In last year's Wisden Almanack, Matthew Engel raised this very issue. "Overwhelmingly, the game in non-traditional countries is played by expatriates, mostly South Asian. Journalists were kidded into believing that cricket was about to burst on China, on the basis of some warm comments by civil servants and a couple of coaching courses. I have seen not one shred of evidence to back this up. Are the kids playing with tapeballs on the streets of Shanghai? Are they heck!"

Take Canada. Of the squad in Nairobi at the moment, only three were born in the country, and two of those are over 35. Of the rest, five come from the Caribbean, four from India and each from Pakistan and Uganda. Whereas other Associates have a smattering of expats, Canada are utterly reliant on them.

Engel's comment attracted fierce criticism from those who either argued that England had more than their share of "imports" or that the game only spread in Asia, Africa, Australasia and the Caribbean through expats playing it in the first place.

The worry in some countries is that rather the game is not being continued by the second and third generations but is only being maintained by a steady flow of new immigrants

With regards to England, yes there have been quite a few non English-born players who have been picked for the side, but the game still has a massive stronghold in the country. The selection has been more about improving a solid side. And as for the ex-pats argument? Well, yes, but that's the crucial point. In the regions flagged the game was brought in but it was then embraced by the indigenous population and taken on as their own. This is exemplified no better than in CLR James's seminal work, Beyond A Boundary.

The worry in some countries - and again I come back to Canada - is that rather the game is not being continued by the second and third generations but is only being maintained by a steady flow of new immigrants. Canada's cricket heritage is rich but there is little sign that it has been built on. This is best underlined by the selection of former West Indies international Anderson Cummins. Forty years old and without a major match to his name since 1995-96, he made his debut in Mombasa last week. What message does that send out about the strength in depth of cricket in Canada?

It's not just Canada. Look at the USA, whose 2004 Champions Trophy side was a collection of ageing expats whose performances verged on the disgraceful. And the UAE, which is almost entirely dependant on its ex-pat workforce to keep the game alive.

Cricket's expansion should not be about filling teams with expats and expecting the locals to get excited about it. The only way cricket can gain a foothold in emerging countries is by actually getting the indigenous population to embrace the game, and two excellent examples where this is happening are Nepal and Uganda.

Anderson Cummins of Barbados, West Inbies ... and now Canada © Eddie Norfolk

Does it matter? Yes, because as the ICC looks to develop the game in as many places as possible, that means the financial cake has to be cut in ever thinner slices. The ICC needs to concentrate on a smaller number of countries where the chances of the game taking off. It is invidious that Uganda gets the same basic allowance as Belgium.

Cricket is in trouble in its traditional homes in Africa - Zimbabwe are hell-bent on destruction and South Africa seems to be falling out of love with the game. So efforts should be made in Uganda . And in Asia, which everyone accepts is the game's stronghold, a side like Nepal should really be given the leg up. It's about targeting rather than a scattergun approach.

In fairness to the ICC, they have a tough time and a lot of countries scrambling for a share of the spoils. It's about weeding out the weak and really looking to grow the game in areas where it has the best chance of taking root. It's an almost impossible ask. Look at the repeated failure of American Football to crack Europe ... and if football itself still battles for acceptance outside expats and schools in the USA, then the size of the ICC's task becomes clear.

Of course expats have a key role to play in expansion. But if the game is basically played by them, is it the game spreading or is it more about diehards clinging to the traditions of their homelands? In the UK there are baseball and American football sides, but they are almost all expat Americans and so few would seriously claim the games have taken hold. However, basketball and ice hockey are widely played by locals, boosted by some imported players and expats, and, crucially, the national side can stand on its own two feet. That's the difference.

