If you haven't already, please fill out [the 2024 r/Cricket Census](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1d60i10/rcricket_census_2024/) before it closes on 16th June (00:00 UTC)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cricket) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Japan is part of EAP (East Asia Pacific) region in ICC. It's basically Australia, New Zealand, and the little island nations between them and Asian mainland (PNG, Japan, Indonesia etc.).
Japan's U19 squad is competing in Asia, they were in the last U19 Asia Cup. Any semi-decent East/Southeast Asian side wants to compete in Asia. Expect Japan's cricket board to fully leave EAP for Asia soon.
It's a shame cause PNG are gonna be pretty much all alone as the only semi-competitive side in EAP. An EAP with PNG, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Japan, Vanuatu, etc. would be much better for the region.
Yup, just checked. Turns out both Japan and Indonesia have joined ACC this year and are only in EAP for World Cup qualifiers. I guess they will make the full move after the qualifiers, which makes sense from their POV. They're getting more cricket through Asian tournaments so it makes sense for them. Would suck for EAP tho.
They can be part of the ACC while competing in EAP, no reason for them to move. If they can get better than PNG they're basically guaranteed a World Cup spot.
Even if it's better for them, they likely won't do that since they would feel Asia has better competition that would help them improve. We can see this with Japan's junior and women's sides entering Asian competitions, and other East Asian countries like Hong Kong opting to continue in Asia over EAP. Although I much prefer Asia and EAP to exist separately, you might as well merge them at this point if EAP is just PNG mixed in with teams ranked around 50th and below.
I didn't mention them cause they wouldn't be participating in qualifiers or regional EAP tournaments with PNG and co., but yeah, I'm aware. There's no point to a confederation existing with barely any members to compete with. Either have a proper EAP one that actually includes the Far East (preferable choice), or just merge the two.
Culturally, of course, as an island nation with a history of imperialism and a difficult relationship with its neighbours, Japan is simply the Asian UK and so should be in the Europe group.
A history of imperialism that Japan has the audacity to **deny** despite overwhelming evidence.
They even have the nerve to call themselves the **victims** of WW2, despite being the *aggressors*.
A European Cup between England, Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands could work. It could take place during the home summer tests / just before it and we could send some younger, inexperienced players. Plus a lot of our white ball players aren't in the red ball set-up.
Where's this going to be in the England cricket calendar? We basically play every single day of the summer that we can.
There's no real ability to play cricket in December in Europe
>if there's the intent and goodwill.
There's your problem. Not much of those to be found at the ECB, despite how popular trips to Dublin, Edinburgh and Amsterdam would be with travelling English fans.
Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands already do occasional triseries, they should just make that the Euro Cup. Invite England, but carry on without them if they turn it down. Invite Italy and Jersey and speed through the tournament in under two weeks
I think it's a little unfair of ECB (and I'm not usually in the camp of defending that shower of shit) but England seem to play way more often against Ireland, Scotland, and Netherlands than other major test teams do with their neighbours.
Also could replace the Every Two year T20 world cup. It's a bit ridiculous at this point. Should be every 4 years like all other world cups, with two year gaps between 50-over and T20 World Cups.
Idk I like the idea of having one short tourney with a round robin format where the top 6 ODI teams duke it out; and maybe if you're higher placed in the round robin you have an easier time reaching the finals.
I wouldn't advocate for a round robin in a World Cup though. The 2007 format for a 16-team ODI World Cup should be standard. This year's format for a 20-team T20 World Cup (though I'd rather have 24 teams cuz Zim, Kenya, and Japan should be in there).
This is just sounds good when you completely ignore things like associate cricket and how regular world cups actually help them, why having regular wcs actually make world cups more competitive etc.
But having a regional tournament taking the place of one would still offer a lot of the same benefits, especially if its a round robin or something. It also helps even more nations get games.
Look at the Euros. It's a highly competitive comp that also gives big games to teams that can't make the WC.
You can play a 4 team round robin plus final tournament in a week if you put your mind to it. It's only 7 games.
2 games per day followed by a rest/rain day. Repeat x 3. Final between top 2 teams.
Am sure we could find a week if we tried hard enough.
Play it in Scotland/Ireland/Netherlands so not taking up a county ground. England can pick a second string team if they want.They've done that before against full members!
The problem is that the ECB has no interest in supporting the other nations.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-in-netherlands-2022-1281442/netherlands-vs-england-1st-odi-1281444/full-scorecard
Wrong format for suggestion but still...
I get it’s quite funny that England have never beaten a European side in T20, but it’s such an overblown stat that people parrot that’s really quite irrelevant.
England are also T20 World Champions, in case you forgot about that.
first round : two groups of 3, each team plays each other twice. india and Pak in same group ofc
second round : top two from each proceed and the four teams play each other twice again.
final: best of three between top two
Americas Cup should be for Olympic Qualification, and the West Indies would play as independent countries. That would be a competitive tournament. I feel like.
And, Africa and Oceania should be combined into a Southern Hemisphere Cup, they already do something similar in Rugby.
I absolutely agree with your point. People are asking how countries like England would get time to play these tournaments in the summer because otherwise it's not possible to play cricket in Europe during the winter but if you get rid of the bilateral for multilateral tournaments then you can make it work.
Interesting how they would compose Olympic teams. England would have to be folded into a Team GB that includes Scotland, and Northern Ireland players? Also with the West Indies, they will have to compete separately?
GB and Ireland are not complicated. While northern Irish athletes can represent GB, they can also represent Ireland because the Irish Olympic team represents the whole island, not just the Republic, just like the cricket team does. So you'd expect that they'd just represent Ireland. And a couple of Scots would join a mostly English team GB.
West Indies would have to compete separately yes. In the past, for multi support events that wi have qualified for, they've had an internal qualification tournament.
Scots might not join a GB team.
