A round of applause for the ineptitude of the ICC

Every sport wants to expand its horizons. Football held its last World Cup in Africa, the NBA and NFL are playing matches in London and just last month two English Clubs played out a Rugby Union fixture in Abu Dhabi. They all want to find new markets, seek out new opportunities and most of all want to spread their game as far and wide as possible.

All seems rather logical, doesn't it?

And yet, the ICC continues to defy logic. Their decision to cut the 50-over World Cup from 14 teams to 10 for 2015 - excluding the associate nations from the competition - is not only short-sighted but detrimental to the game world-wide. They claim their decision is based on a desire to maintain competitive standards in the competition and instead want associate nations to develop through exposure to the T20 World Cup each year.

But they really are missing a trick. Of course we want a competitive World Cup played out over a reasonable period of time - nobody in Cricket would argue otherwise - but that doesn't mean that we want to discourage developing nations in the process. How do the ICC propose Ireland, Kenya Canada and the Netherlands incentivise their players when they only have one competition to strive for each year? How does the Irish Cricket Board keep people like George Dockrell and the O 'Brien brothers from looking towards representing England in the future, if they are only able to play T20 on the World Stage?

Ironically, some of the associate nations are giving the 'heavyweight' nations more competitive Cricket then there fellow top-tier relatives have done in recent weeks, leaving egg on the faces of the governing body. But, it's not just this recent World Cup that has seen upsets and matches belying the form book. As recent as 2003, Kenya shocked the World and reached the semi-final of the competition and in 2007 Ireland were able to reach the knockout stages in the Caribbean. Does that not represent competition and progress?

Undoubtedly, the continued participation of smaller nations in the T20 World Cup is encouraging for the cricketing community and there is value to the argument that the shorter form of the game will allow the associates to be more competitive on a regular basis. But that doesn't make up for or mask the enormity of the decision to take away 50-over Cricket from developing sides.

By cutting the size of the World Cup, the ICC are not only taking the 'World' (so aptly put by Mr Swann) out of their premier ODI competition, but they're also showing their true colours on how committed they are to expanding the game. Bullied by the corporate aims of the superpowers and predictably lured by increased television revenues, the governing body are seemingly crushing the progress made in the associate nations over the past ten years.

Good to know the game is in safe hands.