A week into World Cup and the Associate countries are holding their own. Over the years, there has been much debate and discussion about whether they belong in the World Cup. Many question if they are good enough, but from what we have seen thus far, they have proven their worth.

What would the World Cup be without the Associate countries, as the threat of upsets will be negated?

Many Associate nations are disturbed by hearing that in 2019, the International Cricket Council will be reducing the teams playing in the World Cup from 14 to ten.

Ireland are one of four Associate Members in the present tournament, along with Scotland, United Arab Emirates and debutants Afghanistan. But in 2019 only ten teams will take part — the top eight in the world rankings and two qualifiers.

The problem with the existing format, according to its many critics, is that the first month of the tournament is played out merely to confirm the top eight in the rankings as the quarter-finalists. “It’s almost easy, barring the odd upset or someone really having a bad tournament, you can almost predict who the top eight will be,” former India captain Rahul Dravid told ESPNcricinfo in January.

So where did all of this come from one may ask? It is easy to speculate and some may beg to differ, but in 2007 is where all this started. Yes, back when Bermuda qualified for the World Cup and they had more than one group stage.

If you can recall, there were four groups of four. Unfortunately, both India and Pakistan were knocked out early at the group stages, thus costing the tournament millions of dollars in revenue.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole idea of having Associate nations playing in the World Cup is to see if they can bridge the gap. Is it right that they are being penalised for their own success?

In 2011, there was a massive shuffle in the system. Multiple group stages were terminated and the teams were put into two pools of seven, which we see now. The way the system is, one of the elite teams could suffer a shock loss or two and still make the quarter-finals or semi-finals. For the sake of television ratings and revenues, this is what is required, but from a cricket point of view I ask again, is this right?

In this World Cup, we have seen Ireland defeat West Indies. The one thing I watched closely was the Irish players’ reaction. They didn’t jump up and down with immense excitement. It was as if they expected and believed that they were good enough to win and they did.

Scotland recently lost narrowly by three wickets to a very strong New Zealand team and UAE lost a close encounter with Zimbabwe.

The more these teams play against the elite teams, the closer the gap is closing. Are the so-called powerhouse teams scared of faltering against the minnows or are the powers-that-be protecting their interest instead of focusing on the development of cricket?

Imagine if football did the same thing as cricket. Would United States be where they are today? Back in 1990, the US lost every game in the preliminary rounds, including a staggering 5-1 loss against Czechoslovakia. However, last summer they qualified out of arguably the most difficult group, while ousting Portugal from the tournament. This is what a World Cup should be about: surprises, drama, and excitement.

It is very sad that World Cup cricket will be making these changes, with the top eight being safe. Some can argue that there are only eight elite teams — South Africa, Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, West Indies, England and Sri Lanka.

If we were to reflect on Dravid’s earlier comments, there would be a “Super Eight” World Cup without Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Why? Simply because both of these teams may go on to beat one or two of the top eight, but they will not or, should I say, should not make the quarter-finals. However, if one of these two teams do or if any one of the Associates got to the quarter-finals, then what?

Let’s face it, if they really want only “competitive” games, why not have a “Super Six” World Cup in a round-robin format.

The Associate members have done all that has been asked of them in bridging the gap. While they may not be defeating top teams every single game, they are no pushovers. If you give them another five to ten years of development, who knows how good they can become?

Here’s the question: if Ireland make it to the quarter-finals, will they still need to qualify for the next World Cup or will all the teams outside of the quarter-finals have to, even if one is an elite among the Full Members. I already know the answer, but it doesn’t make it right.

Sadly, so much is being done to protect the elite, but the Associates are knocking on the door and they are knocking harder and harder. Pretty soon the ICC will not have any option but to open the door and let them back in for the good of the game.