The sights and sounds of a World Cup football game are among the most enthralling in sport © Getty Images

I read Rahul Bhattacharya’s “where is my love for cricket gone” piece with great interest. Like him, in recent times, I’ve experienced a rather dismaying loss of interest in the great game.

Last year, I could not be bothered to pay attention to the India-West Indies one-day internationals, and this year, I barely took note of the Asia Cup. Given the Asia Cup involved India playing Pakistan, I should have been more enthused, but the emotional roller-coaster that I associate with those encounters was missing. And it is not just with ODIs that I’m finding it hard to get excited about. The South Africa-West Indies series also failed to evoke serious interest on my part: I had subscribed for a broadband video package but spent most of this last Test thinking about, and watching football.

I mention football deliberately because La Copa Mundial brought me two things that I’ve been missing (rather desperately) in a lot of recent international cricket: a physical environment that places the game in an appropriately dramatic setting and a meaningfulness associated with each game. (I know a lot of folks aren’t happy with the number of goals scored and the refereeing, but that for now, is besides the point).

The meaninglessness of so much international cricket that is played in a year has been commented on in too many fora and by too many writers to bear repeating here. There is much to be learned from football here, especially as regards the World Cup.

Ironically, even though the football World Cup has become bloated in recent years, its qualification process and structure still make a good case for a leaner, meaner cricket World Cup; one staged every two years, and featuring a qualification system that permits six countries to qualify (15 round-robin games, to eliminate two more teams, then semi-finals and finals). Qualification points would be earned over the intervening two years’ ODIs. It would make individual ODIs more meaningful and hopefully lead to some standardisation of the annual ODI calendar.

I know this cuts against the grain of the “lets popularise cricket world wide by bringing in minnows” thesis but there are many other ways to do that without sinking cricket’s premier tournament.

The question of an appropriate setting and stage for cricket is a little more tricky. The sights and sounds of a World Cup football game are among the most enthralling in sport. It would be too much to expect such an atmosphere at all Test matches or ODIs but cricket seems to specialise in providing the direct opposite.

For a few years now, watching a Test in the subcontinent or even the West Indies has been to watch a rather drab affair. The aura of an important international game is simply not to be detected. The stands are, more often than not, sparsely populated, the ground’s physical infrastructure is substandard, and there is little spectator atmosphere to soak up or revel in. To tune into too many cricket games today is to be treated to the sight of an international sporting event taking place in a rather forlorn setting. While the game is supposed to provide sporting drama by itself, it is always aided by its placement. That, in modern cricket, too often seems to be lacking.

I’m still looking forward to the India-Sri Lanka Test series. As Rahul Dravid sagely pointed out a while ago, there is a challenge to be met here. But even acknowledging that fact will not bring about an abatement of the desire for packed and boisterous stadiums. I wouldn’t even mind a few vuvuzelas being sent over from South Africa.

England have the potential to become a force in one-day cricket © Getty Images

I've just returned from two weeks in South Africa, haven't been anywhere near a World Cup game, haven't been following any cricket results and yet ... I've got World Cup Fever! Yes, it's the round-ball game I'm talking about but with the little white one made of leather. I'm really looking forward to cricket's World Cup next year. It promises to be a genuinely open contest with just about every major country fancying their chances. At this stage, I'm prepared to go out on a limb and leave West Indies off that list but just about every other team is capable of winning the trophy. And isn't that what the World Cup should be about?

Chatting to the more football-crazy tourists in South Africa, while I was looking after some Australian clients on safari in Kruger National Park, you get the sense that the football World Cup is a genuinely open competition. Just about every team that showed up, barring the obvious long shots, seemed to believe that they could win it, judging by the self-belief of their supporters. Even allowing for obvious jingoistic (patriotic) fervour, their optimism appeared genuine. I suppose football, with tighter scorelines where a single goal could decide a game, is more open to that sort of scenario, whereas cricket will generally need more than one moment of attacking brilliance. It's harder to win a cricket World Cup with tight defense. You need to go out and play positively for 80% of the duration rather than nicking an early advantage and then defending stoutly for the rest of the match.

I can't say I was surprised to hear that England were 2-0 up in the ODI series against Australia. It's not that I think Australia are a poor side - far from it. They're obviously still one of the best teams going around but that's exactly the point - they're now one of the better teams rather than being a clear No 1. Unlike during the last decade or so, when they clearly justified their top ranking at World Cups, this time around they will have every reason to be optimistic (that's just the way Australian cricket teams mentally prepare themselves) but none of the other teams will freeze with fear. A healthy respect all round me thinks.

England are clearly one of the most-improved teams. They seem to have a versatile and athletic unit, not necessarily revolving around any one individual, although Pietersen is still the scalp that will be most treasured. South Africa must surely shrug off their bad luck at major tournaments soon and. with arguably the world's most in-form player in AB De Villiers and wristy players like Hashim Amla to complement their coterie of allrounders, they will feature in the final shake-up.

