From D Yogesh, France

It's time to stop linking an expert's commentary with his team's performance © AFP

Ian Chappell, like his brother did, seems only to divide opinions of sub-continent followers. His latest branding of some of Shahid Afridi's actions as "idiotic" has led to vilification from many Pakistanis. Just the way the Indians reacted when he called for Sachin Tendulkar's retirement after the 2007 World Cup.

Firstly, on Tendulkar. If I remember right, Chappell was not alone in calling for his retirement. There were hordes of Indians, too, wondering in more polite terms about Tendulkar's decision to continue playing despite a "seemingly" interminable decline. One among these hordes was a man considered by many to be one of India's finest cricket writers and a Tendulkar admirer for long - Rohit Brijnath. Similar doubts went through the mind of many a writer, spectator and even ardent devotees (I am one of them). Some voiced it publicly and politely like Brijnath, and others more bluntly like Chappell.

Of course just as geniuses do, Tendulkar answered his critics with his performance. But that does not blind the fact that Tendulkar's form and runs were deserting him since the 2003 World Cup. Everybody knew it. Injuries were piling up. Many of us hoped he would capture some of the magic of his youth and sign off stylishly, but I would like to hear from someone who believed he would have the almost super-human second-wind he has had since then.

Despite my strong conviction that Tendulkar is the best player post-1990s, I respect the opinions of those called for his head. There is something seriously wrong with the media if not a single writer calls for the head of a No. 4 batsman whose averages for four consecutive years are as follows - 17 (5 matches), 91.50 (10 matches), 44.40 (6 matches), 24.27 (8 matches), with even the 91.50 being primarily due to three not-outs.

Now coming to Afridi issue. Chappell is not the first and will not be the last to describe Afridi's actions in such a manner. The problem being that the man as a bowler and captain seems to be intelligent but as a batsman, the less said the better. Here's what Wasim Akram said about Afridi : "If Afridi hasn't learnt to bat in 10 years, then I wonder when he will." Well, how would you bluntly call a man who has not learnt his daily trade in 10 years ? For a start, 'idiotic' is not a bad word. Akram put it in polite terms and Chappell put it bluntly.

I do not agree with Chappell's stubborn refusal of Afridi's captaincy and indeed, Chappell, like many strongly opinionated commentators has often infuriated me with inflexible opinions. But should that mean I vilify a commentator just because we differ on something?

What is more disheartening is to see are comments insinuating that since Australia lost to Pakistan, Chappell has lost his right to criticise Pakistan. I am not sure how Australia's cricket performances bestow rights on Chappell to praise or criticise the opponent. Does it mean that if Australia wins, all that Chappell, Taylor and Healy say should be embellished in gold? Even in the comments section, an Indian cannot criticise a Pakistan or Australia player. The first response is 'look at your own team and they are struggling'. Well, even if that is the case that neither proves or disproves my criticism and only diverts attention from it. If I am allowed to criticise players from teams only when India defeats them, then for the most of 1990s, I would have been on a silent-vow. Even in the last month, should I criticise only the Associates, Bangladesh and West Indies?

It is sad to see a good writer like Kamran Abbasi, too, linking Australia's poor performance with Chappell's commentary. I agree with Abbasi's article except his last paragraph that equates Chappell's reference to Afridi with Australia calling him so ("Indeed, a more troublesome issue for Australia is that your World Cup campaign must be in genuine danger if you are walloped by a team led by an idiot?"). The article was indeed an apt response barring this last paragraph. Such vilification of commentators and writers is nothing new and seems a clear case of pseudo-nationalism.

It reminds me of friends who were upset that Danny Boyle was showing Indian slums, forgetting that countless Indian directors had done so. Their fury was not that India had despicable slums or someone had shown it but rather a foreigner had exposed the country's ugly side to the world. Ditto is the case here. The issue seems to be less about Tendulkar's retirement or Afridi's idiocy but more about an Australian calling it.

Increasingly, cricketing discourse and especially comments sections on many forums are marred by such narrow-mindedness. If Chappell calling Afridi's actions as idiotic is wrong, then please say so and explain it. Indeed, question his double standards over Afridi's and Brett Lee's celebrations? Chappell's favourite Shane Warne was no less a exhibitionist on the field. But why bring his nationality or his national team's performance into the picture? They bear no relationship whatsoever to the validity or invalidity of his comments.

Respond (positively or negatively) by every means possible to the comments if you want to, or reject them, but please do not pollute or pervert interesting discussions by going after the writer or the commentator. They are not paid to commentate on only one team or the winning team. It's a sad development if even the so-called experts who respond to them are being jingoistic and only encouraging base pseudo-nationalistic tendencies among fans.

From Nishad Jayasundara, Sri Lanka

The tussle is on © AFP

Sixty years ago, Sri Lankan cricket used to be a gentleman's game. Gentlemen used to be and had to be only English-speaking elite from Colombo. Wild-haired Malingas and wide-eyed Muralitharans were clinging on to metal fences outside prestigious cricket clubs watching men in white taking tea breaks.

