Ian Chappell: Consider a combined Associate team for World Cup

Ian Chappell, Ricky Ponting and Sanjay Manjrekar all have on thing in common: a belief that the World Cup would be better off without the Associate teams.

Chappell admitted yesterday that he has no problem with the ICC's decision to reduce the number of Associate teams participating in the next World Cup as they aren't good enough. His argument to improve the standard of Associate teams is to combine them.

www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/icc-world-t...35868cb21f287f5d3453

So, just days after Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar and Michael Vaughan publicly voiced their support behind the Associate teams being given more chances, Chappell suggests setting Associate teams back decades and giving teams less opportunities.

The mind boggles.

How in the world does having a combined team with just the best XI from a group of teams improve the overall standard of each Associate team? That makes no sense. You are going to end up with the best 2 or 3 players from each Associate teams participating and all the other players never getting a game and wasting away.

Not to mention the fact that I am pretty certain that Chappell has no idea that Welsh cricketers are actually a part of the ECB and have no international team.

I do find it laughable that Chappell believes Associate teams have no business playing in a World Cup as no one wants to watch them or the blow outs against the big boys, especially considering that at the last World Cup, one the matches of the tournament belonged to Scotland and Afghanistan, and one of the big boys (England) was on the receiving end of a blow out of epic proportions at the hands of New Zealand (and then eventually knocked out by the most recent full member team). Oh, and Ireland won more games at that World Cup than England and beat 2 full member teams (including the West Indies). But, sure, Ian, lets not let facts get in the way of your ignorance.

If Chappell fully believes that Afghanistan need to be combined with another country or aren't deserving of playing in a World Cup and competing with "the big boys", he really hasn't been paying attention. They are a really good limited overs side with a winning record over the last 2 years (31 wins, 21 losses in T20 and ODIs).

Afghanistan are deserving of more matches against the full members, not less. As we have already seen in the Super 10 stages of this World Cup, they have plenty of quality and given both Sri Lanka and South Africa a run for their money.

I hope Ian Chappell watched the England/Afghanistan match. They have every right to be playing in a World Cup and can compete with the big boys. As Inzi said on commentary, get them playing the full member teams more often and they will continue to develop.

i hope one of the associate teams beat Oz...then Chappelle will change his tune!

Absolute bunkum....tosh.

One just have to look at Afghanistan and you will observe the will and quality of play. They certainly gave us a run for our money today!

We need to get Cricket as far and wide as possible whilst maintaining traditions and developing a more open minded approach.

Personally great to see the associates.

Not to sound like a broken record, but the ICC really need to re-think their policy regarding Associate members involvement in forthcoming iterations of the World Cup. Afghanistan ended their campaign with a big win over Group winners West Indies, just days after going toe-to-toe with England. They also gave Sri Lanka and South Africa a real run for their money.

At no point in the tournament did they look out of place. In fact, I think it is fair to say they were markedly better than Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. While not an apples to apples comparison, Afghanistan scored more runs in their group matches than two of the semi-finalists (India and West Indies) while also conceding fewer runs than a third semi-finalist (England).

West Indies win the World Cup. The only team to beat them? Afghanistan.