Was the 2007 World Cup the worst ever? Yes

Was that the worst World Cup yet? From a supporter’s perspective, yes. The ICC says no. Why? Because it made more money than any previous World Cup. What the ICC fails to understand, however, is that nobody leaves a game talking about revenue. What the fans want is exciting, high-quality cricket in an attractive atmosphere. What we got was one-sided encounters in sterile, half-full stadiums…

The World Cup received the end it deserved. A final played out in near darkness, in front of a baffled crowd, just to appease the bureaucrats that run the game. Only the ICC could stage an event where the umpires don’t know the rules. It was a shambles. An embarrassment to the game.

Each tournament leaves one or two enduring images. In 1975 it was Viv Richards’ fielding in the final; in 1987 it was Mike Gatting’s attempted reverse sweep; in 1999 it was Allan Donald dropping his bat. What will be the lasting image of the Caribbean in 2007? Will it be the banks of empty seating? Or those absurd last overs in the Bajan night? Or the murder of Bob Woolmer?

Of course, not all fault can be laid at the door of the ICC. Fate dealt them a tough hand. It was not their fault that India and Pakistan were eliminated so early and that West Indies and England were abject. Nor was it their fault that Bob Woolmer was murdered, though it does raise questions about security. And, at times, things worked brilliantly. In Barbados, where organisers took it upon themselves to ignore many of the ICC’s dictates, the atmosphere at the Kensington Oval was magnificent. For a few hours during the West Indies v England game, the World Cup flickered to life. Let’s also remember that the nine West Indian states provided the infrastructure and organisation required.

It was the ICC that ruined the party. There was the whiff of colonial arrogance about their behaviour in the Caribbean. They failed to appreciate West Indian culture and alienated the most cricket-loving people of earth from their own party. The absence of West Indians, unwilling to pay prices that were clearly aimed at the UK market, may not have affected revenues markedly, but it did rob the event of its vibrancy. It also acted as a disincentive to the English fans who had already squandered a fortune following England’s Ashes disintegration.

The ICC’s plethora of rules sucked the joy out of the event. Anyone wearing a T-shirt with an emblem that conflicted with one of the sponsor’s logos could be ejected. Those wanting to take musical instruments into the ground required written permission. Packed lunches were measured to ensure they did not exceed ICC standards. Soft drinks were confiscated if they were seen as a threat to Pepsi, the main sponsor. Orange juice could be consumed from cartons, but not bottles, and those bringing water into the ground had to give the tops to staff, as they were ‘a security risk’.

If the ICC had its way we would watch with our hands tied behind our backs. All this while the ICC allows Zimbabwe to remain a full member. Human rights atrocities are overlooked, but try to eat a baguette and the full force of the ICC is brought to bear.

Nor was the quality of cricket at this World Cup always impressive. Some of the ‘minnows’ didn’t compete. Bermuda and Canada did little to impress, and anyone who saw the end of the Ireland and Zimbabwe game witnessed a display of gross mediocrity. Sixteen teams would appear to be four too many. Exciting finishes? Just six of the 51 matches were decided by a margin of 10 runs, two wickets or less. The sluggish pitches inhibited the stroke players. Only in Barbados did the pitch offer the pace and bounce to promote attractive cricket.

And what of the legacy we heard so much of? It is true that the Caribbean has several new stadiums, but were they worth the investment? Do Antigua and Jamaica need two international cricket stadiums each? Does 
St Vincent require a 10,000 seater stadium? It’s like Pitcairn Island building Wembley. Again, Barbados got it right; developing their historic venue rather than squandering cash on a new one. It would be hard to overstate the level of discontent within the Caribbean. The islands’ governments promised their people much but delivered little.

With the World Cup scheduled for a busy period in the tourist calendar, the usual visitors stayed away and the anticipated raft of cricket watchers didn’t materialise. Businesses that expected a windfall were left short changed. A backlash is anticipated and governments could even fall. The ICC is a commercial organisation. That’s fair enough; and some of the money it earns goes towards developing the game and some of the profits will be spent wisely in countries around the globe. But greed took over here. At every turn spectators were fleeced. It was too long, too expensive and too regimented. Perhaps it is no bad thing that it was a failure. At least now the ICC knows that consumers will not just take what they are given.

We must learn the lessons. As things stand, the 2011 event in Asia promises to be even worse, with even more matches, though we are promised it will be 10 days shorter. 
Ironically, the ICC’s greed may also be the source of the solution. Initial reaction suggests the sponsors were far from happy with the coverage they received. India’s early exit was particularly damaging to some of the main ‘partners’, while the event’s failure to gain momentum can have done little to please TV companies or their advertisers.

The hope must be that these voices make the ICC see sense. For, however much money this World Cup made, it has damaged the game. Few will have been converted to the sport by this interminable marathon, while the alienation of the local audience may have set back cricket in the Caribbean by a generation. Is this the legacy the ICC had in mind?