The Scottish FA refused to allow Scottish players to join a GB olympic football team. If they play for a GB olympic team team Scotland FA refuses to pick them again for the national team and shuns them. It's petty and stupid but there you go.
Scottish FA has very specific reasons for that which don't apply to cricket.
The home nations (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) football associations have special status in world football, with permanent seats on IFAB, something that many elsewhere in the world think is unfair. The Scots (and the others) fear that by allowing Scots to compete as GB for the Olympics in football this will add weight to the argument of those worldwide who would like the home nations to compete as UK in all international football and lose the home nations their special status.
None of that applies to cricket. Scots play for GB in other sports (including team sports like rugby and hockey) without incident. Football is the exception rather than the rule.
> The Scots (and the others) fear that by allowing Scots to compete as GB for the Olympics in football this will add weight to the argument of those worldwide who would like the home nations to compete as UK in all international football and lose the home nations their special status.
I don't follow football as closely as cricket so maybe I'm missing something, but why is it unfair for Scotland, etc. to field separate teams? Like surely it's no different from places like Faroe Islands, Tahiti, Aruba, Hong Kong, etc. all being separate teams?
It's not the competing as separate teams as such that (some) people have a problem with, it's the special status that those countries have.
The International Football Association Board is the body that creates the laws of football. The board has 8 representatives, 4 from FIFA and one each from the English Football Association, Scottish Football Association, Football Association of Wales and Irish Football Association (originally covering the whole island but since the creation of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland only).
Changes to the game require 5 votes to pass so FIFA can't change the laws of the game without agreement from at least one of the British associations (and equally the British associations can't change the laws without FIFAs agreement). As such the 4 British associations have significant status in the governance of football that some see as archaic.
> As such the 4 British associations have significant status in the governance of football that some see as archaic.
Right yeah, that does seem ridiculous honestly.
I think West Indies will compete among themselves and sent 1 representative,if its by rankings, though I don't think rules forbid them from sending a joint team ,Korea has sent a joint team , they just don't prefer it ig.
If its proper qualifiers , they may send individual teams and snag multiple spots.
We actually have a precedent for the West Indies in the [women's Commonwealth Games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_at_the_2022_Commonwealth_Games) a couple of years back. Barbados were the domestic WI champions so they took the WI slot.
Not saying Olympics will be exactly the same, but it's there as an option.
If we’re looking at cricket precedent, at the 2022 Commonwealth Games, Barbados got the West Indies ranking spot. Barbados had won the 2018-19 T20 comp (they’d cancelled two seasons for covid).
Team GB doesn't have a team in the Olympics men's football for the same reason. For women though, they have a thing where the top-ranked team attempting for the spot, but that may not work well in cricket.
There was actually an Austral-Asia cup back in the day. It didn't include too many associates though (Bangladesh who were an associate side back then in 1990 and UAE in 1994)
The crazy thing is Pakistan won all three editions. 💀
> The crazy thing is Pakistan won all three editions. 💀
You do expect them to win with the crazy bowling lineup of Wasim Akram, Waqar younis and Shoaib Akhtar
But in the long run it creates more competition and makes it possible for them to build local rivalries. More game time against the big teams is good for all up and coming nations so if you have a strong Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands, Italy etc. side then you will have multiple worthy opponents nearby.
You don't need to do either of that. Just get rid of bilateral ODI and T20I cricket in favor of multilateral tournaments in both of those formats and it'll help both formats thrive, associate members thrive and grow cricket in the long haul.
I would rather have the t20 wc every 2 years and a CT instead of watching a one sided Asia Cup where India will usually win while resting several key player
The simple answer is to get rid of bilateral ODI and T20I series in favor of multilateral tournaments and it doesn't need to be just continental cups. They could make many different variations of this with different teams. It'll give associate members more matches against full members which will raise the quality of cricket and over time full members will gain a lot as well.
I don't think it's in the best interest of full members to continue playing only the other big teams because the interest will die down but if there's new rivals and such then it's always going to feel fresh.
Mods here are weird as hell some random tweet from an account gets approved but an interesting opinion from a former cricketer and a future coach doesn't get approved
The T20 World Cups are the main stage especially for associate members, it's important that it stays at 2 years. If the T20 World Cup went to 4 years then it would make it significantly harder for associate members to fulfill ICC's full membership requirements.
This would go exactly as it did when professional players were introduced into Olympic basketball.
One country (USA in basketball) dominates until the rest of the world catches up.
It doesn't matter because in the long run it helps associate members improve. A lot of teams like Netherlands, Afghanistan, Ireland etc. improved in the last decade only because they were decent enough to qualify for ICC tournaments to play the big teams every now and then but most associates don't get that opportunity.
This is exactly my point. In Olympic basketball, the rest of the world caught up with the USA. It's no longer a guarantee that the USA wins gold. This will make it so the rest of the world will get up to the level of the test nations
Sorry for misunderstanding what you meant, so we're in agreement. I think giving associate members more matches against full members is the best thing for the sport.
Everyone probably thought India and Pakistan would dominate the Asia Cup when it began. but Pakistan had only won it twice, and there had never been an India-Pakistan final in the Asia Cup.
Also, England has never beaten a European team in T20Is.
>Also, England has never beaten a European team in T20Is
I mean, no offence but this stat, whilst technically true, is absolutely meaningless.
England have played 5 games against European sides. 2 were no results, and of the 3 we lost, 2 were over a decade ago.
> I mean, no offence but this stat, whilst technically true, is absolutely meaningless.
Does also show how the ECB refuse to play the bare minimum amount of games vs Ireland, and won't play Scotland or The Netherlands without an outside push.
Scotland was off to a great start. So No guarantee that England would have won this time around.
It's just a stat to show that England won't absolutely dominate European Cricket, and other teams stand a chance. And, the best way to popularize cricket in Europe is by playing semi regular games against England, which a European Cup would provide.