Times have changed for Sri Lankan cricket and cricketers. Since independence, if there is anything Sri Lanka has made a significant progress in, it is cricket. It has become a part of life, a topic of debate in the parliament and in the street corners. It has pierced through to the smallest village in the country, crossing socio-economic boundaries and defying ethnic barriers. Over the last two decades players from all corners have rallied together making an unorthodox yet very effective unit, ready to take on the world. And they did it in style in 1996.

They named it the Sri Lankan brand of cricket; it is a blend of aggression of the Australians, efficiency of the South Africans, raw talent of the Pakistanis, passion of the Bangladeshis (now) mixed with a Caribbean flair. The Sri Lankan brand has been a treat to watch. In this World Cup, the Sri Lankan team looks more prepared than ever, with a mix of youth and experience in the likes of Mahela Jayawardene and Angelo Mathews coupled with the flamboyance and fortitude of Kumar Sangakkara and Thilan Samraweera.

Unlike a few centuries ago, this time they are prepared for the Queen's team. In their own backyard, playing against a team known for its weakness on spin-friendly surfaces and looks visibly tired from being on the road for the past six months, the Sri Lankans could not have asked for a better team to play against in a crunch match. Twenty million people are hoping for a re-enactment of 1996 quarterfinals - when the English were comprehensively beaten.

Although a repeat of that act appears just around the corner, there is a hint of skepticism in every fan. There is something about the Sri Lankan outfit that creates a doubt in your mind. It might be the fact that Sri Lanka, barring New Zealand, haven’t yet beaten a significant opponent this tournament. Even against New Zealand, the Sri Lankan middle order faltered. Malinga has been wayward, except for one game against Kenya, Upul Tharanga looks a bit edgy and Tillakaratne Dilshan is due a big score.

Compared to 1996, England have come a long way as an ODI team. They boast a group of utility players in Ravi Bopara, Paul Collingwood, James Tredwell and Tim Bresnan. Greame Swann looks threatening on spinning tracks, except when there is dew. More importantly, England are the only team in this World Cup to not to lose a game to a bigger Test-playing nation. No matter how tired they look, regardless of the battered psychological state of the English camp, when they are up against a formidable side, they seem to pull it off.

Can they do it on Saturday on a tricky Premadasa track against the quality of Murali and Malinga? Would they be mystified by Mendis? A couple of solid performances from the top order, accurate bowling from Malinga and some late over fireworks from Mathews should be enough to take Sri Lanka through. We all know Sri Lanka can do it. But no one wants to say it, every one gulps the words when they appear to come out, because you just never know. After all it is against the Queen's team, and they invented the game.

From Venkataraghavan Srinivasan, India

The group stage has drawn to a close and the quarter-finals are underway. There have been phenomenal innings filled with lusty hitting, but there have also been instances when wickets have fallen like a stack of cards, or dominos. South Africa self-destructed on Friday against New Zealand to be knocked out of the World Cup. Here, we look at ten batting collapses, some similar, some even more dramatic, from the group stage.

Dale Steyn crippled India in Nagpur © AFP

No. 10

13/5 in 32 balls

West Indies v South Africa

209/5 in 42.1 overs to 222/10 in 47.3 overs (batting first)

Result: Lost

This was the first real ‘big name’ match of the World Cup. For 42 overs, it was shaping up into a cracker. With Shivnarine Chanderpaul at the crease and Kieron Pollard and Darren Sammy still to come, 300 looked possible. However, Imran Tahir, on his debut, and Dale Steyn dismantled the lower order with tight, precise bowling. South Africa cantered home with a century from AB de Villiers.

No. 9

27/5 in 51 balls

Ireland v Bangladesh

151/5 in 36.3 overs to 178/10 in 45 overs (chasing 206)

Result: Lost

Bangladesh had lost to Ireland in the 2007 World Cup. They needed to win this one at home for pride and to keep their quarter-final hopes alive. Instead, they struggled against a disciplined Irish bowling attack and an unflappable batting line-up. Shafiul Islam, who had World Cup figures of 9-0-80-1, came back for a fiery second spell of 6-1-10-4. The Irish lower order was mopped up and Bangladesh were on their way.

No. 8

7/5 in 30 balls

Bangladesh v West Indies

51/5 in 13.5 overs to 58/10 in 18.5 overs (batting first)

Result: Lost

Bangladesh were ranked higher than West Indies coming into the World Cup, and it seemed to rankle the latter. Electing to bat, Bangladesh were already in a heap of trouble at 51 for 5 in the fourteenth over, and were looking to rebuild. West Indies, however, went for the kill. Kemar Roach, Sammy and Sulieman Benn, who had shared the first five wickets, shared the last five as well, and West Indies had proven a point.

