It’s time to give Scotland key to elite competition
Tim Wigmore’s weekly look at the game below the Test-playing nations
Afew weeks ago, Warren Deutrom, Cricket Ireland’s chief executive, declared: “Ireland cricket has gone from famine to feast.” This wasn’t just hyperbole, but the words of a man who was getting his dreams realised after years of frustration.
Over the next year, Ireland have matches against Pakistan, England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Bangladesh lined up, as well as another five-match ODI series with Afghanistan. And Afghanistan, the other associate on the 12-team ODI rankings, also have a full tour to the West Indies next June to look forward to: five ODIs and three T20Is.
All of this would have been unthinkable in the pre-World Cup 2015 world, an age when the full members shamefully tried to pull the ladder up to stop emerging teams getting the same opportunities they had benefited from.
And yet, for all this optimism, there is still myopia in how associate nations are treated, even if Afghanistan and Ireland now cannot complain. Consider this: between the 2011 and 2015 World Cups, Scotland had six ODIs against full members. That’s a puny, utterly inadequate haul, but it is riches set against their number of fixtures against Test teams from 2015 to 2019: one. England’s match against Scotland, scheduled for May 2018, is the only bilateral match they have scheduled against Test opposition in the four years after the 2015 World Cup.
In many ways cricket in Scotland is vibrant. There has been a 50 per cent rise in participation over the last two years, largely because of outstanding work in encouraging the take-up of the sport among children. Scotland now has a young and promising team, but what chance of them improving with such a derisory schedule?
It is the same for other promising associates – Nepal, Papua New Guinea, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and beyond – the world over. These nations’ teams all suffer from a paucity of fixtures, not merely against Test opposition but against each other. The Netherlands’ international summer consists of six days of cricket – an Intercontinental Cup match with Afghanistan and two World Cricket League Championship games against Nepal.
Shutting those beyond the top two associates out from any opportunities to play Full Members acts as an artificial roadblock on cricket’s expansion. It means that the best young cricketers in these nations will be less inclined to continue playing the sport into adulthood – or, if they are exceptionally talented, will be more tempted to qualify to play for a Test country, instead of their own nation.
Denying emerging countries opportunities also makes it far harder to raise the profile of cricket in these lands. It means, too, that associates have little to offer sponsors. And so they have less money to pay their international players and less to invest in the grassroots game: a cycle which risks being self-perpetuating.
The lack of fixtures given to associates beyond Afghanistan and Ireland is also unfair. In 2018, Scotland will take part in the World Cup qualifiers, where they will compete not just with Afghanistan and Ireland but also two Test nations. What are their chances of besting these teams – as they must to qualify for the 10-team World Cup in 2019 – when they have been playing so little cricket? And the danger is a new, selfperpetuating elite of 12 countries is created. As bad as a cartel of 10 is, a cartel of 12 is scarcely any better.
Until a decade ago, Scotland had a richer cricket history than Ireland. The rise of Ireland since has been a wonderful tale – the product of a skilful and driven group of players, enlightened administration and, yes, a fair helping of luck.
There is no reason why Scotland could not emulate it: they have more players than Ireland, after all. If the gap in ICC funding and opportunity between Ireland and Scotland continues to increase, then the gap risks becoming a chasm.
The ICC cannot forget that international sport is inherently cyclical. What matters is giving countries a fair chance to rise – and, yes, fall too – based on their on-field performances, not on their status or how they’ve done in the past. Cricket has been so bad at helping new countries emerge - since Pakistan’s first Test in 1952, the sport has only gained one new competitive Test nation, Sri Lanka – because it has always deprived them of the opportunity. This has been a sport run not on merit, but like a snooty Victorian private members’ club.
At least there is a new awareness of these flaws within the ICC. That’s why senior officials are pushing for a new 13-team ODI league, both to give cricket more context and to ensure that three associates, rather than two, get regular fixtures against Test opposition. The introduction of regional qualifiers for the World T20, which is also being advocated, is also welcome, and would provide each country a fair pathway to the WT20, just as FIFA provide for the World Cup.
All of this would be welcome. Far more must be done to make cricket an inclusive sport, lest cricket give up further ground to basketball, rugby and other games. This is necessary not merely to allow a brilliant sport to continue to flourish, and ensure that cricketers cannot only rise to the top if they are lucky enough to be born in the right country but as an insurance policy.
The ICC acknowledge that cricket’s dependence upon India is unhealthy. It is this that allowed the egregious ICC restructuring of 2014 to take place. And, if other sports like football continue to grow in India and India’s interest in cricket wanes even a little, then cricket’s entire funding model could be at risk.
The schedules of Test nations are already crammed, but the game can be sustained around the world through innovative and imaginative thinking. Rather than playing barely motivated counties or districts, Test nations should prepare to play each other by facing associates. This September, Australia and South Africa prepare for their ODI series by playing an ODI each against Ireland, which should be a template for all associates – not just Ireland and Afghanistan – going forward.
And, even more simply, more money needs to be opened up to allow associates of similar ability to play each other: a fivematch ODI series between Scotland and the Netherlands – which currently doesn’t happen as the boards cannot afford it – would improve both countries, and ultimately make them more competitive when they next got the opportunity to play against a Test nation.
But, perhaps, the biggest opportunity for associates on the edge of the elite lies in A and representative teams from Test nations. Rather than England Lions playing Sri Lanka A and Pakistan A, as happened this summer, why not, as Scotland captain Preston Mommsen advocates, schedule a series between the Lions – or even an U21 side – and Scotland, the Netherlands and, if they wanted to play, Ireland, too?
While the associates would gain essential experience, the Lions would need to cope with the mantle of being favourites.
Such thinking needs to be embraced. That Afghanistan and Ireland are no longer ostracised by cricket’s elite is to be welcomed. But it is no excuse to treat all those other associates worse than ever.
Rather than England Lions playing Sri Lanka A and Pakistan A why not schedule a series against Scotland, Netherlands and Ireland?