The T20 World Cup is about to begin.
The T20 World Cup has already begun.
We’ve been sitting in our seats enjoying the prelude to a musical, entertained by a compilation of the catchiest tunes before the curtain has lifted to reveal the main stage, set for the biggest names.
Did you see Papua New Guinea’s brilliant fielding, punctuated by a series of diving, leaping catches?
Or the gobsmacking splendour of Curtis Camphor’s four wickets in four balls, one of the rarest bowling feats in cricket - achieved only twice before in T20 Internationals - that sparked the sort of ridiculous and furious debate that only cricket can provide; whether or not it should be termed a ‘double hat-trick’ (we have five-fors ten-fors, perhaps we should add Cam-phors to the lexicon)”?
Or the heroics of Gerhard Erasmus and David Wiese that propelled Namibia to an historic victory over Ireland and into the Super 12s, an achievement almost as magnificent as Wiese’s glorious mane.
Perhaps you were too busy watching the warm-up matches, hit-outs that - apart from trying to gauge form or glean starting line-ups - are meaningless in the overall context of the tournament.
The ICC T20 World Cup is an excellent competition, efficient in its brevity compared to the fifty-over version and with a global gravitas absent from domestic tournaments.
And as the format deemed preferable for cricket’s expansion it allows us to see a far wider range of players and styles than any other.
Sorta.
Only Full Member nations have the right under the current system to directly qualify for the Super 12s stage of the World Cup.
The top seven in the rankings and the host country - in this case, India - automatically entered the main event while Sri Lanka and Bangladesh had to fight it out with other qualifiers.
The six other teams gained entry by playing in qualifying events over a two year period only to have to qualify once more in the group elimination stage, a bit like being invited to a party only to be told you have to stand outside looking through the window at the revellers inside because you’re not wearing a collared shirt.
In most sports, qualifying for a World Cup earns you the right to play, and possibly defeat, any other side.
But cricket too often retains the air of an exclusive club, down to its use of terms such as Full-Members and Associates.
Whisper it quietly, but there has been an obvious selfish motivation for the haves to keep the have-nots out; memories of the 2007 fifty-over World Cup, when India were eliminated in the group stage after losing to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, still send shudders through administrators and broadcasters who view success through the prism of ratings and dollars.
And England might be happy never to face the Netherlands again in the short-form tournament, after losing encounters in the 2009 and 2014 editions.
This is not an exercise in ICC bashing; the organisation gives financial support to developing cricket in Associate nations and there are many passionate people who work for the ICC and are dedicated to expansion and improved professionalism throughout the world.
And yet the current system remains an uncomfortable compromise between offering a moment in the sun and ensuring the biggest draw-cards don’t get burnt.
There’s an argument that only allowing four qualifiers through to the Super 12s reduces the chance of one-sided matches and promotes close encounters.
But the last Men’s ICC tournament that had a decent number of teams - 14 in all - turned that theory on its head.
Some of the matches involving at least one Associate team were the tightest and most thrilling contests (such as Scotland v Afghanistan, UAE v Ireland or Ireland v Zimbabwe).
Yes, there were some blowouts - as there are in any World Cup of any code - but some of the most lopsided results involved two Full-Member sides; England were thrashed in their first three matches against Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka while South Africa defeated West Indies by 257 runs. Even the final was something of a fizzer as a contest, Australia overpowering New Zealand to win by seven wickets with 101 balls remaining.
But the 2015 World Cup was too much of a good thing for expansionists and the game’s administrators rectified the magnanimous decision to expand the world stage by closing it up once more, reverting to a ten-team World Cup that may as well be called The Champions Trophy Plus Two.
The current T20 version is better but for as long as the qualifying round exists, designed to keep as many new nations out (and let’s not patronise them further by referring to them as ‘minnows’) while giving the appearance of letting them in, the idea of true egalitarian expansion on a level playing field is merely a mirage.
But there is hope for future Associate teams; next year’s T20 World Cup in Australia will be the last time countries are put through the qualify-to-qualify process.
The 2024 tournament will expand to 20 teams which will play in four groups of five before progressing to a Super 8s stage.
And the 2027 50-over World Cup will feature 14 teams in two groups of seven.
It’s the equality Associates have been begging for.
In the meantime we can express our gratitude to Oman, Ireland, Netherlands and Papua New Guinea for their contributions to a brilliant week of international cricket; at least their chance for another tilt is not far away.
And we can wish Scotland and Namibia all the best as they step out of the wings and into the full glare of the footlights, no longer part of the warm up act.
