| Home | About | Arts | Sport | Travel | Politics | Philosophy | Technology | Finally... |
No minor nations, an abomination?
» By Jack Biggs
The International Cricket Council (ICC) has already made a decision on the matter as the next world
cup in Australia and New Zealand in 2015 will only begin with 10 teams as opposed to the current
14.
After Kenya, Canada, and Zimbabwe all lost their first games by huge margins, the question was asked. "Should minor nations play at the world cup?" The answer is never clear. There will always be upsets in these tournaments (for example when the Irish beat the English with the fastest ever century in the world cup from Kevin O'Brien beating Mathew Hayden's previous record.) My belief is that minor nations should be able to participate otherwise they will never experience any 'world class' cricket and will always be considered 'minor nations'.
Cricket is a massive sport, but its popularity is restricted to certain parts of the world. For many
people outside these areas, the game becomes very difficult to understand. So shouldn't organisers
be trying to encourage cricket's global growth rather than discourage it? It is called the "World" Cup,
after all! And when there are these upsets as shown by Ireland, it provides uncertainty and takes the
attention away from the 'top guns' in the competition. The minor nations wouldn't be minor nations
if they played the better-quality teams on a more regular basis. I would argue that just playing at the
World Cup isn't enough – but for the ICC it seems to be too much.
The ex-Australian captain, Ricky Ponting, says he's not sure how much a team can learn from being on the receiving end of a thumping, but I don't agree. I'm sure that Kenya took quite a lot from the 10-wicket loss to New Zealand, despite scoring only 69 runs, they will come out stronger and more experienced next time. At least they'll get the chance to show what they can do. At the next tournament in Australia and New Zealand four years from now, they are likely to be watching from Kenya and won't face a single ball! I know from personal experience that sitting at home, watching cricket does not compare to the real thing.
As a trade-off, the ICC has said the World Twenty20 competition will expand to include more nations. But as any cricket fan knows, this form of the game is more for entertainment value than anything else. It's short, sweet and spectacular – but not cricket in its purest form – and it's not going to help produce top-level one-day or Test cricketers.
So the longer forms of the game will continue to be dominated by the same old teams, and the gap between rich and poor will grow larger, with those teams who can afford extensive coaching teams continuing to improve, and those without finding it harder and harder to play at the top level. How can the Associate nations compete when they are not given a chance to play on the global stage against the best teams in the world? What motivation will children from these countries have to play cricket? There is an absence of a foresightedness which could cripple the development of cricket throughout the world. We need a process that will allow the talent from minor countries to shine through, taking cricket to the next level.
After Kenya, Canada, and Zimbabwe all lost their first games by huge margins, the question was asked. "Should minor nations play at the world cup?" The answer is never clear. There will always be upsets in these tournaments (for example when the Irish beat the English with the fastest ever century in the world cup from Kevin O'Brien beating Mathew Hayden's previous record.) My belief is that minor nations should be able to participate otherwise they will never experience any 'world class' cricket and will always be considered 'minor nations'.
Cricket is a massive sport, but its popularity is restricted to certain parts of the world. For many
people outside these areas, the game becomes very difficult to understand. So shouldn't organisers
be trying to encourage cricket's global growth rather than discourage it? It is called the "World" Cup,
after all! And when there are these upsets as shown by Ireland, it provides uncertainty and takes the
attention away from the 'top guns' in the competition. The minor nations wouldn't be minor nations
if they played the better-quality teams on a more regular basis. I would argue that just playing at the
World Cup isn't enough – but for the ICC it seems to be too much.
The ex-Australian captain, Ricky Ponting, says he's not sure how much a team can learn from being on the receiving end of a thumping, but I don't agree. I'm sure that Kenya took quite a lot from the 10-wicket loss to New Zealand, despite scoring only 69 runs, they will come out stronger and more experienced next time. At least they'll get the chance to show what they can do. At the next tournament in Australia and New Zealand four years from now, they are likely to be watching from Kenya and won't face a single ball! I know from personal experience that sitting at home, watching cricket does not compare to the real thing.
As a trade-off, the ICC has said the World Twenty20 competition will expand to include more nations. But as any cricket fan knows, this form of the game is more for entertainment value than anything else. It's short, sweet and spectacular – but not cricket in its purest form – and it's not going to help produce top-level one-day or Test cricketers.
So the longer forms of the game will continue to be dominated by the same old teams, and the gap between rich and poor will grow larger, with those teams who can afford extensive coaching teams continuing to improve, and those without finding it harder and harder to play at the top level. How can the Associate nations compete when they are not given a chance to play on the global stage against the best teams in the world? What motivation will children from these countries have to play cricket? There is an absence of a foresightedness which could cripple the development of cricket throughout the world. We need a process that will allow the talent from minor countries to shine through, taking cricket to the next level.
A Different Point of View
» By Jack Biggs
Let’s set the scene. Saturday afternoon. Pub windows steamed up. The room packed to the doors, with football fans all in white watching England on the TV during the World Cup, warm pints in hand with smokers peering in through the windows. Frank Lampard hits the cross bar and the ball goes in, but it isn’t given. The pub roars with fury at the referee, but what is he to do?
Video technology has already proved to be an efficient tool in the sporting world, but the question remains; why do some sports still maintain that the game can still work without this technology?
