The Associate nations keep on making a case to join the big boys and get test status with noticeable performances in their limited chances. We saw their ability and talent with their impressive and consistent performances in the Asia Cup and World T20 Qualifiers. Afghanistan and Nepal have shown improvement at an astonishing pace while Ireland and Netherlands have been among the sides that have been consistently trumping others to find a place in world tournaments. The emotional and passionate displays of cricket by their teams and the press conferences by Peter Borren, William Porterfield and Tanwir Afzal have reiterated the importance of cricket to these players and the fans, which make a case for more Associate inclusion in cricket.
Afghanistan and UAE who represented the contingent after qualifying for the World and Asia Cup respectively have been flirting with victory by challenging big nations before losing the momentum after dominating a fair share of the game. This in itself proves that the teams don’t lack skill or ability, but experience, experience of playing at the big stage. Whilst, this debate has always omnipresent and widely discussed, its case this time is stronger than ever. After all 'Associate requests are falling on deaf ears' and 'every other sport grows by increasing the number of teams' according to some emotive captains.
It has obviously become evident that giving test status to most or even some of the countries is not on ICCs immediate radar. However, there was a recent ICC meeting with talks of two tier test systems that would involve giving 4 more countries test status. However, this option is still being "mulled". How can this harm the game in any way? Let us look at plausible alternatives. Ian Chappell recently suggested the idea of a combined team that consists of the best Associates players to take part in a World Tournament that would give more exposure to the better players. What this incentive neglects is the fact that the whole purpose of playing in a World Cup is to represent ones country. We can't just make a combined associate team for a competition just because it contributes to entertainment and not fits this idea. It will be a more worthwhile idea to play 3-4 associates each world cup with a frenetic qualifying stage that will make the teams stronger and competitive in the long run. Yes, that may not really change things much in terms of what is already practiced, but televising their matches makes a huge impact, psychological and otherwise, to their performances. A 16 team format like that followed in the 50 over World Cup in 2007 is the most balanced ones in terms of giving teams maximum opportunities and employing the most number of Associate nations.
There could be the scheduling of 3-4 day ‘unofficial’ test matches featuring Associate nations itself that would account for regular practice as well as exposure of the new ‘test’ format. The first class matches frequency has been woefully low among most players, and increasing the amount of matches played won’t do any harm to the players’ skills. Kyle Coetzer stated that he had just played one ODI since the World Cup. If the Associates are at liberty to play T20s and ODIs then why not schedule an Associate World Cup of both formats? This can be done regularly and in coherence with the ‘normal’ World Cup featuring the Test Nations as well with the women. This would help in giving the Associates more practice, experience and international competitiveness as well as train them to cope with real pressure situations. What’s more, this will further elucidate to the ICC which team has been better among all and encourage them for investing the most in.
The single most vital contribution from the ICC can be to fund these nations to improve the cricket training and facilities there. The “BIG 3” can be of help here too. By giving Afghanistan a place to train in India, the BCCI have almost given rebirth to this rapidly developing cricket nation. Why can’t there be more such instances? After all, it is the duty of the makers of a game to expand its horizons. Practical alternatives have to be thought of.
Why can’t there be Associate teams performing in domestic first class tournaments, like Afghanistan and Nepal in the Ranji Trophy or Netherlands and Scotland in the English County Championship?
There is no dearth of solutions but a lack of willingness. Surely, having more proficient teams in the sport won’t degrade it in any way then why the hesitation? With all the money and resources, solutions even become easier to execute. Something has to be done about this situation like it was done in 2000 when Bangladesh were granted test status. Those results are showing now. Every team needs time and resources to develop and it is up to the ICC to give them the required space for their own good and this has to be done as soon as possible in some way or another.
