Political fight inevitable after ICC U-turn

THE International Cricket Council has been rightly pilloried over the last two weeks for their decision to limit the 2015 World Cup to just the ten full members.

Their announcement on Tuesday to review this decision must be therefore welcomed as a victory for common sense and democracy - not always two words closely associated with cricket's world body.

However, as ever with the ICC and good governance, closer scrutiny of the wording from the President Mr Powar leaves areas of concern, with his statement reading: "I have given this matter further serious thought and will request the board to consider this topic once more." Why an organisation's president must request his board to do something as opposed to instruct them is worrying.

Although the ICC has agreed to reconsider the decision this, of course, is no guarantee of a genuine qualification process becoming reality. Since the decision was made, the Associate and Affiliate members have joined a chorus of disapproval culminating in official representation to the ICC.

A number of cricket officials, including Scotland's Roddy Smith and Ireland's Warren Deutrom, have been vocal in their protests at the original decision and, in conjunction with their counterparts around the world, seem to have forced the ICC into a rethink and a potentially embarrassing U-turn.

Hosts Australia and New Zealand, with the support of their fellow full members, are clear in their desire for the World Cup to be a ten-team, round robin event. The rationale for this is twofold. Firstly, it will ensure that the top teams, and their respective television audiences in the Asian sub-continent and Australia, are assured of at least nine games before the knockout stages. Secondly, it will eradicate the perceived weakest teams so that there are fewer mismatches.

This is a contentious issue as there were mismatches in this World Cup between the top countries. If it is to be assumed that this ten-team format will not be altered, then the developing world will be targeting the bottom full members for the last places. As much as the announcement to review the previous decision will be welcomed by the leading non-Test countries, it will be met with some trepidation in the boardrooms of Dhaka and Harare, with a few nervous twitches in the Caribbean.

These countries should be forced to compete and prove they are better on the field than the likes of Ireland, Canada, Scotland and others. However, this will not be achieved without a political fight when the world cricket bodies meet up in Hong Kong in late June. The biggest obstacle will not necessarily come from the weaker full members. It may well be from the powerhouse of India and its supporters, including Australia.India are the power-brokers of world cricket and it is unlikely any decision to impose qualification on the lower-ranked full members will pass without India's blessing.

There is no doubt that the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe will not enter into a qualification process without a potential sweetener that would ease their pain if they failed in their bid to make the tournament itself. The issue will, like the majority of ICC decisions, revolve around money and the potential loss of income these countries may suffer. The BCCI (India) will not want to cast Bangladesh and Zimbabwe adrift and to the mercy of their players' abilities alone without such assurances. With any qualifier for the full members a minimum of three years away, these countries should accept their challenge and concentrate on ensuring they are well prepared to face their leading challengers.

Their financial resources overwhelm those of the smaller countries and they will have a three-year programme of matches against the other full members to prepare their side. In comparison, the leading Associates struggle in the main to play the full members regularly and their resources are stretched to maintain the number of professional players they currently have.

It is certainly not a fair fight on the field and the full members should back themselves to come through any qualification process. In fighting the need for a qualification process, they are merely admitting their fears of not being competitive against the leading non-Test countries - hardly a ringing endorsement of their own teams' standing in the world game.

However, the risk of losing games is still very much there and there is no doubt that this issue will continue to be at the forefront of the respective board's minds as they prepare for Hong Kong. It seems that there is a move towards a meritocratic path for deciding the final ten, but for this to meet the collective needs and worries of the ten full members, deals and assurances will have to be negotiated ahead of the June board meeting. The developing world may have won the battle, but the war will continue for a couple of months yet.