I am not one to usually comment on Cricinfo but what an ill informed article. Cricinfo does a great job, but not when discussion focusses on a couple of examples and fails to mention the large support there is for cricket in several of the ICC Associates. I am a Scot and a cricketer, although now living in New Zealand. When I lived in England, three of our local team were Scots, we all followed the Scottish team and cheered them on to our (admittedly short) adventure in the 2000 world Cup. I can't comment for the other countries, but in Scotland and Ireland there is significant interest and support for the national teams. Check out the coverage the national papers if you wish for evidence. Yes, there are new immigrants in both teams, but the English team has rarely been without a smattering (sometimes more) of recent arrivals. Both are also dominated by home grown talent, particularly amongst the youngsters. If you want further evidence, there are more active cricket players in Scotland that rugby players. If you are going to critcise our team, at least get your facts straight.

I agree 90% with you, Martin.
But no word about Netherlands in your paper. As far as I know, their national side is NOT filled up with expats (except Ryan ten Doeschate who is born in RSA and Adeel Raja born in Pakistan)! Yes it is true that cricket is not as popular in Holland as soccer, but there you have a country deserves some money and support from ICC to get things running !

Maybe you aim to high by expecting a hole nation to be obsessed with one sport: of course there is South Asia, but in time even there things will change. There is one No. 1 sport worldwide and that´s Soccer and then there is an abundance of many other sports that thrive in a smaller way. Cricket has a couple of strongholds all over the globe, which is more than most games could claim, so be happy about that. But a sport doesn´t only need money, interest has also to be generated.
So Cricinfo can play a part in that by putting more attention on matches "beyond the Test world". It´s bloody hard to keep track of the results there. Lastly, don´t forget the influence of TV rights (Poker is becoming almost a national sport in Germany at the moment because it´s shown on TV). So how about making TV deals that allow for Eurosport coverage for example.

Progression and interest in a sport like cricket starts with the kids at school. When a nation begins to back modified, playable versions of that sport at the playground, the park and sandy beaches, you have the makings of a fun, common interest - and grass-roots seeds for future generations of both players and supporters. In Australia, you grab a tennis ball and play French cricket, 'hit and run', beach cricket - anything to make it fun, safe, simple, exciting and relatable for kids...

Hear any modern successful cricketer talk and you will hear tales of their yearning to play any form of the game as a kid.

So, who else makes a serious effort to sew the interest in the game while future generations are at nipper level? And I'm not just talking about the countries playing in Nairobi...

André, your comment about there being only two expats in the Dutch side is incorrect, here's more

William "Billy" Stelling - South Africa
Peter Borren - New Zealand
Darron Reekers - New Zealand

That said, there is still a decent mainstream Dutch following and if nurtured will ensure that Dutch cricket has a bright future.

The worry when it comes to Europe is Denmark, their mainstream playing numbers are dropping sharply and something is needed urgently there to prevent a complete loss of mainstream interest

Well I fully agree that cricket is far far away from being a global sport . It's popular in barely 10 countries and the examples given about Canada and UAE were perfect as they show how narrow cricket's reach has been in terms of local people in these countries . If i could advice ICC i would ask them to use the popularity of 20-20 cricket in these countries . I don't think people will be interested in test cricket , and some people may even find a 7 hour ODI too slow and long . If cricket has to spread 20-20 is it's last hope .

I agree with a lot of Martin's comments, but he does Scotland and Ireland a disservice by suggesting these countries are also overly reliant on ex-pats. Of course, there are non-nationals in both teams - there again, it was an Irishman who top-scored for England in today's latest dismal effort from Duncan Fletcher's mob in Australia - but the numbers of indigenous cricketers are growing in both countries. By the by, if there is a better game of cricket in the whole World Cup than the World Cricket League match between the Celtic rivals today - where Scotland required 15 from the last over and won by three wickets, chasing 280 - then it will be one hell of a tournament!

Kenya, Scotland, Ireland, Uganda, Nepal and the Netherlands would seem to be the places to focus on to ensure that popularity spreads. These places are spread around the world and would ensure more global popularity.

Of course China would also be wonderful but I've heard conflicting reports on how popular the sport is actually becoming, so I can't really comment on that one.

If only we could get North America and China on board the cricket train eh? The proverbial bandwagon would be unstoppable.

