quite possible, and the tournament can finish within a week with 4 games a day.

    I think there was talk of a European 20 20 championship some time back, but it fizzled out…….

  16. Bruce Gaskell
    July 22, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    In terms of county+associate 20/20 Well I would like to think my national board took such a rational view on developing Cricket! but I think either they would argue the finances wouldn’t stack up or thay wouldn’t want to ask the counties for another game in the schedule.

    By the way, That’s a very interesting idea regarding splitting ODIs in 2, in terms of ease of viewing and building up tension over 2 days. However lets not forget ODI’s generate the bulk of Crickets revenue, I really don’t think they should be fiddled with too much (look at super subs!). There’s not a lot wrong with attendances at the moment, as you say the likes of NZ will always struggle to get huge crowds, but given their population it’s no disgrace.

    A European 20/20 is a great idea.
    For what it’s worth I would have a 5 team comp playing each other home and away once. Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark and a combined Channel islands team. This would mean 2 home games each to make money, and a fairly level playing field with competitive games.

  17. July 22, 2006 at 4:36 pm


    The idea of combined channel islands…… how would geurnsey, jersey and isle of man react to it? Would they be happy, or would they not be able to associate with the combined team.

    ICC may want to reconsider the ban on merging countries, at least if they are very small and can all join in to form a common geographical entity…… like Channel Islands, and perhaps also Pacific Islands (Cooks, Fiji, Vanuatu, Samoa, Tonga)…… of course, that would also mean that Bahamas, Bermuda, Caymans and Turks and Caicos all be combined with West Indies, but that is unlikely to happen.

  18. Ram
    July 22, 2006 at 9:00 pm

    I strongly feel this brand of cricket will do more harm than good for the game in the longer run..The top Test teams will still manage because they are all of the highest standard and more importantly they’ve nothing to prove..But, the Associates must be really careful because even if they become a top 20/20 team, they may still get thrashed in Tests, once elevated, as the ICC found out in Bangladesh’s case…

    The ultimate objective of playing Test cricket shouldn’t be lost in the short-term quest for money..A one-off participation for 2/3 games in a World 20/20 championship shouldn’t be a concern as it can bring in a lot of money without hampering the progress of the game in these countries, but a European championship?

  19. July 25, 2006 at 4:44 am


    I cannot understand how Pakistan featured in your comment. I cannot say much about WI, but can definitely make a comments about 20 20 in Pakistan.

    The thing is…. people in Pakistan do not go to watch domestic games, not because there is no desire, but because the facilities at the stadium are pathetic. Restrooms are filthy, parking is the biggest pain, getting a seat which is not dirty or broken is a luxury, and that is if you can even get a seat despite having a ticket (usually the police is occupying 2 seats for each officer and 2 for each of his feet !). Just getting through the rough security with police threatening you is not a good idea for an outing for families either.

    Despite all this, 30K people showed up for the 20 20 final in Karachi, which was between two foreign teams. That was not because of anything else but the 30K crowd having nothing to do but taking any outting they could get. Karachi is a city of close to 15 million people, so getting 30 K people in the floodlit stadium with free entry is no big deal. You and perhaps many others would be amused when I tell you that when the Gaddaffi stadium in Lahore gets lit up at night, throngs of people show up in the evening to just look at the lights, and enjoy the spectacular view of the empty stadiumĀ ! So dont be surprised if 30K people show up at night to actually view a match that is going on, that too in a much bigger city.

    What I can tell you is that the 20 20 tournament was quite popular on TV in Pakistan. The reason was that the matches used to start in the evening when most of the people had returned from work, and the games were televised live on national TV so that helped.Ā 50 overĀ tournaments generally dont get this kind of reception in terms of TV audience because the games are much longer. People can only maintain interest in an 8 hour long game if they know that the game matters, not a domestic game in which most of the stars are not playing anyway.

    PCB only did the 20 20 tournament in Pakistan so that their players have some experience in this format.Ā It wasnt doneĀ to connect with local population, not to make money, not to ‘jazz up’ anything because as far as Pakistan is concerned, there is nothing wrong with ODI cricket.

  20. Bruce Gaskell
    July 26, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    Thanks for your explanation on the Pakistani 20/20. All of what you say makes sense to me, but I would still ask, would it not be good if Pakistanis connected more with local teams? either by improving stadia, hosting a round robin 20/20 tournament etc? If the domestic game becomes richer the number of professional cricketers grow which is good for the sport.

    I suspect my misunderstanding is a cultural one. In Britain sports and the media are very sensitive to crowd sizes. If a football or rugby team gets a poor crowd it reflects badly on the team and the sport, which is essentially why 20/20 was brought in here. Obviously other cricket boards have differant priorities.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: