The round robin format used in the latest edition of the ICC World Cup has received a lot of criticism while the critics are calling the move justified. So, who is to be trusted here?
Basically, the Round-robin format a format that involves all the teams playing one game against every other team in the tournament — so all ten teams will play nine games each, with the top four making it to the semi-finals.
There are two sides to this argument, one being that the fewer matches will be played along with most of the matches not being one-sided due to the absence of low-ranking teams.
While a counter-argument making much sense, which is the absence of globalization of cricket leading to the game’s downfall within a decade or so. This has been processed as a capitalist mindset from ICC. This move has also been reflected in the decision of cricket’s inclusion in the Olympics where the ICC fell short in convincing the current cricket playing nations bout the merits of globalization.
This was not about the adverse impact on the viewership, it also impacted the quality of cricket on display, and on the format, which was already struggling against the new formats like T20s. Thus, in 2019, the ICC decided to hold the tournament without the associate members, and the early results are justifying this move on their part.
While some former cricketers like Sachin Tendulkar have termed the exclusion of the associates as disappointing and degrading, with the game of cricket have more at stakes than just the monetary benefits which are temporary achievements as the current leaders have to sustain the game in long run while keeping its prestigious history well and alive, the bottom line is that the cost of saving the game cannot be the game itself.