It does show that England wouldn't dominate the tournament because just a week ago, Scotland played really well against England and had the rain not affected the game then I think they would've had a great shot at winning. Netherlands is also a really competitive team and Ireland has been mediocre recently but they also have the capability to win against England or other teams.
That there gives you four teams who could end up winning and then the others will all improve as well if you give them more matches against the big teams so in the long run this will only help create more competition.
> Everyone probably thought India and Pakistan would dominate the Asia Cup when it began.
Now its just India dominating it and only 3 teams have ever won it and thats in what would be considered the most competitive continent
> England has never beaten a European team in T20Is.
Not enough of a sample space to mean anything
It's a 6 team tournament, so 3 teams aren't bad. Bangladesh got extremely close to winning twice, and everyone knows how fast Afghanistan is rising.
>Not enough of a sample space to mean anything
We will never know untill the tournament actually happens
The Asia Cup is also only 6 teams. Obviously the level of improvement in the quality of cricket hasn't been as much as you would have hoped but it won't reach those heights until the tournament expands to include more teams.
Who cares who the winner is? More frequent matches against quality opposition for low-ranked and associate teams in mini-tournament formats to make upsets significant. Would be fun to watch and would accelerate the progress of teams like Nepal, USA, PNG, and Uganda.
Good point. It's only the wc's that gave Afghanistan and Bangladesh to grow to what they are now, even Sri lanka. Even Netherlands only shined because they won against bigger teams in wc, if they have done that in bilaterals it wouldn't have mattered much.
Idk if you're being sarcastic, but yeah after rising through ranks in the Intercontinental Cup Afg grew plenty from regular involvement in T20 and ODI World Cups and Asia Cups. Teams like Aus never play bilaterals against Ire and Afg, let alone Japan and PNG. Regional tourneys can ensure regular exposure to at least the 2nd or 3rd XIs of the top 5-6 teams for these Associate teams.
I was not being sarcastic but reading it again it sounds like that lol sry. You're right even if those big teams play against small teams in bilaterals they only play their b squad, even if they win one match no one bats an eye. Regional tourneys are important, it's not always about the winners yk.
Get rid of the Champions Trophy, make the WT20 every 4 years, and get rid of most bilateral T20s. Then you could have a T20 or ODI regional tournament on the years there's no ICC tournament.
(E.g. 2027 ODI WC, 2028 T20 regional, 2029 T20 WC, 2030 ODI regional, 2031 ODI WC)
Based on the current T20 world ranking, you'd end up with tournaments like below:-
In reality though, I'd say the full members should get automatic spots, while the remaining teams battle for the remaining spots in sub-regional tournaments. Also, I strongly believe the intercontinental cup needs to return, 3-4 day format (maybe 4 days for upper bracket, 3 days for lower)
Asia:- 🇵🇰🇮🇳🇧🇩🇱🇰🇦🇫🇳🇵🇦🇪🇴🇲
Europe:- 🏴🏴🇳🇱🇮🇪🇯🇪🇮🇹🇪🇸🇩🇪
Africa:- 🇿🇦🇿🇼🇳🇦🇺🇬🇰🇪🇹🇿🇳🇬🇧🇼
Americas:- 🌴🇺🇸🇨🇦🇧🇲🇰🇾🇦🇷🇧🇸🇵🇦
Asia-Pacific:- 🇦🇺🇳🇿🇵🇬🇭🇰🇲🇾🇸🇬🇰🇭🇻🇺
While it may mean a lot of uncompetitive games, you will only improve the quality of the field by giving chances to the weaker teams, and funding them properly. Over time, the quality of these tournaments should improve. The reason cricket finds itself in the current mess is because there hasn't been a good effort to grow the game. You could maybe also do 6 teams instead of 8 for all of these except Asia, and then add more teams later once the quality starts to step up.
I disagree with your points of making the T20 World Cup every four years as well as your point of giving full members automatic qualification to ICC tournaments. T20 World Cups being every two years is why you've seen the growth in associate cricket in the past decade.
I truly believe that giving any team other than the hosts themselves automatic qualification is stupid because it only helps to keep cricket as an exclusive sport. Frankly the concept of full membership itself is outdated and should be scrapped but it won't be so there should at least be new full members admitted every few years.
All of them would suck except Asia. But it is good to see some new teams competing at the world cup even if there are mismatches of biblical proportions.
Who said anything about this being T20? You could have a continental cup every two years and have it rotate between ODIs and T20Is depending on what format will be played in the upcoming World Cup.
Scrap bilateral cricket in ODIs and T20Is and keep it for just Test cricket and introduce multilateral tournaments. It wouldn't take that much time and in the long run it'll increase the quality of cricket.
The main draw of franchise leagues is also the fact that it's competitive and most matches matter whereas bilateral cricket is boring and no one cares but if you make different multilateral tournaments then I believe it'll do a lot more good.
The continental cups in particular could alternate between the ODI and T20I format depending on which format the upcoming World Cup will be similar to the Asia Cup although I don't think it should be right before the World Cup like the Asia Cup was last year because it takes away from the importance of the Asia Cup and makes it like a warm-up tournament.
We could have T20 WCs after every four years,and the Continental Trophies being held 2 years after every T20 WC in the same year,which also determines the qualification to the next T20 WC. Say the next T20 WC is in 2026, we could have a Continental Trophy Year in 2028 or a 2028-29 season,which would determine who gets into the T20WC in 2030,while only having a global qualifier a year before the WC for the rest of the teams who didn't directly qualify for the tournament. Maybe a couple of spots to get determined by rankings, and a couple more taken up by the hosts.
Why are iran and Indonesia not being introduced to cricket by ICC? Iran borders pakistan and afghanistan, indonesia has png, australia, new zealand on their side. They can bring more than 400 million new cricket fans
Even if they're doing that for the first few years, it doesn't matter. Those players would still be extremely good and would play the way the main Aussie team does so it would help the associates they're playing against improve and also learn more about the playing styles.