In the last two years in New York, I've met an ex-Iranian cricketer, ex-Japanese Cricketer, three die-hard American Cricket fans (two are women.) Most of them came across cricket through ex-pat populations, so I find your argument hard to support. In the US, second and third generation kids of South Asian descent who live around New York do maintain touch with Cricket. The ICC at the moment is being run like a business, they are trying to tap the lucrative markets (US, UAE, China, etc...) where they feel return for their investments is higher. I think that is the main problem with the way ICC is dealing with Associates.

It was a very keen article from Martin - But there are couple of positive scenario's too. I live in the US and in one of the counties called Parsippany - the High school has appointed a cricket coach a native american !! I do have to agree that there are considerable expats living in the county but as commonly agreed the game is being spread more by the presence of expats. Another great welcome sight is a public park in Piscataway in NJ - where lots of cricket teams all dressed in whites and playing on matting wickets can thrill a real cricket lover..:-))

But apart from that the only way to spread cricket is
1. ICC should attack the schools - thats where a decisions are made by kids whether to follow the sport or not...
2. Invest in coaches for schools in all non-cricket playing countries..
3. Try to set up leagues to hone the skills of kids coming out of schools in the nearby vicinities where cricket currently is establishing..
4. Buy free TV broadcasts on major channels like ESPN etc for twice a week broadcasting local cricket matches(this is where ICC has to pitch in strongly...)

with these steps being implemented in serious way - I see no reason why cricket cannot spread...

Another note of caution - ICC has to monitor the dwindling interest on cricket wrt basket ball/soccer among the following nations and take steps accordingly wrt say for example in carribean..
Anyway good to read an article from Martin.

Shrini

In italyit's even worse, out of 11 players only 3 are home grown the rest are Sri Lankans, pakistanis and South Africans... Just think that the captain/coach is Joe Scuderi, italian passport holder,but doesn't speak a word of it...

Cricket needs to be modified to be a game that both adults (regardless of age), and children can enjoy, without being competetive at the international level. Perhaps playing with a special rubber ball, and or fielding with gloves, and a smaller field can help. It is hard to find 22 players to play, even in the well established league teams in America. Who is going to fund the development of the game in other countries?
It would be also nice to see the USA develop a strong professional cricket team from baseball players. Given their athleticism, and hand eye coordination, they can be very competetive in the world of cricket.

Cricket was spread by expats, sowhat is the problem in its continued spread by expats? Cricket was started in Asia by the English going there, so why not carry on the same tradition?

Well,
Though what martin says is partially true, I think he got it wrong in understanding how things will work.
Yes, its true that South Asian expats are the ones in most of the associate countries playing cricket, but if the ICC works well and gets a few talented ones to do wonders on the world level, it will gain interest among the locals.
Remember, when it comes to shining for your country nothing else seems to matter.
The patriotism and sense of pride that your team achieved will automatically generate a wave of interest among the locals.
Remember WC'83, people in India were before more inclined to Hockey, but that changed in a few years and we know how far Cricket has come to in India now.
Not far ago in Kenya, the win against WI created a great pool of talent, which though the lack of support from the local administration withered away.
All the ICC needs to do is go in and find the talent whoever it is to play for these countries and play well for that matter to make a big impact on world level.
Every country thrives on the patriotism factor which if used positively can do great wonders.
Think about it.

Pari

u know it wud be great if teams like india and australia - i mean their boards could allocate a certain percentage of their income to actually develop nations in cricket. its no that they cant . India is the richest team in the world in any sport - including all football clubs. they could definitely spare a few hundred thousand rupees on cultivating cricket as a hobby or pastime around the world or in designated countries.I am currently resident in the UAE and as it ws said, the only people who play the game are expats.

There are countries with high population should be targeted by ICC. USA should be there choice and Even ICC think it is hard to spread game in USA. They are wrong. I American but indian origin and other origins such as Australian, Europian south asian are in millions by number here. Marketing issue is big set back from ICC. If they tellecast FREE cricket in USA. They will get millions of viewers but too much greed for money let them not do it. Because of that watching cricket in USA is very expensive . So only die hard fans but it to watch but there many millions would make game popular if they can able to watch it. American people loves sports. ICC need to cut back in their greed and let it telecast free on sports channels and get the popularity first, once people start liking the game they can make lots of money too. American loves sports.

