Apologies for the language. It was indeed uncalled-for. But I do still disagree.
This tournament had only shown that associates are evenly matched.
The games in this tournament between Full Members and Associates, almost without exception, have been closer than the games between full members. And not by a little bit. This is simply an indisputable arithmetic fact. This despite the fact that ICC funding for associates is several orders of magnitude lower than that of full members - and indeed no matter how well Associates do at this World Cup they will take home less than the worst-performing Full Member.
they are still not at the same level as the test playing nations.
I agree. There is a substantial difference in quality between the best Full Members and the best Associates - though not between say Ireland and Bangladesh - and that that is unlikely ever to change for reasons of simple demographics if nothing else, but depriving associates of matches, exposure and funding will only exacerbate this gap. In fact I think a Full Member blowing an Associate out of the water at this World Cup is just a matter of time. But I don't think blow-outs ruin tournaments - especially when, as I think has been fairly convincingly demonstrated, they are not in fact predictable, or inevitable.
If Brazil produces an inferior team for a couple of world cups, would you say they do not belong there?
Yes. And FIFA agrees. Brazil have to qualify for the World Cup just like everyone else, and rightly so. They don't get a bye on the basis of history, or their "football economy", or their "value contribution". Conversely, do you think Australia has no place at the football World Cup? Or the US? They've never won and they're never likely to, but they qualified and produced some of the most exciting matches at the last Cup. Why is this a problem?
My opinion that ireland and afghanistan are better than UAE or scotland is based on what I have seen at this tournament. Both teams have good native talents with a scope for a lot of improvement. I have a problem with teams that are cobbled up together with a bunch of immigrants without any scope for native talent emerging even if it is from second generation immigrants.
I don't mean to be rude, at least not as rude as my last comment, but do you actually know anything at all about the cricket communities, culture, domestic structure, youth development etc in these countries? Is it not a little unfair to be making judgments about their comparative merits on the basis of the names on their team sheets once every four years?
Only ireland has managed a throw a spanner in the world cup so far.
Well this is some fairly telling language.
All I am saying is that 4 is too much. There are just not enough good quality associate teams to justify 4 teams.
Again you're making judgments about the comparative strength of Associate teams on the basis of basically nothing. Afghanistan qualified for the WC by a margin of a single point off the back of smashing second-string Namibian and Kenyan teams at the back end of the WCLC after the former were already out. They're not streets ahead of the competition, in fact the top level of Associates cricket is extremely competitive.
2 is the right number. Ind, SA, Eng, Aus, WI, SL, Pak , NZ, Zim, Bang and 2 associates. Make them into 2 pools and ask them to play each other twice within the pool. Top 2 teams from each pool go into semi finals. This would make the RR more interesting.
This would give you 60 matches before you even get to the knock-outs. More importantly, it would all but guarantee that half of the games at the tail end of the group stage are dead rubbers. It's actually almost as bed as the format that they're going with.
Compress the tournament for god's sake. 2 matches every day.
This is actually a good idea.