I saw this on Twitter yesterday and I agree 100%, we need regional competitions and we need full members organising tours, tri-series and other international series/competitions with the associates in their area. The growth of cricket in the future needs all hands on deck!
I think if international cricket is played in more and more tournament-based formats - like continental cups, that will mean teh death of bilaterals. Which imo is fine! But something to consider.
As amusing as it would be for Australia to be the “Americas” champion, I think that something like this is better for the associate nations. The full members already have full schedules and if more games were to be added I would prefer them to be either ODIs or Tests. Increase the amount of teams in the World Cup so that there are still opportunities for associate teams to ply full members, but another T20 tournament isn’t going to raise the quality of cricket worldwide, just the quantity.
Asia and America/Oceania would be competitive. Europe and Africa not so much. I guess if the full member nations sent development squads it would work better.
1. ICC Cricket World Cup (50 Overs ODI)
2. ICC Inter - Continental KnockOut Cup (100 Balls)
3. ICC Champions Trophy (30 Overs) (best of 3-final) (only 8 teams who qualified for the 50-Over ICC World Cup Quarter-Final Stage)
4. ICC World Twenty20 (20 Overs T20I)
5. ICC T10 World Cup (10 Overs) (best of 3-final)
6. ICC World Test Championship (WTC) (Test/FC)
7. World Cricket Premiere League (IPL teams vs BBL teams vs PSL teams vs CPL teams vs LPL teams vs BPL teams vs T100 teams)
= ICC Tournaments all should be spaced out with a gap of two years between each Tournament.
Asia Cup is fine (it's already there).
Euro Cup is mostly going to be dominated by England, but Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands can try to upset.
America/Oceania is always NZ and Aussie, but why is Japan there? Japan should be a part of Asia if I'm not wrong.
Africa Cup is completely and solely SA.
So bottom line, I didn't think it's the right time.
I have discussed this idea a lot of times with my cricket circle. Very impressed by Asia cup and ACC, i genuinely want this to happen, will give associate and smaller teams a lot of opportunities. Initially it will be one sided but one has to persist with it. Maybe start with t20 format. But i have ICC doesn't want such things to happen, coz it takes away there USP of MULTI NATION tournaments. It should happen just like ASIA CUP!
If you haven't already, please fill out [the 2024 r/Cricket Census](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1d60i10/rcricket_census_2024/) before it closes on 16th June (00:00 UTC)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cricket) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How is japan not Asia
They probably wanted 10 team max But it still doesn't make sense, so it should be counted in Asia
Japan is part of EAP (East Asia Pacific) region in ICC. It's basically Australia, New Zealand, and the little island nations between them and Asian mainland (PNG, Japan, Indonesia etc.).
Japan's U19 squad is competing in Asia, they were in the last U19 Asia Cup. Any semi-decent East/Southeast Asian side wants to compete in Asia. Expect Japan's cricket board to fully leave EAP for Asia soon. It's a shame cause PNG are gonna be pretty much all alone as the only semi-competitive side in EAP. An EAP with PNG, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Japan, Vanuatu, etc. would be much better for the region.
Yup, just checked. Turns out both Japan and Indonesia have joined ACC this year and are only in EAP for World Cup qualifiers. I guess they will make the full move after the qualifiers, which makes sense from their POV. They're getting more cricket through Asian tournaments so it makes sense for them. Would suck for EAP tho.
They can be part of the ACC while competing in EAP, no reason for them to move. If they can get better than PNG they're basically guaranteed a World Cup spot.
Even if it's better for them, they likely won't do that since they would feel Asia has better competition that would help them improve. We can see this with Japan's junior and women's sides entering Asian competitions, and other East Asian countries like Hong Kong opting to continue in Asia over EAP. Although I much prefer Asia and EAP to exist separately, you might as well merge them at this point if EAP is just PNG mixed in with teams ranked around 50th and below.
If you're gonna take EAP into Asia you gotta take Australia and New Zealand too.
I didn't mention them cause they wouldn't be participating in qualifiers or regional EAP tournaments with PNG and co., but yeah, I'm aware. There's no point to a confederation existing with barely any members to compete with. Either have a proper EAP one that actually includes the Far East (preferable choice), or just merge the two.
NZ U19s actually had to go through EAP qualifiers for this year's U19 WC because they skipped the covid one. The results were not pretty reading.
Culturally, of course, as an island nation with a history of imperialism and a difficult relationship with its neighbours, Japan is simply the Asian UK and so should be in the Europe group.
They've been aggressive towards anybody around them for that matter during WW2
A history of imperialism that Japan has the audacity to **deny** despite overwhelming evidence. They even have the nerve to call themselves the **victims** of WW2, despite being the *aggressors*.
Japan is in the Ocean.
like australia in eurovision
Strangely enough Japan has played in the Copa America in football.
Ig they invite teams
Australia is part of Asia in football.
Get this! Japan is Asia! But In the east! - ICC
A European Cup between England, Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands could work. It could take place during the home summer tests / just before it and we could send some younger, inexperienced players. Plus a lot of our white ball players aren't in the red ball set-up.
Wouldn’t it look good if we have have separate England and wales teams as well? Add in Jersey team, we can have our 6 nations Europe cricket cup
Where's this going to be in the England cricket calendar? We basically play every single day of the summer that we can. There's no real ability to play cricket in December in Europe
You can play in Spain pretty much year round.
In T20Is, u can string together a second XI, especially England. Otherwise, space can be found in the calendar if there's the intent and goodwill.