What bothers me most, as a native Dutch cricketer, is that the interest in cricket in The Netherlands has declined over the last few years because the BBC no longer has broadcasting rights and the fact that this has never been acknowledged by officials. If you want the interest for cricket in The Netherlands to go up again, all you have to do is have the BBC broadcast it again. I myself was stung by the cricketbug during the 1989 Ashes and it has never left me since! And I know for a fact that I am not the only one!

I think that while your article does make some good points, it is far too negative. Does anyone remember how many of france's world cup winning team of 98 were from emigre communities? Lots!!
the main thing is, that if a team is winning, the country will get behind them. Also, as has been mentioned in the other comments, there are other nations that do have local based players, if not the whole team. Nothing has been mentioned of Kenya which has a largely local born team.

I do wholeheartedly agree, however, with what you say about selective funding. The ICC should have some sort of vision of who are going to be the next test playing nations, when and how many. I think they should be aiming for around 16 or so test nations in the next 30 years, that is, by 2040. Therefore, kenya, scotland, ireland, netherlands, canada and maybe nepal should have definitive schedules for entry, particularly if zimbabwe are going to be allowed to continue playing test cricket.

May I also say that your website is truly excellent and i have thoroughly enjoyed your articles and match reports from the wcl. Could you not update the scores more often though? If cricket europe can have them live surely you can aswell.

Martin Williams in essence photographs the truth. Unpleasant but realistic.

What is it ICC want primarily? The growth of cricket in a country or the production in the quickest time possible of a decent national side? The truth is that the first is publicized as the goal but the second is realistically much easier to achieve. High performance money, which looks to be a lot, 250.000 US a year x 4 years for those who qualify for the World Cup, will not allow you to change the cultural approach your country has towards cricket, it is nothing in terms of getting the game going in the schools, but it will allow you to produce and survive with a semi professional national team. De facto now in Europe, Scotland, Ireland and Holland recruit 15 - 20 players on a basis contractual and even Italy do so with 5 - 6. Denmark courageously resist this policy and one must pay them credit for this.

In 2001, when Italy withdrew from the ICC Trophy because of the illegality of the eligibility rules, citizenship not being recognised at the time by ICC as the dominating criteria to qualify, the door opened for the standardization of cricket to the current global sporting rules. The same countries that fiercely criticized Italy's importation policy of second generation citizens from Australia and South Africa within 3 years were doing exactly that simply because finding the finished product and paying him is much less expensive, and much more succesful, than producing the player from the grass roots.

Rest assured, however, that this happens just as much in other sports. Soccer has held 18 World Cups, yet 2 countries, Brazil and Italy have won 50% of them. If we add on, Argentina, Germany and Uruguay that makes 88% and the remaining 12% is England and France winning on home soil. Money is the name of the game and from Australia to Vanuatu, going the full circle geographically and technically, we are selling a product: cricket.

wisden confuses me on its attitude to expansion. sometimes it is vehemently against it and sometimes it is trying to big-up its coverage of associate matches.

i am english, so dont have a vested interest in an obscure national team, but have been intrigued for a long time by cricket at non-test levels because for any movement not to die it needs to be growing. i dont think the icc should be in any hurry over expansion of the image of cricket, but it is vital that they are working towards it. more test teams could actually mean less intense scheduling for example. i want to know who the next potential test teams will be, and i dont want to base that or hearsay - i want better coverage to be able to make up my own mind in an informed way.

I'm a cricket tragic, but I must admit - the game is a truly elitist sport. Can you imagine any other sport in the world that says that two competing nations cannot contest at the highest level ie test cricket - yes I'm a traditionalist, because they are not in the best 10 teams in the world. Fancy a football international between Scotland and Wales not being classed as true international due to the fact that neither team is in the world's 10 best.