No. 7

11/5 in 40 balls

West Indies v India

154/2 in 30.2 overs to 165/7 in 37 overs (chasing 269)

Result: Lost

Zaheer Khan started the slide by castling the well-set Devon Smith. The next over, Harbhajan Singh had the dangerous Pollard caught at long-on. The keeper Devon Thomas was stumped and the captain Sammy was run out. Yuvraj Singh then had Russell caught at point off an uppish cut. West Indies had collapsed against India, South Africa and England.

No. 6

3/4 in 21 balls

West Indies v England

222/6 in 41.1 overs to 225/10 in 44.4 overs (chasing 244)

Result: Lost

England and Bangladesh’s place in the quarter-finals hung on the result of this match. Ramnaresh Sarwan and Andre Russell had taken West Indies to within 22 runs of victory. And then, Man of the Match James Tredwell trapped Russell in front and Graeme Swann took Sarwan and Roach. A Benn run-out later, England had lived to see another day.

No. 5

11/5 in 11 balls

India v England

327/5 in 48 overs to 338/10 in 49.5 overs (batting first)

Result: Tied

Tim Bresnan bowled a terrific 49th over. He started with a slower ball that Yusuf Pathan skied to mid-off. Next ball, he yorked and bowled Virat Kohli, who had given himself too much room. Two balls later, he yorked Harbhajan and had him adjudged leg before. The next over, two run-outs followed five no-balls and India had lost half their team in less than two overs.

No. 4

8/4 in 17 balls< br>
England v India

281/2 in 42.3 overs to 289/6 in 45.2 overs (chasing 339)

Result: Tied

If Bresnan did it for England, Zaheer did it for India. England were coasting to victory when they took the batting Powerplay in the 43rd over. In the fourth ball, Ian Bell skied Zaheer to mid-off. Next ball, Zaheer bowled an inswinging yorker to Andrew Strauss, batting on 158, and had him leg-before. Two overs later, he knocked back Paul Collingwood’s off-stump. The following over, Harbhajan had Matt Prior holing out to midwicket.

No. 3

3/4 in 31 balls

South Africa v England

124/3 in 31.5 overs to 127/7 in 37 overs (chasing 172)

Result: Lost

A lucky wicket started this one. AB de Villiers left a James Anderson delivery outside off alone, but the keeper noticed belatedly that the bails had fallen. Replays showed that the ball had nicked off-stump. Two balls later, the other set batsman, Faf du Plessis was run out. The following over, Anderson returned to bowl JP Duminy and South Africa had lost three wickets on the same score. Three overs and runs later, Michael Yardy had Robin Peterson caught behind.

No. 2

14/5 in 53 balls

Bangladesh v England

155/3 in 30.5 overs to 169/8 in 39.4 overs (chasing 226)

Result: Won

The only team on this list to collapse and still win. Bangladesh were cruising to victory until Imrul Kayes ran an impossible second and was found short. Five overs and seven runs later, Shakib Al Hasan played Swann onto his stumps. Two balls later, Ajmal Shahzad had Mushfiqur Rahim caught behind. In his next over, he bowled Naeem Islam. The following over, Bresnan took a diving catch off a high ball at long onto dismiss Abdur Razzak.

No. 1

29/9 in 55 balls

India v South Africa

267/1 in 39.3 overs to 296/10 in 48.4 overs (batting first)

Result: Lost

The single largest collapse in the World Cup belongs to the most vaunted batting line-up. After dominating 80% of their innings, India let it go in the last 20%, and it all began with the batting Powerplay. Sachin Tendulkar, after a terrific century, sliced Morne Morkel to point. The next over, Steyn had Gautam Gambhir and Yusuf Pathan playing mistimed lofted shots to men in the circle. Yuvraj lifted the last ball of the Powerplay to long-on. Then, Kohli pushed the ball back to Peterson. Steyn crashed Harbhajan’s stumps. Peterson had Zaheer caught at long-on. Steyn returned to get rid of Nos. 10 and 11 off consecutive deliveries.

From Brad Hinds, Australia

Ricky Ponting did all he could to ensure success for his team, but his century – his first in 13 months – proved futile © AFP

The reign has ended. Here endeth an incredible era of Australian cricketing dominance. The passing of the World Cup in the tense quarter-final match in Ahmedabad between Australia and India is a poignant and poetic representation of things coming full circle. It was a brave battle fought by both sides, but it was India’s temperament and determination which propelled them beyond the line, past their long standing adversaries, and into a future of new frontiers and new possibilities.

It has been 12 years since Australia won the 1999 World Cup – almost 12 subsequent years of dominance. It is because of the grandeur of Australia’s passing that the era isn’t said to have ended with either the loss of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy or indeed the loss of the Ashes on Australian soil. It was Australia’s loss against India in Ahmedabad that represented a culmination of all of these failures. It started with the World Cup. It ended with the World Cup.

The reign has ended. Ricky Ponting has seen the very best of that entire period, and has now witnessed its bittersweet end. Like Australia, he has largely dominated the international cricket stage. It was his unforgettable innings of 140 in the 2003 final against India that got Australia their second consecutive World Cup win. He subsequently led Australia to victory again in the 2007 edition. It was he who carried on from Steve Waugh to set up 34 consecutive World Cup victories. With this in mind, Ponting has been synonymous with Australia’s greatest successes (and some equally great failures) ever since Australia won the World Cup in 1999.