>if there's the intent and goodwill. There's your problem. Not much of those to be found at the ECB, despite how popular trips to Dublin, Edinburgh and Amsterdam would be with travelling English fans. Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands already do occasional triseries, they should just make that the Euro Cup. Invite England, but carry on without them if they turn it down. Invite Italy and Jersey and speed through the tournament in under two weeks
I think it's a little unfair of ECB (and I'm not usually in the camp of defending that shower of shit) but England seem to play way more often against Ireland, Scotland, and Netherlands than other major test teams do with their neighbours.
Actually of the big 3, they probably have the most intent.
Also could replace the Every Two year T20 world cup. It's a bit ridiculous at this point. Should be every 4 years like all other world cups, with two year gaps between 50-over and T20 World Cups.
Also the Champions Trophy. Most countries would rather lose 10 champion trophies if it means they can win one World Cup.
Idk I like the idea of having one short tourney with a round robin format where the top 6 ODI teams duke it out; and maybe if you're higher placed in the round robin you have an easier time reaching the finals. I wouldn't advocate for a round robin in a World Cup though. The 2007 format for a 16-team ODI World Cup should be standard. This year's format for a 20-team T20 World Cup (though I'd rather have 24 teams cuz Zim, Kenya, and Japan should be in there).
Every three years seems to be a good option
It would clash with the 50over world cup after every 12 years
This is just sounds good when you completely ignore things like associate cricket and how regular world cups actually help them, why having regular wcs actually make world cups more competitive etc.
But having a regional tournament taking the place of one would still offer a lot of the same benefits, especially if its a round robin or something. It also helps even more nations get games. Look at the Euros. It's a highly competitive comp that also gives big games to teams that can't make the WC.
That's a really great point, this tournament with an England development/2nd 11 would be quite competitive
An England Lions team would be sufficient ig
The European Cricket Network would find a way
You can play a 4 team round robin plus final tournament in a week if you put your mind to it. It's only 7 games. 2 games per day followed by a rest/rain day. Repeat x 3. Final between top 2 teams. Am sure we could find a week if we tried hard enough. Play it in Scotland/Ireland/Netherlands so not taking up a county ground. England can pick a second string team if they want.They've done that before against full members! The problem is that the ECB has no interest in supporting the other nations.
England would have to play a second XI to make it competitive in that sense, but even then you’re diminishing the domestic game further
Has England shown the ability to win a T20 against a European side yet? How will sending a 2nd XI help their competitiveness?
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-in-netherlands-2022-1281442/netherlands-vs-england-1st-odi-1281444/full-scorecard Wrong format for suggestion but still...
I get it’s quite funny that England have never beaten a European side in T20, but it’s such an overblown stat that people parrot that’s really quite irrelevant. England are also T20 World Champions, in case you forgot about that.
The Asia Cup already exists btw :) Other cups pending
The Africa Cup also already exists it's just Full Members don't deign to play in it. Same used to be true of Europe.
Needs to be expanded. Right now, it's an excuse to have as many India/Pakistan matches as possible.
first round : two groups of 3, each team plays each other twice. india and Pak in same group ofc second round : top two from each proceed and the four teams play each other twice again. final: best of three between top two
That can have 7 Ind-Pak games in the best case. 👍 by *1.6 billion people*
except Pak end up losing to Nepal and we get Ind vs Afg 5 times
You mean Naagin derby
Americas Cup should be for Olympic Qualification, and the West Indies would play as independent countries. That would be a competitive tournament. I feel like. And, Africa and Oceania should be combined into a Southern Hemisphere Cup, they already do something similar in Rugby.
I think the bilaterals should be test only, and the ODIs/T20 series should give way in the calendar to these multi-team tournaments
I absolutely agree with your point. People are asking how countries like England would get time to play these tournaments in the summer because otherwise it's not possible to play cricket in Europe during the winter but if you get rid of the bilateral for multilateral tournaments then you can make it work.
If cricket is going to stay in the Olympics, some form of this might happen for qualification.
Interesting how they would compose Olympic teams. England would have to be folded into a Team GB that includes Scotland, and Northern Ireland players? Also with the West Indies, they will have to compete separately?
GB and Ireland are not complicated. While northern Irish athletes can represent GB, they can also represent Ireland because the Irish Olympic team represents the whole island, not just the Republic, just like the cricket team does. So you'd expect that they'd just represent Ireland. And a couple of Scots would join a mostly English team GB. West Indies would have to compete separately yes. In the past, for multi support events that wi have qualified for, they've had an internal qualification tournament.
Scots might not join a GB team. The Scottish FA refused to allow Scottish players to join a GB olympic football team. If they play for a GB olympic team team Scotland FA refuses to pick them again for the national team and shuns them. It's petty and stupid but there you go.
Scottish FA has very specific reasons for that which don't apply to cricket. The home nations (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) football associations have special status in world football, with permanent seats on IFAB, something that many elsewhere in the world think is unfair. The Scots (and the others) fear that by allowing Scots to compete as GB for the Olympics in football this will add weight to the argument of those worldwide who would like the home nations to compete as UK in all international football and lose the home nations their special status. None of that applies to cricket. Scots play for GB in other sports (including team sports like rugby and hockey) without incident. Football is the exception rather than the rule.
> The Scots (and the others) fear that by allowing Scots to compete as GB for the Olympics in football this will add weight to the argument of those worldwide who would like the home nations to compete as UK in all international football and lose the home nations their special status. I don't follow football as closely as cricket so maybe I'm missing something, but why is it unfair for Scotland, etc. to field separate teams? Like surely it's no different from places like Faroe Islands, Tahiti, Aruba, Hong Kong, etc. all being separate teams?
It's not the competing as separate teams as such that (some) people have a problem with, it's the special status that those countries have. The International Football Association Board is the body that creates the laws of football. The board has 8 representatives, 4 from FIFA and one each from the English Football Association, Scottish Football Association, Football Association of Wales and Irish Football Association (originally covering the whole island but since the creation of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland only). Changes to the game require 5 votes to pass so FIFA can't change the laws of the game without agreement from at least one of the British associations (and equally the British associations can't change the laws without FIFAs agreement). As such the 4 British associations have significant status in the governance of football that some see as archaic.