If we truly want to expand the game world wide, and we should otherwise we run the risk of having the situation in 50 years of talking about that quaint game called cricket they used to play in olden days, then we should open up Test status to more nations. Cricket has been played for years in countries like Scotland, the Netherlands, Canada, Kenya, Malaysia, the USA and Ireland. Let them play test matches, this will give the game far more exposure. Can you imagine the press in Scotland if England played Scotland in a test match at Edinburgh? Let them play the 10 best, not all the time, but often enough for them to get an idea of where they need to improve to become the best. How does this fit with the ICC Test Championship - who cares!! Why not once every fours have a Test match World Cup? Maybe that might stimulate interest in the longer form of the game. God knows we need something, otherwise in years to come they'll say 20/20 games are too long and maybe we should play 10/10 games. Sorry, yes I'm a traditionalist.

I also think the senior ICC members need to help out more. In the British Isles we have three nations playing in the ICC England, Scotland and Ireland. And until 6 years ago no support at all for the two smaller nations by the larger. The best thing to happen to Cricket in Scotland in the last 20 years was the two world cup games we hosted and the inclusion in the Sunday League.

England have done this and its helped although more could still be done. England and Scotland have still yet to play one another in a ODI for example and yet in many other sports it was the first international ever played. If Freddie and Monty played an international at the Grange even once every two years it would be a massive boost to cricket in this country. I'm sure that if India played just one game in Nepal it would have a similar effect.

Also concerning is the eye to poach talent from ones smaller neighbours that we see however. If the sport does improve in Scotland and Ireland I fear that more players will go the Ed Joyce route and end up playing for England for very understandable financial reasons.

As many have commented in their posts, expatriates have a role to play in kindling interest and growing participant numbers. However, it is fine line. We tried for many years to start a national schools programme in the USA - at one point having close to three thousand elementary school children in California playing kiddies cricket in schools under the supervision of a professionally qualified coach - but a lack of sponsorship and funding exacerbated by an aggressive policy by the USACA administrators to protect their expatriate turf eventually saw it dwindle into pockets of lone, fanatical support on local levels, usually by one committed individual, Quel dommage!
Countries, particularly like the USA, will only be part of the cricket fraternity when we have young American children, no matter what their roots may be, playing the game with the full support of soccer moms turned cricket moms...the power house of youth sport in America. The ICC has a lot to answer in not supporting efforts to make this happen and their continual hiding behind the sovereignty of aging, self-interested cricket administrators is disingenuous to say the least. The ICC should be pro-active in forcing associates, if necessary, to promote the game to youth in member countries and be positively dictatorial about ensuring cricket administrators having constitutions and bye-laws that are open, fair and democratic to all within their purview.

Finally, bringing pressure to bear on the TV companies with whom they are economic bedfellows to show cricket on cable channels and even terresterial TV as requested by others on this bulletin will certainly help generate interest in associate members countries.

Martin Williamson's Canadian example is well made even if the target is made ridiculously easy by the Canadians choosing the short route to success with no eye on the long term.
However, he would do well to focus on genuine success stories as well. When I played junior cricket in Scotland 30 years ago, many clubs had a professional/coach who was either a retired county cricketer or an up and coming 18-20 year old from Australia, West Indies, India or Pakistan. This system significantly raised the ability level of the young cricketers. At my club alone, beneficiaries of this were the likes of Greg Williamson and Ian Stanger, both Scottish kids (at that time in the minors) who went on to play for Scotland.
In order for a sport to flourish with the locals in a particular country, the youngsters have to be able to see something achievable at the end of it. If the Canadian side is full of foreign imports, it will demoralise any youngsters who want to make it.
The point is exactly why football failed in the USA during the 1970s with the NASL. Teams had 10 ageing Europeans/South Americans collecting a pension cheque and one American. Today, American soccer has a better chance because it has built from the bottom up so that while they are not winning the World Cup, they can at least qualify for it and acquit themselves well when they get there instead of being an embarrassment.
The progression of Scottish cricket in the last 30 years has been encouraging from being involved in English one-day tournaments to now being ranked 12th in the world, winning ICC tournaments, having a group of players to count on instead of just one decent player.
Countries who want to play cricket can do as they please but those who want to play on an international level and achieve some sort of relative success must build from the inside out and there are no quick fixes. It has to be a development strategy the likes of which Scotland has done over the past three decades but which Canada is bypassing.
One thing that Martin Williamson does need to learn however, is how out of touch he is with American sports in Britain. I also played American football in Britain in the 1980s. Each team of about 30-40 players had 3-4 Americans and none of those teams was very good. Today, there are a couple of dozen teams playing in Britain's top level of amateur American football. These are teams mainly filled with British players and they are far better than we were 20 years ago. More importantly, many of those teams are coached by Brits who have learned the game from playing and from coaching with Americans. There has been great investment in local coaching personnel which has raised the game's standard and made it a decent level on the European amateur stage, advances made predominantly by Brits not Americans, an example to minor cricketing nations about the value of long-term planning.