The debate remains in football. The FA believes that the use of video technology will take the power away from the referee and it will slow the game down. However, controversy arose when England’s Frank Lampard was denied a goal against Germany in the Quarter Finals of the 2010 FIFA world cup. Goal line technology was tried and tested in 2008, but the IFA decided that it was not useful as they wanted a system whereby they could get correct decisions 100% of the time, but this was not the one. However, what is to stop slow motion replay? Sky covers most, if not all, premier league football matches. So therefore, the technology is there, but it isn’t used. It is unfathomable that managers and players complain about key decisions given by the referee such as penalties that can change the outcome of a game, but do not complain about the lack of technology in their sport. Video replays would put an end to players arguing with the ref and diving on the pitch, which would make the game much more satisfying to watch.
What’s worse than not having video technology in the sport at all is when there is a video referee, but it’s not used! In Wales’ opening match of the 2011 Rugby World Cup, James Hook kicked a penalty and it marginally went over the posts. Both linesman and pitch referee were unsure, but they still did not go to the video referee to check. The matter wouldn’t be such an issue if the final score wasn’t so dramatic – the winners and losers separated by one point. Wales lost 16-17. If the technology is there to be used, why would you not use it? The decision is ultimately down to the referee on the pitch, but with all the other contributing factors on the pitch - the fans on the side and the adrenaline rushing through his ever tiring body - how is he meant to make the correct decision? The technology is there to use if you are unsure or cannot tell if the decision is correct and hopefully, the right decisions should therefore be given.
On a different note, the International Cricket Council (ICC) has ruled that the decision review system (DRS) doesn’t have to be used in all international cricket matches. In the recent test match series between India and England, the Indians were against it, so a watered down version was used. This caused as much controversy for them as it did the English players as they had LBW decisions given against them that clearly weren’t out. England also fell victim to this. The Indian captain M S Dhoni said that they, as a team, don’t believe that the DRS technology is 100% accurate because of the bounce and spin generated from spin bowlers. And so, until they are 100% happy with it, they won’t go on with it. But a five and a half ounce red leather ball flying down a twenty two yard track between 50 and 90 mph can make any decisions difficult to make in real time. A simple slow motion replay would surely prove to make better decision?
There will always be those puritans who think that technology is ruining sport, but nowadays, there will always a need to improve accuracy and the only way to do this is to use technology. Sport is highly influenced by the media and there will always be controversy surrounding decisions or outcomes. The only way to stop this debate is to use technology. Yes, it will upset the minority who don’t want to ruin the aesthetics of the game, but ultimately supporters want their team to do well. The only way to do this I would argue is to provide a fair, and on the whole, accurate result through the use of video technology.
Video technology has already proved to be an efficient tool in the sporting world, but the question remains; why do some sports still maintain that the game can still work without this technology?
The debate remains in football. The FA believes that the use of video technology will take the power away from the referee and it will slow the game down. However, controversy arose when England’s Frank Lampard was denied a goal against Germany in the Quarter Finals of the 2010 FIFA world cup. Goal line technology was tried and tested in 2008, but the IFA decided that it was not useful as they wanted a system whereby they could get correct decisions 100% of the time, but this was not the one. However, what is to stop slow motion replay? Sky covers most, if not all, premier league football matches. So therefore, the technology is there, but it isn’t used. It is unfathomable that managers and players complain about key decisions given by the referee such as penalties that can change the outcome of a game, but do not complain about the lack of technology in their sport. Video replays would put an end to players arguing with the ref and diving on the pitch, which would make the game much more satisfying to watch.
What’s worse than not having video technology in the sport at all is when there is a video referee, but it’s not used! In Wales’ opening match of the 2011 Rugby World Cup, James Hook kicked a penalty and it marginally went over the posts. Both linesman and pitch referee were unsure, but they still did not go to the video referee to check. The matter wouldn’t be such an issue if the final score wasn’t so dramatic – the winners and losers separated by one point. Wales lost 16-17. If the technology is there to be used, why would you not use it? The decision is ultimately down to the referee on the pitch, but with all the other contributing factors on the pitch - the fans on the side and the adrenaline rushing through his ever tiring body - how is he meant to make the correct decision? The technology is there to use if you are unsure or cannot tell if the decision is correct and hopefully, the right decisions should therefore be given.
On a different note, the International Cricket Council (ICC) has ruled that the decision review system (DRS) doesn’t have to be used in all international cricket matches. In the recent test match series between India and England, the Indians were against it, so a watered down version was used. This caused as much controversy for them as it did the English players as they had LBW decisions given against them that clearly weren’t out. England also fell victim to this. The Indian captain M S Dhoni said that they, as a team, don’t believe that the DRS technology is 100% accurate because of the bounce and spin generated from spin bowlers. And so, until they are 100% happy with it, they won’t go on with it. But a five and a half ounce red leather ball flying down a twenty two yard track between 50 and 90 mph can make any decisions difficult to make in real time. A simple slow motion replay would surely prove to make better decision?
There will always be those puritans who think that technology is ruining sport, but nowadays, there will always a need to improve accuracy and the only way to do this is to use technology. Sport is highly influenced by the media and there will always be controversy surrounding decisions or outcomes. The only way to stop this debate is to use technology. Yes, it will upset the minority who don’t want to ruin the aesthetics of the game, but ultimately supporters want their team to do well. The only way to do this I would argue is to provide a fair, and on the whole, accurate result through the use of video technology.