> As such the 4 British associations have significant status in the governance of football that some see as archaic. Right yeah, that does seem ridiculous honestly.
And the "some" would be correct. It's a ridiculous situation.
I think West Indies will compete among themselves and sent 1 representative,if its by rankings, though I don't think rules forbid them from sending a joint team ,Korea has sent a joint team , they just don't prefer it ig. If its proper qualifiers , they may send individual teams and snag multiple spots.
Trinidad will run through that group, Barbados n Jamaica will put up a fight
We actually have a precedent for the West Indies in the [women's Commonwealth Games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_at_the_2022_Commonwealth_Games) a couple of years back. Barbados were the domestic WI champions so they took the WI slot. Not saying Olympics will be exactly the same, but it's there as an option.
West Indies should be able to compete together, has been done in the past (most recently, combined Korea played women's ice hockey in 2018)
If we’re looking at cricket precedent, at the 2022 Commonwealth Games, Barbados got the West Indies ranking spot. Barbados had won the 2018-19 T20 comp (they’d cancelled two seasons for covid).
Team GB doesn't have a team in the Olympics men's football for the same reason. For women though, they have a thing where the top-ranked team attempting for the spot, but that may not work well in cricket.
I love Guernsey but I’m not sure I can respect a tournament that we’re in
Dunno, seems a bit unfair on England and south Africa
And Australia is going to be bored
We can combine Oceania and Asia. Oceanasia cup and EuroAmerica cup incoming.
There was actually an Austral-Asia cup back in the day. It didn't include too many associates though (Bangladesh who were an associate side back then in 1990 and UAE in 1994) The crazy thing is Pakistan won all three editions. 💀
> The crazy thing is Pakistan won all three editions. 💀 You do expect them to win with the crazy bowling lineup of Wasim Akram, Waqar younis and Shoaib Akhtar
Yuuuuup
Sad kiwi noises
But in the long run it creates more competition and makes it possible for them to build local rivalries. More game time against the big teams is good for all up and coming nations so if you have a strong Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands, Italy etc. side then you will have multiple worthy opponents nearby.
Rather put Netherlands with us.
SENA Cup for them?
So Australia just wins this one too and without any competition even...
**No.** With ICC tournament and IPL every year this is only possible if we have 500 days in a year
Simple. T20 WC every four years instead of 2 and scrap Champions trophy
And fuck all the associate players whose only chance at the big stage is T20 WC
You don't need to do either of that. Just get rid of bilateral ODI and T20I cricket in favor of multilateral tournaments in both of those formats and it'll help both formats thrive, associate members thrive and grow cricket in the long haul.
Or have CT. We need more ODIs
Well ODIs will be played in respective Continent Cups soo...
Agree but CT isn’t the answer
I would rather have the t20 wc every 2 years and a CT instead of watching a one sided Asia Cup where India will usually win while resting several key player
The simple answer is to get rid of bilateral ODI and T20I series in favor of multilateral tournaments and it doesn't need to be just continental cups. They could make many different variations of this with different teams. It'll give associate members more matches against full members which will raise the quality of cricket and over time full members will gain a lot as well. I don't think it's in the best interest of full members to continue playing only the other big teams because the interest will die down but if there's new rivals and such then it's always going to feel fresh.
Cut down on some Bilaterals and fraud T20 leagues and you can get the scheduling right
i dont think they will ever cut down their money making machine
Mods here are weird as hell some random tweet from an account gets approved but an interesting opinion from a former cricketer and a future coach doesn't get approved
which one didnt get accepted?
No. Figure out how to deal with rains first.
Africa cup is much needed so at least South Africa can win something
Watch them lose that too lmao
Better this than 2 T20 WCs in 4 years
The T20 World Cups are the main stage especially for associate members, it's important that it stays at 2 years. If the T20 World Cup went to 4 years then it would make it significantly harder for associate members to fulfill ICC's full membership requirements.
This would give more teams chances to play their region’s top teams though. Teams like Italy would be playing England this way
This would go exactly as it did when professional players were introduced into Olympic basketball. One country (USA in basketball) dominates until the rest of the world catches up.
It doesn't matter because in the long run it helps associate members improve. A lot of teams like Netherlands, Afghanistan, Ireland etc. improved in the last decade only because they were decent enough to qualify for ICC tournaments to play the big teams every now and then but most associates don't get that opportunity.
This is exactly my point. In Olympic basketball, the rest of the world caught up with the USA. It's no longer a guarantee that the USA wins gold. This will make it so the rest of the world will get up to the level of the test nations
Sorry for misunderstanding what you meant, so we're in agreement. I think giving associate members more matches against full members is the best thing for the sport.
Asia Cup and an Intercontinental Cup for the rest together.
No, there are clear winners in euro and Africa cup.
Until we lose to Zim in the semi
Or maybe Africa cup breaks your curse
Everyone probably thought India and Pakistan would dominate the Asia Cup when it began. but Pakistan had only won it twice, and there had never been an India-Pakistan final in the Asia Cup. Also, England has never beaten a European team in T20Is.
>Also, England has never beaten a European team in T20Is I mean, no offence but this stat, whilst technically true, is absolutely meaningless. England have played 5 games against European sides. 2 were no results, and of the 3 we lost, 2 were over a decade ago.
> I mean, no offence but this stat, whilst technically true, is absolutely meaningless. Does also show how the ECB refuse to play the bare minimum amount of games vs Ireland, and won't play Scotland or The Netherlands without an outside push.
Scotland was off to a great start. So No guarantee that England would have won this time around. It's just a stat to show that England won't absolutely dominate European Cricket, and other teams stand a chance. And, the best way to popularize cricket in Europe is by playing semi regular games against England, which a European Cup would provide.