It might be brutally harsh to Australian cricket fans who witnessed those glory days and were tempted to think they’d continue when it seemed for a little while as if Australia might just make it into the semi finals. It was Ponting himself, in the face of some overwhelming scrutiny, who walked out to the crease horribly out of form and played a classy innings of 104 in tough conditions – in what is likely to be his last ever World Cup match. It was he who kept Australia's futile hopes alive. That in itself seemed fitting for a player who has, on so many occasions, taken Australia across the finish line. He is, of course, the only player still in the side from that remarkable win against Pakistan in the 1999 final.

In the context of the quarter-final, he is a tragic hero. A hero for having come through when they really needed him, but ultimately coming through for nothing. It was a somewhat eerie experience watching him regain the very best of his fluency right on the precipice. He stood there almost until the very end. He seemed like the only batsman who truly cared what this game meant. But it was futile, because despite his great effort, they lost. Because India did not repeat their mistakes of 2003. Because they did not capitulate. Because they were the ones who crossed the finish line this time.

Over the next few weeks, there will be many questions asked about the ability of the current Australian line-up and, indeed, the captaincy of Ponting. He did everything he possibly could. As a batsman, and as a captain, Ponting could not have done anything differently in Ahmedabad. It was at the most crucial moment in the tournament that Ponting stood up and delivered an innings he should never forget, despite the result of the match. For the most part, his bowlers did a decent job of putting pressure on India at crucial moments. Brett Lee, especially, another Australian World Cup veteran, played like a champion.

No one should forget what Ponting accomplished. It was an inspiring tribute not only to his own contribution to the team in all formats of the game during his tenure – Australia’s greatest batsman since Bradman - but also to the greatest aspects that have characterised Australia as a whole over the preceding 12 years.

But it is time to move on. Ponting is no longer burdened by the expectations placed on a team that is nowhere near of the same caliber it used to be several years ago when many of its greats departed. He is finally free of those shackles. Free of a terrible Ashes record. Free of the expectations of winning a fourth consecutive World Cup. He has expressed his desire to keep playing international cricket, but is this something that he really ought to do? Certainly, there’s the distinct possibility he could regain, in the long term, much of the form he’s lost over the last 18 months, but does that even matter?

Ponting is 36, and as Australia finally relinquish their hold over world cricket, perhaps it is time for change. Sometimes you have to realise when it’s ‘your time’. Having gone out with dignity with a terrific century, should this be the end of Ponting’s ‘time’? That is the question he will need to seriously consider as Australia move forward from this very important defeat.

From Matthew Davies, United Kingdom

In picking Jade Dernbach, England have taken a gamble, and a good one © Getty Images

It would be easy to downplay England’s achievements in this World Cup. For the victories against South Africa and West Indies, you could point to their defeats against Ireland and Bangladesh. It is equally easy to forget that England came into this World Cup perhaps the most fatigued of all the sides, and this may have affected their performances so far, as they can only raise their strength to beat the top teams. This fatigue may or may not have played a part in the number of injuries and loss of form that have hindered England during this tournament.

With Stuart Broad, Ajmal Shazhad and Kevin Pietersen all out of the World Cup, Eoin Morgan being absent from the start before his return, Graeme Swann and Andrew Strauss perhaps not being 100% fit due to niggles and illness and James Anderson, Matt Prior and Paul Collingwood suffering from a horrific loss of form, England could have easily crashed out of the World Cup with a whimper. England, however, have defied the circumstances and now find themselves in the quarter-finals, armed with the knowledge that they can beat anyone on their day.

What has been really impressive about England though is who has stepped up. Luke Wright, who often causes bafflement amongst supporters with his repeated selection, showed his worth against West Indies, as did James Tredwell, a man whose credentials as a possible international player have been doubted. Ravi Bopara has made some telling contributions with bat and ball, and Chris Tremlett, despite being hammered by Chris Gayle and Andre Russell, still took an excellent catch to dismiss Kemar Roach. These were not the names that opposition coaches would have studied for weeks beforehand, and perhaps this has contributed to their success, but there may be another reason.

Showing trust in these relatively unproven cricketers was a gamble, but one that has been rewarded with a place in the quarter-finals. England have now taken a gamble on another man. It would have been easy to call up Chris Woakes, who has already made his international debut and was relatively impressive given the horror show of the one-day series in Australia. Likewise, Steve Finn has taken international wickets and gave a decent showing in the subcontinent against Bangladesh, though he has maybe been deemed to be guilty of bowling too many four-balls. Yet England have gone with someone who has an economy rate of 6.33 per game, in a country where pitches are meant to assist the seam bowlers.

