How Is This A 'World Cup' With Only 10 Countries?

Tristan Lavalette bemoans the fact that the cricket authorities decided to shrink the number of participants and cut back on expansion.

- 

The World Cup desperately needed a spark and Pakistan being Pakistan unexpectedly provided it. Out of nowhere, after such a disastrous opener against the West Indies, they stunned favourites England with brilliance, flair and – dare I say – composure when it mattered most.

It was a reminder of Pakistan’s unparalleled unpredictability and why they remain the ultimate X-factor. More importantly, the result energised a lacklustre start to the World Cup with the beginning stages of the tournament marred by mind-numbingly, lop-sided games.

Hopefully – surely – the World Cup will pick up as teams get into the groove but there is a dose of colour missing from cricket’s biggest spectacle. I can’t help but feel the World Cup being reduced to a measly 10 teams is at the core of the flat start.

And I don’t think I’m in the minority of this sentiment – judging by the continual backlash over the ICC’s cull from 14 teams previously.

One of the thrills of watching any supposed global event is getting the opportunity to see the emerging teams. It doesn’t really matter if these teams aren’t particularly good. It’s more about getting around them and learning something new about teams you’ve rarely – or never – thought about.

And usually one of them does something just a little bit different and unexpected. It’s always fun seeing them compete against the best and seeing how they fare. That’s what World Cups should be about – a celebration of the sport developing outside traditional heartlands. Giving everyone a fair go.