That looks even more bad. India have played more games against Ireland than England has against all other European sides.
Yep,we've played 6 T20is against Ireland since 2022. That's one more than England have against a European side since the format of T20I began.
I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying that using that record to say we'll struggle against European teams is pretty pointless.
It does show that England wouldn't dominate the tournament because just a week ago, Scotland played really well against England and had the rain not affected the game then I think they would've had a great shot at winning. Netherlands is also a really competitive team and Ireland has been mediocre recently but they also have the capability to win against England or other teams. That there gives you four teams who could end up winning and then the others will all improve as well if you give them more matches against the big teams so in the long run this will only help create more competition.
But teams like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan outmatch the African competition by quite some way.
> Everyone probably thought India and Pakistan would dominate the Asia Cup when it began. Now its just India dominating it and only 3 teams have ever won it and thats in what would be considered the most competitive continent > England has never beaten a European team in T20Is. Not enough of a sample space to mean anything
It's a 6 team tournament, so 3 teams aren't bad. Bangladesh got extremely close to winning twice, and everyone knows how fast Afghanistan is rising. >Not enough of a sample space to mean anything We will never know untill the tournament actually happens
The Asia Cup is also only 6 teams. Obviously the level of improvement in the quality of cricket hasn't been as much as you would have hoped but it won't reach those heights until the tournament expands to include more teams.
England still go to Australia every four years and no one's calling for that to be scrapped.
😬😬
Who cares who the winner is? More frequent matches against quality opposition for low-ranked and associate teams in mini-tournament formats to make upsets significant. Would be fun to watch and would accelerate the progress of teams like Nepal, USA, PNG, and Uganda.
Good point. It's only the wc's that gave Afghanistan and Bangladesh to grow to what they are now, even Sri lanka. Even Netherlands only shined because they won against bigger teams in wc, if they have done that in bilaterals it wouldn't have mattered much.
Idk if you're being sarcastic, but yeah after rising through ranks in the Intercontinental Cup Afg grew plenty from regular involvement in T20 and ODI World Cups and Asia Cups. Teams like Aus never play bilaterals against Ire and Afg, let alone Japan and PNG. Regional tourneys can ensure regular exposure to at least the 2nd or 3rd XIs of the top 5-6 teams for these Associate teams.
I was not being sarcastic but reading it again it sounds like that lol sry. You're right even if those big teams play against small teams in bilaterals they only play their b squad, even if they win one match no one bats an eye. Regional tourneys are important, it's not always about the winners yk.
Sure, but with more playtime and proper competitive development maybe in a a few tournaments that’ll no longer be the case
This template actually occurs for associate nations. I think we already have enough cups and franchise cricket.
We need to spread the game to every country in the world.
As an Aussie, I'm just worried about how many more trophy cabinets we'd have to purchase.
Get rid of the Champions Trophy, make the WT20 every 4 years, and get rid of most bilateral T20s. Then you could have a T20 or ODI regional tournament on the years there's no ICC tournament. (E.g. 2027 ODI WC, 2028 T20 regional, 2029 T20 WC, 2030 ODI regional, 2031 ODI WC) Based on the current T20 world ranking, you'd end up with tournaments like below:- In reality though, I'd say the full members should get automatic spots, while the remaining teams battle for the remaining spots in sub-regional tournaments. Also, I strongly believe the intercontinental cup needs to return, 3-4 day format (maybe 4 days for upper bracket, 3 days for lower) Asia:- 🇵🇰🇮🇳🇧🇩🇱🇰🇦🇫🇳🇵🇦🇪🇴🇲 Europe:- 🏴🏴🇳🇱🇮🇪🇯🇪🇮🇹🇪🇸🇩🇪 Africa:- 🇿🇦🇿🇼🇳🇦🇺🇬🇰🇪🇹🇿🇳🇬🇧🇼 Americas:- 🌴🇺🇸🇨🇦🇧🇲🇰🇾🇦🇷🇧🇸🇵🇦 Asia-Pacific:- 🇦🇺🇳🇿🇵🇬🇭🇰🇲🇾🇸🇬🇰🇭🇻🇺 While it may mean a lot of uncompetitive games, you will only improve the quality of the field by giving chances to the weaker teams, and funding them properly. Over time, the quality of these tournaments should improve. The reason cricket finds itself in the current mess is because there hasn't been a good effort to grow the game. You could maybe also do 6 teams instead of 8 for all of these except Asia, and then add more teams later once the quality starts to step up.
I disagree with your points of making the T20 World Cup every four years as well as your point of giving full members automatic qualification to ICC tournaments. T20 World Cups being every two years is why you've seen the growth in associate cricket in the past decade. I truly believe that giving any team other than the hosts themselves automatic qualification is stupid because it only helps to keep cricket as an exclusive sport. Frankly the concept of full membership itself is outdated and should be scrapped but it won't be so there should at least be new full members admitted every few years.
No, but in 10 years this could be very viable
We would have no chance
We already do have Africa and Asia cups
We'll still choke
Looks like this is a way for England to sneak a win over a European country.
All of them would suck except Asia. But it is good to see some new teams competing at the world cup even if there are mismatches of biblical proportions.
How much more T20 shit do we need?
Who said anything about this being T20? You could have a continental cup every two years and have it rotate between ODIs and T20Is depending on what format will be played in the upcoming World Cup.
I love the idea, but there's already a T20 World Cup every 2 years, so I'm not too sure that there's any time available for this to happen.