Granted, Jade Dernbach plays his cricket at the Oval for Surrey, where the flat pitches maybe a contributing factor, but he still goes for runs. At first, to anyone who has never seen him bowl or doesn’t look at his statistics closely, it seems like madness. His strike-rate in List A cricket however is exceptional, at 25.8, which means that for every ten overs he bowls he will pick up over two wickets on average. That’s an impressive record, especially because it is equal to that of Ajantha Mendis, who bamboozles many a cricketer at domestic level. He is also a skilled death bowler, and this is most likely the reason for his selection. He can bowl bouncers, yorkers, cutters and cleverly disguised slower balls, and picks up wickets by bowling straight. What England would have given for someone who could have landed a yorker to Shafiul Islam. Dernbach might not even play a game, should Andys Flower and Strauss put their faith back in Anderson or persevere with Tremlett, but to recognise a skilled wicket-taker shows that England want to win this World Cup, rather than just avoid embarrassment. They want to adopt the same aggressive approach as Australia: win, or die trying. There is no safe option.

From Tim Wigmore, United Kingdom

Ashish Bagai was one of the best wicketkeepers in the World Cup, and Canada's best batsman as well © Getty Images

XI of the best players whose World Cup is over, featuring at least one player from each of the six knocked-out sides

Imrul Kayes

While Tamim fired only briefly, his less obtrusive opening partner was the nearest Bangladesh had to a reliable batsman this tournament. Kayes provided the backbone for their successful chases over England and Netherlands, winning the Man-of-the-Match award in both games.

Ed Joyce

His long-awaited return to Ireland colours was a disappointment in many ways – how Joyce will rue his soft dismissal against Bangladesh. But his 84 against West Indies, which begun with consecutive boundaries, was a testament to his class: he is surely the most aesthetically pleasing batsman any of the Associate nations possess.

Collins Obuya

He is remembered for his sharp-turning leg-spin in the 2003 World Cup, when he took 5-24 in the victory against Sri Lanka. Obuya’s bowling has since subsided, but he has reinvented himself as a top-order batsman of genuine quality, as 243 tournament runs illustrates. It was a great shame he ended 98* against Australia, after he had handled Tait, Lee and Johnson with the calm of a Test player.

Niall O’Brien

O’Brien will be extremely frustrated reflecting on this World Cup: he made starts in every innings but only once past 50. O’Brien’s relish for a challenge was illustrated by hitting Morne Morkel for six over long-on, one of the shots of the tournament, and an average in excess of 40 shows the quality of this most industrious of cricketers.

Ashish Bagai (wicketkeeper)

Bagai was one of the best wicketkeepers on display in this World Cup, keeping with poise to seam and spin alike. And with the bat he was easily Canada’s best player, taking them to victory over Kenya and scoring an elegant 84 at almost a-run-a-ball against New Zealand.

Ryan ten Doeschate

ten Doeschate came into the tournament with a reputation as the best Associate player in the world, and, with a century of both brawn and finesse against England, he quickly went about justifying it. Though runs proved harder to score thereafter, he chipped in with a half-century in difficult circumstances against Bangladesh, before ending the tournament with another magnificent hundred. His wicket-to-wicket bowling also troubled England.

Kevin O’Brien

Critics will say he only played one innings of note, but what an innings. O’Brien 113 against England – including 45 off 15 balls during the batting powerplay - will be remembered for decades. As a display of brutal, calculated hitting it is hard to beat – and an IPL contract could be the ultimate reward.

Shafiul Islam

Belying his ODI average of under 6, and three ducks in five innings this tournament, Shafiul proceeded to smash Swann and Anderson down the ground en route to raiding England for a match-winning 24*. His pace, movement and accuracy earned him 4/21 to clinch a narrow win over Ireland. But, like his team, Shafiul was hopelessly inconsistent, leaking 124 runs from 14 overs in Bangladesh’s three defeats.

George Dockrell

When was there last an 18-year-old spinner with Dockrell’s control and big-match temperament? In the intense pressure of the opening game in partisan Dhaka, Dockrell’s wonderful 10 overs, in which he returned 2-23, ought to have secured Ireland victory. Thereafter, he only continued to impress, with the only shame that his skipper didn’t trust him to bowl to Kieran Pollard. What odds him representing England in 2015?

Ray Price

The man with the most theatrical expressions in world cricket illustrated his guile and skill with some admirable performances, notably 2-21 of eight overs against Pakistan, and was equally effective opening the bowling or bowling in the middle overs. Nine wickets at less than 19 deserved better support from his disappointing compatriots.

Harvir Baidwan

Canada’s bustling seamer was impressive throughout, making up for a lack of express pace with nagging consistency and a touch of movement. He will be rightly proud of his haul of 13 scalps, which included Brendon McCullum, Shane Watson and Younis Khan.

From Philip and Alan Sutherland, Australia

Ryan ten Doeschate and Niall O'Brien [wicketkeeper] could be part of the same Test team © AFP

As the first nations leave the World Cup stage and, in the case of some, their barest fifteen seconds of fleeting fame – whither the Associates? They have both succeeded and failed in equal measure. Netherlands pushed England. Ireland tested Bangladesh and prevailed over England. Both Kenya and Canada showed glimpses of spirit beyond their present humble standing. Yet, if any of these nations are to rise further, opportunities must be presented to players beyond the closing door of 50-over World Cup participation and the all too brief possibilities of a Twenty20 version.