Naturally, the hosts will be among the favourites to make the last four (Bangladesh excluded). Local support, local conditions and good depth are valuable assets in a long competition. I honestly can't see Bangladesh going all the way but the way they played (in patches) in England suggest that they may cause more than one upset, perhaps doing enough to derail another favourite. It will be interesting to see if Muttiah Muralitharan can be as effective as he once was in these conditions. I get the sense that he is not feared in the same way, although that might yet work in his favour. Harbajhan Singh is bowling well but India will need some good support for him, or teams will just sit on him and target the likes of Pathan, Jadeja or Mishra. India's fielding too will be crucial to their prospects.

New Zealand are always dangerous in World Cups, although they seem to lack the genuine depth of world-class players to go all the way. In subcontinent conditions, though, if Vettori is in top form and with clever use of medium-pacers on 'tired' pitches at the end of the tournament, they pose a credible threat. They bat deep, if not with any world-class pedigree but if it comes down to a scrap, New Zealand will fight to the death.

Pakistan are the big unknown. As always. The pitch conditions should pose no problems for them. It might just come down to whether the team dynamic is going through a smooth phase during that period or if there is yet another upheaval, either in the dressing room or at board level. They have the players to win it but they will need to soon start shedding the "unpredictable, mercurial, hot & cold" sort of reputation. The professional game cannot indulge such excuses, even though that is often what makes them such an alluring side to watch. For Pakistani supporters, I daresay they'd prefer a more predictable and bankable commodity at the expense of the usual roller-coaster ride.

Australia, of course, will probably enter the tournament as joint-favourites and rightly so. Their natural competitiveness and adaptability has always been their World Cup strength, coupled with big-match temperament. They might struggle on the spin-bowling front but Nathan Hauritz has continued to improve and they may yet be able to plug that gap effectively.

The reason I'm prepared to write off West Indies this early is because I don't think they have the depth of all-round talent to go even half the distance. Dwayne Bravo is probably their only genuine allrounder (especially now that Chris Gayle is reluctant to bowl 8-10 overs) and even their wicketkeeper bats too low and poorly when compared to just about every other team. Sure, Gayle might explode and win a game off his own bat but I don't think you can get to the last four on his relaxed shoulders. And their middle order plays spin too poorly.

Ironically enough, with all the exciting young talent coming through, it might still prove to be a World Cup decided by the one of the veterans. The peerless Sachin Tendulkar looms as one of the best bets for highest runs scored, Ricky Ponting is still the Australian wicket most prized and Mahela Jayawardene is probably the danger man for Sri Lanka. Many of the other top batsmen are not young men - Virender Sehwag, Pietersen, Brendon McCullum, Gayle, Jacques Kallis, Kumar Sangakkara, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Michael Hussey are closer to the end of their careers than the start. For some, it might be their last World Cup. Pakistan's batting talent seems to be in the hands of relatively young men. Umar Akmal and Salman Butt will need to score heavily for them to feature in the final wash-up. England too have a couple of young lions in Eoin Morgan and Craig Kieswetter who may provide a good foil for their older players.

Just as the 'other' World Cup nears its climax, I can't help but feel excited about the cricket version in 2011. It will make these next few months all the more interesting. Instead of watching meaningless ODI's that merge into anonymity, I'll be keeping an eagle eye on the form players and adjusting my predictions accordingly.

Coming through Johannesburg's international airport, there was a real sense of atmosphere in the air. Even when Bafana Bafana were eliminated in the first round, the locals shrugged their shoulders and kept smiling. They played the role of perfect hosts even in the face of disappointment. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India have always been renowned for their warm hospitality but I suspect the similarity will end there. For Sri Lanka and India, especially, exiting in the group stage will be nothing short of a calamity. For Bangladesh, their best bet may well be to play with freedom and gay abandon and see if their fanatical crowds can carry them past nervous opponents. For me, the most fascinating thing will be to see how Australia approach a tournament when they are not clear favourites. It's one thing convincing yourself that you're still the best but it's a lot easier to believe that when you know everyone else thinks that too. I suspect that may not necessarily be the case in 2011- which is what makes the next few months so important in fighting for those little psychological edges.

Anyone brave enough to make any predictions? I can't pick a clear favourite just yet. That's what makes a World Cup!

The England-Australia ODIs are "a pointless irrelevance and should not have been staged" © Getty Images

The cockles of an English cricket fan's heart can always be warmed by seeing England beat Australia at cricket. I suppose that if it were inevitable that an England win in such a game would mean the outbreak of global nuclear war, or the massacre of the hostages taken in reprisal for a previous victory, there might be some twinge of concern but otherwise I cannot conceive of it being unwelcome.

And yesterday's game was an entertaining one, with some unexpectedly good batting from Michael Clarke, who has not always shone in limited-over cricket, what is fast becoming characteristically good batting from Eoin Morgan to outdo Clarke for the Player-of-the-Match award, and the result remaining in doubt until about the last eight or ten overs. All in all, pretty much what the doctor prescribes when someone complains of not having seen England beat Australia often enough.