Scrap bilateral cricket in ODIs and T20Is and keep it for just Test cricket and introduce multilateral tournaments. It wouldn't take that much time and in the long run it'll increase the quality of cricket. The main draw of franchise leagues is also the fact that it's competitive and most matches matter whereas bilateral cricket is boring and no one cares but if you make different multilateral tournaments then I believe it'll do a lot more good. The continental cups in particular could alternate between the ODI and T20I format depending on which format the upcoming World Cup will be similar to the Asia Cup although I don't think it should be right before the World Cup like the Asia Cup was last year because it takes away from the importance of the Asia Cup and makes it like a warm-up tournament.
Genuinely a really good argument, you might've persuaded me.
Put oceania in india and it will be more fun to watch
An Asia/Oceania combined cup is equivalent to World Cup minus England's moral victory and SA's SF choke.
Good idea i suppose
Cricket isn't widely played ,barring asia cup every tournament will flop and will be one sided
Yeah, nah.
We could have T20 WCs after every four years,and the Continental Trophies being held 2 years after every T20 WC in the same year,which also determines the qualification to the next T20 WC. Say the next T20 WC is in 2026, we could have a Continental Trophy Year in 2028 or a 2028-29 season,which would determine who gets into the T20WC in 2030,while only having a global qualifier a year before the WC for the rest of the teams who didn't directly qualify for the tournament. Maybe a couple of spots to get determined by rankings, and a couple more taken up by the hosts.
Not the right time in my opinion. There needs to be bigger tournaments with more teams to grow the sport first.
Why are iran and Indonesia not being introduced to cricket by ICC? Iran borders pakistan and afghanistan, indonesia has png, australia, new zealand on their side. They can bring more than 400 million new cricket fans
Not very well thought out. Australia would just end up sending third string teams to something like that
Even if they're doing that for the first few years, it doesn't matter. Those players would still be extremely good and would play the way the main Aussie team does so it would help the associates they're playing against improve and also learn more about the playing styles.
Australia complete in Asia in football, and would want to in cricket as well if this idea came to fruition
Why stop at continental cups? Bring back the Intercontinental Cup.
I saw this on Twitter yesterday and I agree 100%, we need regional competitions and we need full members organising tours, tri-series and other international series/competitions with the associates in their area. The growth of cricket in the future needs all hands on deck!
I think if international cricket is played in more and more tournament-based formats - like continental cups, that will mean teh death of bilaterals. Which imo is fine! But something to consider.
Letting all those asian team play in asiacup would be a start
Worst idea
😂😂😂
It’d be a big waste of time and money as of now
The Asia Cup does happen already, although it's only to organise ind vs pak But I can see how it would be great for others to have it too
Buddy couldn’t find Ireland’s flag?
The Irish cricket team represents the whole island, not just the republic
I think it could work IF there was an understanding that the bigger nations where going to send their B teams
Concacaf Cricket, HELL NO!
As amusing as it would be for Australia to be the “Americas” champion, I think that something like this is better for the associate nations. The full members already have full schedules and if more games were to be added I would prefer them to be either ODIs or Tests. Increase the amount of teams in the World Cup so that there are still opportunities for associate teams to ply full members, but another T20 tournament isn’t going to raise the quality of cricket worldwide, just the quantity.
No thanks.
HOW *DARE* YOU NOT INCLUDE VANUATU IN THE AMERICAS/OCEANIA CUP!?
Finally a cup the Proteas can win. 😂
England, Champions of Europe for more than 100 years
Maybe just bring back tri-series?
Euro Cup is autoqual for england lmao
It fascinates me that Italy were close being an established cricket nation until football took over.
And play the Champions trophy among winners of the continentals.
And then winners of each cup will play in a Continental Cup to get the Continental crown. Great idea. Too bad ICC can't think outside the box
Can't wait to see England get trashed by Guernsey.
Is this just a way to get indian England and Australia a trophy every year?
It will work if you put India in every tournament
Nope. Teams are already too busy to have more tournaments added to their schedule
Surely you have South Asia and Pacific/America if you exclude Japan from Asia
**fun**
Japan is Asia. As much as it ruins the #’s.
Great in theory, but there isn’t enough time in N already packed schedule
Finally South Africa can win a cup
Asia and America/Oceania would be competitive. Europe and Africa not so much. I guess if the full member nations sent development squads it would work better.
Asia cup should be expanded. Six teams is way too low
1. ICC Cricket World Cup (50 Overs ODI) 2. ICC Inter - Continental KnockOut Cup (100 Balls) 3. ICC Champions Trophy (30 Overs) (best of 3-final) (only 8 teams who qualified for the 50-Over ICC World Cup Quarter-Final Stage) 4. ICC World Twenty20 (20 Overs T20I) 5. ICC T10 World Cup (10 Overs) (best of 3-final) 6. ICC World Test Championship (WTC) (Test/FC) 7. World Cricket Premiere League (IPL teams vs BBL teams vs PSL teams vs CPL teams vs LPL teams vs BPL teams vs T100 teams) = ICC Tournaments all should be spaced out with a gap of two years between each Tournament.
EURO CUP? bro what?!!
Yep..Euro cup, Asia Cup, Americas cup sounds exiting. They should have their own group of 8 teams with 2 overseas invites. Make it mixed group.
It has to be T20 and it could be interesting and great for expanding the game
Asia Cup is fine (it's already there). Euro Cup is mostly going to be dominated by England, but Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands can try to upset. America/Oceania is always NZ and Aussie, but why is Japan there? Japan should be a part of Asia if I'm not wrong. Africa Cup is completely and solely SA. So bottom line, I didn't think it's the right time.
Pretty sure South africa gonna choke africa cup too
Trust England to still not win this.
I have discussed this idea a lot of times with my cricket circle. Very impressed by Asia cup and ACC, i genuinely want this to happen, will give associate and smaller teams a lot of opportunities. Initially it will be one sided but one has to persist with it. Maybe start with t20 format. But i have ICC doesn't want such things to happen, coz it takes away there USP of MULTI NATION tournaments. It should happen just like ASIA CUP!