The wait that Associate nations endure is long and, therefore, their opportunities once given must be longer. At present, the long-form opportunities at the highest level seem limited to particular European players potentially donning an England Test cap. There seems no alternative other than this to a long graft, honing one’s skills at club level or in foreign competitions while first-class structures, whether national or continental, finally come to fruition.

The sad reality is that Test status, even for a skilled and centrally-contracted Irish team, is some way off. However, it is remiss of us to think of Test status as something that must pit sovereign nation against sovereign nation. It is worth remembering that if cricketers from Northern Ireland are to represent the Shamrocks against England & Wales, they are effectively joining a neighbour on the field of play against another part of their own greater nation state of the United Kingdom. There is also the matter of Rest of the World games, such as occurred at the SCG back in 2005. The Rest of the World can never be a nation state, in part or in whole. Yet, did it invalidate the idea behind the tour? We think not.

Therein may be found one possibility that doesn’t appear to have been duly considered as yet. “Rest of the World” need not merely imply a “rest of the Test world”. There is no inherent reason why such a team could not be raised entirely from the major Associates. Two World Cups in a row have indicated ample talent in the Associate ranks. Ryan ten Doeschate may never play in a Test for Netherlands, but he could play at least a couple of Tests alongside the likes of Ireland’s O’Brien brothers against a major country such as Pakistan in a major venue such as England, for example, if the ICC so wished.

Alternatively, a combined Associates team could be included in a proper Test championship. Such opportunities need to be created. One need look no further than the success of Sri Lanka to see how, in the matter of twenty years or so, a minnow can become a major force. And yes, Sri Lanka was subject to a different set of domestic circumstances, but that merely reinforces the argument that something different needs to be applied for minnows today. For an international cricketer in Ireland to have chosen the game over rugby, soccer, Gaelic football or hurling and to have devoted his time to it year after year with little fortune or fame by association is to have made a major commitment. The game would do well to be seen to reciprocate a little more.

From James Adams-Pace, United Kingdom

England have given this World Cup its most entertaining moments © AFP

On the surface, sport is concerned with results and statistics: Who won? Who scored a century? Who is top of the rankings? At this very superficial level, sport’s main priority appears to be separating the good from the bad, and the good from the best. However, this understanding of sport is hollow and is only one facet of the entire spectacle. Sport should involve examples of breathtaking talent, miraculous turnarounds, and contests that are so evenly matched that not even experts can call the result, even when the denouement is upon them. This variety of sport engrosses those who witness it, allowing them to get caught up in a battle of skill, nerve and courage that has consequences that endure on the pitch, but can be left behind off of it. This domain of real yet inconsequential drama is one that only sport can truly fulfill.

With this in mind, it is our duty to express our gratitude to England for their efforts at this World Cup, for they are the only team who have consistently transcended numbers, rankings and results and have produced true sport, in all of its exasperating and euphoric dimensions. They have ignored the logic of rankings, beating the teams that are superior to them and losing to the teams that are worse. They have not considered the health of their fans, producing “classics” or “nail-biters” in every match they have participated. Indeed, they seem to have gone against all reason and every prediction; yet, irrespective of how far they go this tournament, they have produced the type of sport that fans desire above all else.

Enough has been written about the precise details of each match, so it is necessary to consider England’s impact on the tournament as a whole, as they were, indubitably, worth more than the results they achieved. England were the team that were most keenly anticipated, the side you would not trust to get a result, but you could rely on to deliver cricket that would stir the mind. Their cricket was brilliant and terrible, forgettable and indelible, heart-aching and heart-pounding, all in the space of one hundred overs or fewer. Any team that can induce these fluctuating emotions on such a repeated basis will earn many admirers.

Crushingly efficient teams leave us feeling cold and unsatisfied; hopelessly inept sides give rise to pity and anger; a team that can be both on the same day render us speechless – but in a good way. England have been the stand-out team of this World Cup, perhaps not always for the standard of cricket they have played, but, undoubtedly, for the quality of the contests they have produced. The tournament is indebted to England; they did not just represent the good, the bad and the ugly, they also laid out the template for what true sport should be, and showed that the absolute importance of spectacles far outweighs the relative unimportance of results. After all, sport should not ask ‘who’ or ‘how many’, but ‘how’ – that is all that matters.

From Neeraj Narayanan, India

Why Associates need to play more © AFP

Once upon a time, and a really nice time it was, all that mattered in the world was an evening game of tennis-ball cricket. So even if the sun was blazing, we would run to the neighbourhood park and gather ourselves in poses just like our heroes on ESPN and Doordarshan. Some of us folded our arms and chewed gum like that great Australian captain, Mark Taylor. The bowlers in us swaggered just like Darren Gough each time we walked back to our run-ups. Hell, some of us even ‘did a Sachin’, obscenely picking at our groin, ignoring the fact that we had no guard there to adjust.

