The World Cricket League Championship (WCLC) was introduced to reduce costs, by arranging fixtures around existing Intercontinental Cup games, and to give a more thorough examination of the relative strength of teams, in a range of conditions and climates, in order to ensure that the strongest teams qualified for World Cups.

The ICC hoped, I'm sure, to avoid the scenario they faced when Bermuda qualified for the 2007 World Cup and were helplessly and haplessly outclassed, embarrassing them, infuriating media partners and frustrating stronger teams who would have fared much better.

It should be an all ODI tournament with the HPP extended to eight teams. This would raise the profile of the tournament and make it easier to promote to fans and the media. However, this strange oversight aside, it has provided some compelling matches.

But as it has progressed its most absorbing plot has not been its primary function of determining World Cup qualification but as a yardstick to assess the impact and success of the High Performance Programme (HPP). When the HPP was created it was as if the ICC had drawn a line in the sand at a particular moment in time. For the beneficiaries this was welcome news indeed, a significant boost in funding, ODI status assured for a world cup cycle and the opportunity to professionalise the game. Meanwhile, those falling just below the line could only rue their luck that, at that point of time, they had not reached the necessary ranking.

As I wrote in a column last year, in effect this decision created a bridging membership category, that I called ‘Associate Plus', with well funded members playing in recognised, respected formats (ODIs, T20I and First Class) with development roadmaps created for them by Richard Done. How could those trapped below the line, ordinary associates, seek to compete? After all, their capacity to raise revenue and interest was limited by a lack of ODI status and without the HPP cash boost they could not offer player contracts or a packed, competitive calendar of fixtures. You would have thought the gap between the HPP nations and the rest would widen.

In some cases, of course, this has proved to be the case. Ireland and Afghanistan have monopolised T20 World Cup qualification and the latter have marked their dominance over regional associate cousins in eyebrow raising one-sided encounters in ACC tournaments. If, in similar circumstances, Ireland played Gibraltar the result would be equally ugly.

But the WCLC has exposed a weakness of the HPP in nurturing its weaker sides. Canada and Kenya are weaker than when the programme was inaugurated. Despite all of their advantages in terms of funding and focus they have looked decidedly average, certainly little stronger if at all than Namibia or UAE. The reasons for this are no doubt being discussed at length by the ICC, if not just by way of an audit trail. If they are not competitive against full members, which I fear neither is, then their additional funding has not yielded any results.

I suspect that the ICC did not intend the HPP to be particularly flexible. After all, they would surely expect surely their additional funding to see HPP members develop far beyond the horizons of normal associates? But Canada and Kenya both face the prospect of losing their HPP status come the World Cup Qualifiying competition in New Zealand in February 2014.

This could set back development of cricket in both countries by decades as professional players will once more become amateurs and development programmes will have to be curtailed or downgraded. The ICC may have to consider parachute payments to prevent cricket from going into a rapid decline. But for others this presents an opportunity, an opportunity they may not have dared hope for when they found themselves below the HPP line in the sand. Namibia and the UAE are in prime position, being part of the WCLC, but Uganda, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, USA and Nepal will all have their eyes on the considerable prize.

For me it is the battle at the bottom of the table rather than the tussle at the top which has more far-reaching consequences for associate and affiliate cricket. Fixtures often presented as dead rubbers are anything but that. The struggles of Canada and Kenya are tantamount to the desperate fight for survival of a top level cricket nation. The progress of the UAE and Namibia could be looked back on as laying the foundations for the professionalization of cricket in those countries.

The WCLC is far more than a World Cup qualification pathway, it is a window on the opportunities and obstacles aspiring cricket nations face in establishing themselves. It is also an examination of the mission statement, objectives and KPIs of the HPP.

The cruellest outcome would be if the ICC determines that only four of the six HPP nations are competitive and that in the context of reduced World Cup allocation, due to pressure from media partners, the programme should be reduced to a quartet. This would be a terrible outcome for the development programme. On the other hand, if Canada and Kenya rally and the UAE and Namibia continue an upward trajectory then perhaps in a bold moment of bravery and insight the HPP will be increased to 8.

It is on seemingly inconsequential fixtures that such long term decisions may be made. There is therefore no such thing as an unimportant fixture in the WCLC.