Interesting Article! Though I am a Pakistan and support my national team, I am a die-hard fan of ‘Cricket’, the sport, and want it to spread across the globe. I have given it a lot of thought and I believe in Twenty20 cricket, cricket has finally found something that can a go a long way to make the sport a truly global sport. We have to accept it that it is almost impossible to attract people from non-test playing countries towards even 7-hour long One day cricket, let alone towards 5 day Test matches.

Though I agree with Martin on the fact that locals have to be involved, but the question is, how to get them involved? And I believe the answer lies in Twenty20 cricket. Even in Test playing countries, women and children - usually who do not make a large proportion of Test audience - take keen interest in Twenty20 cricket simply because it is short and exciting - key ingredients of success for any form of entertainment. So I believe ICC should take this form of the game to the developing markets (especially China and U.S., as they can generate huge revenues, which in turn could be re-invested in other developing nations). And schools should be targeted as the game can not only pick up from there but also it would ensure the passage of the game to coming generations.

Cheers!

Noman Yousuf,
Karachi-Pakistan.

Just to add to Ian Macintyre's post. Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are all also ICC affiliate members.

Having been brought up in Yorkshire, lived in Scotland and now living in Germany I've seen all levels of the game and outside of the Scotland , Ireland and Hollands of the world it is true that there are very few players outside of ex-pat communities. To get indigenous children to play is very hard. I run one of the most successful clubs in Central Europe in that respect. The secret there was to have a German teacher teaching in a German school. Sadly have somebody from 'outside' go into a school and try and promote cricket will always be problematic. Get a local to do it and the results can be impressive. It's really not as simple as getting into the schools. The right people have to get into the schools.

I agree with the idea of targetting the limited resources at the countries that demonstrate the best "grass roots" enthusiasm.

Having said that, in the less advanced cricket countries, Expats can have a huge role to play in cultivating the grass roots by volunteering time as coaches at local schools etc. The ICC could provide coaching kits (equipment and guides etc) for anyone aiming to spread the game in the associate countries.

But the main focus and majority of funds should go to those countries with a growing local player base. Further support for these countries should include regular contact with first class teams from the stronger nations.

If NSW or Queensland were to "adopt" Kenya and have a tour every year for 5 years by their youth teams and first class team; and give scholarships to half-a-dozen locals to go to the cricket academy for 3 months ... how quickly could we see talent coming through the local ranks.

This is really insightful article. It also goes to the nub of the issue of what really needs to be done.

On the one had we have traditional cricket forces where cricket fights a tough battle. For example the entire article does not talk about Windies but the author would agree that World Cup or no World Cup it still is a declining trend in the Carribean.

So why this sudden urge to induct China into the game when Zimbabwe is well and truly self destructed and so is South Africa.

The quality of cricketers from Sri Lanka and even India is suffering and ICC can do wonders if they can bring scientific coaching to these countries and help in developing sport injury experts and hospices etc.

Well these are things that can be talked about but ICC is interested in things elsewhere.