But what on earth is the point? Why is this five-match series being played at all? Yes, I know the answer is that it makes money, but if ever there was an example of pointlessly adding to the international schedule, this is surely it.

Australia are only here at all because Leeds is dressing up as Lahore and London doing its best to be Karachi for Australia's tour of Pakistan, just as movies set in New York are often actually filmed in Toronto. They were here last year for the main event and we're off to their place this winter for the return bout, so this is just redundant - international cricket for international cricket's sake.

True, the England football team may be out of the FIFA World Cup by the time you read this, but if they manage to squeeze through, that's where the nation's attention is going to remain focused, and if they don't the sports media are in any case going to spend at least the next two weeks on the post mortem. Nobody except rabid cricket fans is going to even notice these ODIs are taking place.

And rabid cricket fans already had a juicy item on their menu as an alternative to the football in the shape of the Twenty20 Cup, the competition which usually guarantees full houses at small grounds and crowds of 15,000-plus at the big ones. This would have been the ideal opportunity to let fans see their England heroes in their county colours and thus promote the Twenty20 Cup as the premier event the ECB keep telling us it is and give it a serious chance of surviving the deadening effect of the soccer. In fact, Middlesex were promoting the Twenty20 as an opportunity to see six internationals playing – Adam Gilchrist, David Warner and Owais Shah are appearing, but Andrew Strauss, Eoin Morgan and Steven Finn have been removed from the fray by their England commitments. There is surely a case to be answered about truthfulness in a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority should anyone care to lodge one.

Of course I shall continue to watch the games, turning up in person to the one at Lord's, and with any luck be generally entertained by them. There is a novelty value in the fact that it is no longer inevitable that England will lose unless their opponents make a horrible mess of things – which is perhaps all the tweaking that was necessary to redeem the format for English audiences – and England v Australia is, as I said at the beginning, never entirely devoid of meaning.

But it is still a pointless irrelevance and should not have been staged.

Tamim Iqbal's savage century at Lord's highlights just how much Bangladesh cricket has improved © Getty Images

I enjoyed the Lord's Test more than I was expecting to. Even if when Bangladesh fielded, it was the predictable routine of the class side treating the hopefuls with something approaching disdain, when they were batting we watched real competition quite worthy of the designation “Test cricket”.

Shahadat Hossain was the first Bangladeshi ever to get his name on the Lord's honours board, which is certainly a huge achievement. That he picked up his five-for largely through the generosity of careless batsmen or, in the case of Alastair Cook's dismissal, a careless umpire does not take away from its significance in Bangladesh cricket history. It was a reward for persistence and being the bowler who looked least out of place: he looked like a county bowler finding the step up difficult while the others looked like local amateurs volunteering to give net practice.

Tamim Iqbal, the other Bangladeshi to get his name on the boards, however, got there by playing one of the most dazzling innings ever seen in a Test on the old ground. On the one day of the match when the sun shone brightly, Tamim produced an innings which beautifully matched the weather. There have certainly been bigger Test hundreds scored at Lord's, and at least one was scored quicker - Mohammed Azharuddin's century in 1990 came off fewer balls, and it is possible that Percy Sherwell's in 1907 did too in the absence of a reliable count of balls faced for matches back in his era - but I doubt that any have been played so joyously. So carefree looked his batting that he could have been having a casual thrash with his mates on a tipsy Sunday afternoon a couple of hundred yards away in Regent's Park rather than opening the batting for his country in a Lord's Test.

Not that it was stupid or mindless: as he said afterwards, his main aim was to hit the ball where the fielders weren't and he largely succeeded in fulfilling his plan - such as it was. Slip fielders placed traditionally for the opening overs are largely redundant since he is not a great driver and hardly ever edges behind, and he hits it so hard that even those he does edge usually go way over the head of any pertinent fielder in a close catching position, which means there are usually acres of space for him to send the ball towards. It is by no means as risky as it looks to the conventional eye.

Test captains and new-ball bowlers still treat this type of opening assault as an offence against nature: it is so far away from what is “supposed” to happen that they usually flounder in response. The bowlers get angrier and more frustrated and the captain has to cope with trying to set a field which might have some people in the right places while making allowances for bowlers bowling less reliably. For someone like Strauss, it is obviously a nightmare. But with the likes of Chris Gayle and Virender Sehwag as well as Tamim on the circuit, it behoves captains, coaches and think tanks to devote some serious attention to finding a method to contain these explosions.

Supporting Tamim, Imrul Kayes finally managed his maiden half-century and Junaid Siddique showed the solidity which had started to become evident when England visited Bangladesh earlier in the year. Taken overall, the Tigers' batsmen fully justified their Test status. Even tittering about or being embarrased by Bangladesh's bowling, the Lord's Test was no more or less of a mismatch than Nasser Hussain's youthful England side taking on Australia in the 2002-03 Ashes. Bangladesh weren't able to draw, let alone have a chance of winning, but this performance in overseas conditions shows that they have truly graduated.