Coca Cola might have said it first, but it was we – the boys of Sector 55 Noida - who ate, slept and breathed cricket. So we played, and tried to live happily ever after but like always there was a twist in the story. Ever so often, there would be a group of older bullies who would come much later to the ground and take possession of it immediately, irrespective of the juncture at which our match was poised. Of course, you might ask the question as to why I did not stand my ‘ground’, and I will be honest enough to tell you that I would have, but I do not like spanking boys twice my size and age. It hardly reflects well on them, you see. The fact that the one time I did try and poke one of those fellows, albeit gingerly, in his stomach, they sat all over me and made me lick topsoil as well as sub-soil, is a secret that is dead and ‘buried’.

The only way we could persuade those ugly buffoons to allow us to stay on the ground was to involve them in a game. But despite their ridicule, we never distributed teams, and insisted on taking on their might and seniority. We lost every time, for they were bigger, stronger and sadly better. It infuriated me, the fact that we never came close to beating them, that we were always put in our place, that we were not good enough. But it made me and my darling team more united, for humiliation might wound and it might hurt, but it also brings one closer to those who suffer that fate. They could toy with our bowling, but not with our pride; they could skittle out our batsmen but not our spirit. Sometimes we came close, but always we lost. They also taught us to enjoy the smaller moments. Every wicket we took, every boundary we hit, the whole team would cheer, sing, cackle, hoot and sometimes even dance in an extremely ungainly fashion that only men can. And we did so because when you don’t have much to cheer about, it is these little moments that you make the most of.

And then one day we won. I do not know how or why, maybe they just played awfully badly, or maybe we were lucky, but we did. And I still remember the scenes of delirium. It wasn’t the World Cup, nor the ‘Ashes’, not even an official colony match, but it was our World Cup, our Ashes.

Sitting in my office, I was following a warm-up match online, cheering Canada’s every run in their chase against England. In the end they lost, and looked disappointed, but they ran them very close and one day they will beat them too. For that’s how sport is, and will always be. Goliath may crow nine out of ten days, but one day David will rise and beat him. Cricket is a wonderful game, not just because of Warne’s wizardry or Sachin’s genius or even Gough’s swagger. It is also made beautiful by a generously-built Bermuda policeman-cum-prison van driver who weighed 280 pounds and yet almost flew to take a blinder to dismiss Robin Uthappa, and celebrated as if he had won the World Cup. It is also made beautiful by eleven Kenyans kneeling down and kissing the pitch after beating the mighty West Indies in ’96. It becomes a better sport because it gives a war-ravaged country like Afghanistan hope and a little happiness as they notch one remarkable win after another against countries much bigger, much stronger and more fortunate. One day Canada will beat England, and they will know the joy that we knew one day in a small park in Sector 55 Noida.

From Ramsundar Govindarajan, India

All possible, even on a piece of cloth © AFP

Almost every person who’s played cricket in his childhood will recollect a host of cricket-inspired games played during school is likely to have saved him/her from the ennui of never-ending lectures, drills, assignments and exams. Before they are forgotten, I’d like to contribute my penny in documenting some of the best ones.

Book Cricket : This, probably, was the most popular game, the best possible escape from a moral-instruction class and the only alternative when bad weather made outdoor games impossible during a physical training (PT) lesson. A textbook had to be flipped open for every ball bowled and the last digit of the even number on the landing page was the score made (number ending on 0 meant out). An ‘8’ ending number could either mean no run or 8 runs according to the format of the game. Teams were made, tournaments were conducted, scorecards were painstakingly charted and World Cups were won and lost every week. Flipping and landing on the same number more than once meant the next 15 minutes were lost in a match-fixing controversy and almost every match ended in a counting debate. Every reaction of the game was emoted - be it a swashbuckling four from Azhar , the celebration of an in-swinging yorker from Akram or the intended slow flips when Tendulkar was in his jittery nineties. There was always drama, commentary and celebration.

Indoor cricket : This game was almost reserved for vacations. A green cloth (ground) was spread on the floor, which had markings for distance cleared versus runs awarded. Plastic fielders stood on V-shaped stands and were placed all over the ground. An inclined plane was supported on one end of the pitch from where a "ball bearing" was slid towards the stumps at the other end. A toothpick-sized bat was used to hit the ball. Runs were made according to the distance cleared and if the ball ran up the slide and hit the boundary, it was a six. If the ball landed in the V between fielders, the batsman was out. If the cloth shook and fielders fell, it meant a warning. Two warnings led to a dismissal. Every shot was possible –cover drives, square cuts and even make-believe pulls. Bowlers used the slide to bowl their cutters, and added backspin to turn the ball. That it took a long time to complete the match was more of a merit than a disadvantage.

