The success of a format is judged by whether the games are well-attended and whether the standard of cricket played is up to the mark. Going by these two simple markers, the format of the ongoing World Cup leaves a lot to be desired. More than half the games have been no contests, notwithstanding the Ireland-England match. Some have ended in almost half the time allotted and the standard of cricket on offer, to quote South African legend Barry Richards, ?is no better than club cricket?. Barry, a purist, is disappointed and suggests, ?The ICC needs to urgently look into the format if they are keen to sustain the popularity of the 50 over format.?

Unfortunately for the ICC, none of the minnows have improved over the last 5 years, making the Cup completely lopsided. Kenya, semi-finalist in 2003, has progressively declined over the last few years. Zimbabwe, stung by continuing political uncertainty, is hardly the force that beat India in the 1999 Cup. Ireland, Holland and Canada haven?t done much to contest the ?pushover? tag.

With good games being few and far between, the passionate Indian cricket fan hasn?t the incentive to really get into the Cup. This will only happen in the last two weeks, starting March 20, with the India-West Indies contest in Chennai. This match, to be followed by the knockout stages, marks the real beginning of the defining stage of the tournament. As a result, one is forced to concede that most of the games in the first month of the Cup are inconsequential and irrelevant. For example, it is impossible to incentivise even the most ardent Indian fan to watch India-Ireland or India-Netherlands, for the results of these games are forgone conclusions. And for the very same fan to endorse Kenya-Canada is impossible. That the format is problematic was attested to by the tournament director Ratnakar Shetty, when he conceded, ?It is mighty difficult to get people to watch most games in the first month of the tournament.? It is for this reason that the organisers have been forced to distribute free tickets to school children in several of the venues.

One central criticism of the 2007 Cup was its duration. Stretching over 49 days, it was seen by most as being too long and boring. Despite those strongly expressed sentiments, the 2011 Cup is 45 days long, yet again testing the fans? patience.

The final point concerns the minnows. Cricket, it is time to acknowledge, is not football and the ICC is no FIFA. If this is cricket?s showpiece event, ICC has to ensure that most games are close encounters rather than things being the other way round. If that means giving a miss to globalisation for the time being, so be it. The ICC may think of getting the associates to play a tournament of their own. But from what we have seen of them so far in this competition, they certainly do not belong in the big league. The World Cup, however much we wish to promote the minnows, should be about the 8 top sides, teams that are capable of making the Cup competitive. The verdict then is clear: change the format for 2015 to ensure the survival of the 50 over game, which is in desperate need of oxygen.

We need consistent competitiveness and not wait for the occasional miracle to happen.

The author is a sports historian

Desh Gaurav Sekhri

The format for the cricket World Cup 2011 is the ideal hybrid to ensure growing participation from countries that have not yet taken to the sport, while cultivating the existing power-nations in one of the most lucrative sports worldwide. The lessons learnt from the 2007 Cup in the West Indies were unambiguous: the success of an event depends in large part on how far the power-nations reach in the event. In 2007, the so-called minnows stole the show, with Ireland and Bangladesh?s stunning upsets over Pakistan and India ensuring that TRPs and revenues from tourism and other collaterals diminished rapidly after the group phase concluded. This was rectified in this edition of the Cup, where there is a healthy blend of associate nations competing with, and sometimes conquering, the Goliaths. Although there are some matches that are extremely one-sided, that?s part and parcel of a World Cup in any sport. Not only does this exposure to the World Cup forum give motivation and opportunity to the emerging associate nations, but in fact they often come out on top.

Which is why it is somewhat surprising that the 2015 format has been tweaked again, reducing the number of teams to 10. Even for a sport as skewed in viewership and participation as cricket (with nearly 2 billion die-hard fans in less than 6 countries), reducing the number of countries that participate reduces its relevance. Agreed, T20 cricket has exploded, but that doesn?t take away from the thrill that accompanies a victory such as Ireland?s over England on Wednesday night. By alienating emerging nations from World Cup participation, there is a risk of making the Cup a cliquish event with predictable results from teams that compete against each other routinely.

So it?s important to keep a couple of things in mind before deciding on whether or not to change the existing format. In order for cricket to maintain and expand its outreach, viewership and revenues, it needs to create a format conducive for nations such as China and the US to adopt the sport. Also, cricket needs feel-good stories, a balanced growth system and the sport needs to be promoted globally. By shooting the messengers, the message is lost. Increase match play for the associate nations against the power-nations, and results will automatically follow. By eliminating the associate nations from the 2015 Cup, the message is lost along with the messengers, and the event may just stagnate and border on the mundane.

Revenue and crowds come from the power nations. So a system conducive to the powerhouses going through to the elimination rounds, and that too with home court advantage, is a win-win for all. But by eliminating the associate nations from the CWCs of the future, there will be few opportunities to discover dynamic young heroes like Doeschate, Shakib, Tamim and the toast of the cricketing world Kevin O?Brien?Ireland?s biggest export since Guinness. After all, let?s not forget that the mighty Sri Lankan team was a minnow in each CWC until it won it all in 1996. Rest assured, occasional one-sided matches are a small price to pay for an opportunity to make the CWC a global event, and to give nations such as Ireland the opportunity to occasionally find the elusive pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The author is a sports attorney at J Sagar Associates. Views are personal