Interesting article, highlighting that there do definitely seem to be two types of second-tier teams - those with genuine, if small, local interest and those with mainly ex-pat involvement. From what I've read, though, China comes under neither of those headings - no expats playing it there, nor locals - but that the authorities there want to try and introduce and promote it, ostensibly as a way of creating good relations with its neighbours. If this is true, it will be an interesting experiment in whether cricket can catch on in a country from scratch these days - because you'd have thought if any 'government' could implement something like this, it would be China's. But of course it is not going to happen overnight, so Matthew Engel's comment that there aren't kids playing with tapeballs in Shanghai is a bit meaningless. See what's happened in five years time before passing judgement.

As for the other countries, I guess the ICC has to decide whether it wants to concentrate on making money out of the ex-pat ones (notably USA), or on not making any money in promoting the game more in places like Uganda and Holland where there's more chance of it catching on amongst the local population. As has been mentioned, though, Twenty20 looks a good way of getting it to catch on.

I find some of the claims in the above article seriously erroneous, especially the claim that Canadian cricket is played maily by expats.

In suport of this opinion, the writer looks at the present Canadian team members on tour in Kenya and claims that, "only three were born in the country ..., five come from the Caribbean, four from India and one each from Pakistan and Uganda. Whereas other Associates have a smattering of expats, Canada are utterly reliant on them."

The problem with this view is that it seems to have some kind of purist notion of blue eyed-blond hair stereotype when it names "real" Canadians. The writer needs to be reminded of the elementary fact that modern Canada is a country of immigrants and ALL the players on the Canadain team are Canadians, not just the three who were born there. To refer to the other eleven members of the Canadian squad as "expats" is more that being biased or misinformed: it is plain nonsense as the category "expats" is distinctly different from naturalized citizens of modern states.

I salute the Canadian team in Nairobi and wish them well.

Canadian Cricketer in Thailand

I think the article is right. The ICC should target a fewer number of countries and really give them a bigger hand. But it is not just the ICC, the major cricket countries should start programmes to help those who have some good grass roots interest in the game. A good idea would for a major country to partner a lesser country and start all kinds of 'cricket cultural transfusion' : Australia partners Uganda, India partners Kenya, New Zealand partners Singapore for example.. I say Australia because at the SCG a local cricket club was collecting used cricket gear to go to Uganda.. I suggest Singapore because there are 2 blokes there that have got over 100 kids going to regular clinics/games in less than a year.
Kenya though is worst example of neglect --Semi Finalists in the last world cup: Here was something that the other cricket countries should have cherished and nurtured (espicially as Zim was going out the back door at the same time). Instead what happened ?

I really hope that I can witness one of these new countries take on Australia at the MCG for the boxing day test -- and be competitive. Will it be in my life time ?

I have never replied to anything on Cricinfo before but as a passionate cricket fan and brought up on the game here in Australia, I agree with some points but also believe some have been missed out. Whilst I would love to see the game become truly global, the ICC needs to target the 'next level' teams first and they are Ireland, Scotland, Kenya and The Netherlands.This has been mentioned by other subscibers and I agree.They all have predominantly home based players and some really decent ones at that. Ireland and Scotland are of course close to England and I would have thought with the closeness of these countries, the progression would be natural.The ICC need to build a stronger base here. The Netherlands is a must for cricket as it gives the cricketing world a true European base. The players are passionate and are good enough to play more cricket at the higher level. Kenya has a short but decent record in the game with world cup wins over the West Indies and Sri Lanka and a semi final berth in 2003.It would be great to see these sides play more and even if that meant getting them out to Australia to play our state sides for tours, or to other countries as well, this would help the development and experience factor. Cricket has a wonderful opportunity but if the funds are spread too thinly then not much progress will happen. If these teams take off, and they will with the proper backing, then more money will be generated down the track and other areas of the game can be developed.There must be a ranking that the ICC can introduce to work out the strength based on public interest, revenue raised, registered players and of course ability as well. Canada would be the next country that needs to be cracked after the four I mentioned but the 'locals' need to be involved. Good luck with it and I hope the game does spread but in the correct manner for the future strength of the areas concerned.