There were a couple more games which I would love to go into more detail but for the space crunch. Big Fun (also a popular bubble gum in India at the time) was the single-biggest reason for oral cramps among us card-collecting youth. You were the most respected student of the school if you knew how to spell Vangipurappu Venkatasai Laxman or Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha Joseph Chaminda Vaas. And if someone brought "flipper cards" revealing a textbook cover drive from Sunil Gavaskar, he was the school hero of the day. I only hope the lectures continue to be as boring as they were, for these little things augur well for the recreational interests of school-goers and the popularity of the game itself.

From Ashok Sridharan, United Arab Emirates

Vinod Kambli: the Archie Jackson to Tendulkar's Bradman? © Getty Images

I was checking in at the Mumbai airport recently when I saw a familiar face at the neighbouring counter. At first I thought I recognised him, but I wasn't so sure since no one else was. He quietly checked in and started walking towards the security check when I mustered the courage to walk up to the man and talk to him. As it happened, my eyes weren't deceiving me. It was indeed Vinod Kambli. The man with two double-centuries and a Test average of over 50, the man who played his last Test at the tender age of 23 was standing right before my eyes!

He was delighted hear me recount that match in Sharjah eons ago when he took Shane Warne to the cleaners and still more so when I asked him for his autograph. It was in many ways a poignant moment. Here was a man no one around seemed to know or recognise (or perhaps care to acknowledge) and yet, this very same person could have been one of the all-time greats.

There was a time when he was bracketed along with Sachin Tendulkar as one of the most promising young players in world cricket. For the pre-teen boy that I was back then, the flamboyant and self-assured Kambli was far more attractive to watch than the more sober Tendulkar. Today, nearly two decades later, Sachin Tendulkar is widely acknowledged as one of the all-time greats.

Vinod Kambli is a name that is no more than a footnote- the Archie Jackson to Tendulkar's Bradman. Kambli was a man with extraordinary talent who never quite made it big - India's very own Hick, except he was dropped at 23 and never again given a shot at redemption. As many people of my age would concur, life in reality turned out to be an awful lot different from what we imagined it to be in our teenage years/early 20s. I met at the Mumbai airport that day, the very embodiment of that harsh reality.

From Srinath S, India

What better advertisement for the game than a classy hundred by a batsman from the Associate countries? © Getty Images

Not so long ago, when the Bangabandhu in Dhaka was the only international venue in the country, Bangladesh, on the back of that infamous victory against Pakistan, was warmed into Test cricket. An entire nation came together to watch its cricketers in white flannels, for the first time ever. For five days, people turned up to work in that iconic building adjacent to the ground, just to witness the action.

Ten years on, the same ground has given ODI cricket back its life, with an opening ceremony like no other. Not the most extravagant, but certainly not short on passion and warmth. For a nation that rose up the ranks through what was once the ICC trophy, it was payback time.

Bangladesh as a team still have a long way to go, but the Full member status has convinced a football-crazy population that they can compete with the best as well as their subcontinental neighbours. The rewards of having given them time and space to grow are there for the world to see. Today, they have an allrounder who can rival the world’s best and victories against higher-ranked teams are no more “giant-killing acts”.

Yes, ODI World Cups are long, produce one-sided games and attract lesser revenues than the whambang T20 ones. But, for a sport which thrives on internationals, unlike football, is it such a bad idea to give the best of these second-tier teams a place in what, ironically, the ICC has labelled “the cup that counts”?

Certainly, no Associate nation has cried out for a place among cricket’s elite since then. Ireland and Kenya have come close, with appearances in the knockout stages of the World Cup. Sport makes things happen like nothing else can. Every time an Ireland beats a Pakistan, the aftermath in the underdog nation is so profound. It encourages an entire generation to take up the sport, gives administrators a reason to promote the game and inspires the populace in more ways than one.

Take India for example. If not for Kapil’s devils, one-day cricket in India might never have been what it is today. There are enough examples in history to tell the ICC that denying Associates an opportunity to compete is a folly, no less. While on one hand, Test cricket has received a facelift through the newly announced World championship, increasing the number of teams in the World Twenty20 only shows the ICC as an organisation lacking in clarity and focus. The latter move has further reduced the chances, if ever there were any, of an Associate nation gaining entry into what is the Holy Grail of cricket- the Test championship. Whether it will increase the competitiveness of the Associate league as these teams vie for fewer slots in the World Cup remains to be seen.

T20 cricket is a double-edged sword. While the format provides room for a greater number of upsets, it brings down drastically the Associates' chances of taking their cricket to the next level. Denying them the incentive of competing in ODIs, is like inviting guests to a luncheon, serving appetisers and sending them off. If cricket’s apex body is genuinely concerned about spreading the game and improving its quality among the “lesser” nations, it must rethink its decision.

Quality might not improve overnight that way, but it at least gives such teams an opportunity, a small window into the intensely competitive world of Test-playing nations. With cash-rich T20 leagues attracting the same set of players over and over, cricket seems to be creating a shell for itself, a protective sheath into which the rest of the world should not dare to enter. Incentives like a World Cup slot can go a long way in expanding the game. After all, what better advertisement can the game have than a Ryan ten Doeschate hundred?