Wesley Barresi (@Pepe_Barezi): “So confused and disappointed by icc's decision to cut our ODI status! Ranked 12/13 and now.... One tournament one game has ended it all!”

It is difficult not to feel for the Dutch. They were the major shock of the recent CWCQ (Cricket World Cup Qualifier) in New Zealand. Along with the UAE they came into the tournament as favourites to secure a spot in the CWC (Cricket World Cup) next year.

The Dutch team will be the first to admit that they had a poor tournament. They lost to Namibia and Kenya in the group stages, and despite comfortably winning their other two group fixtures, they were beaten to the Super 6s by Kenya on NRR (Net Run Rate).

However, the fallout has been more profound than simply missing their expectations. The ICC, in its infinite wisdom has decided to remove their ODI status.

Those who read my previous article on the ridiculous quirks of status, will recognise the importance of this to the Netherlands. It will surely mean a cut in funding, and will certainly mean fewer opportunities to play Test-Playing nations.

In this article I won’t be focusing on the fallout, to do so would be speculation, although admittedly it is not a great leap to suggest it would be rather morbid speculation. Instead I wish to analyse the wisdom of the ICC’s decision.

It would simply be too easy to criticise the arbitrary giving and taking of ODI status, as if the ICC were some Old Testament, Job-toying/trialling and self-important deity; and I don’t want to be facile. Instead, I wish to approach the analysis by conceding (albeit reluctantly) that there can only be 16 ODI sides (and 16 is a rather lovely number, for people who care about such things, so why not?).
Why should the Netherlands not have had their ODI status cut? It seems reasonable that ODI should be earned on merit (given that it needs to be earned in the first place). Whilst this seems a difficult assumption to grapple with since A&A nations are subject to the periodic coronation and guillotining of ODI status, whilst Full Members suffer no such uncertainty, we will proceed nonetheless under this meritocratic assumption.

So what evidence is there to support the Netherlands being one of the 16 best 50-Over sides in the world? And is that enough to merit a stay of execution given their poor performance at the recent CWCQ?

The evidence for them being one of the 16 strongest One-Day sides is certainly strong. Over the two year WCLC (World Cricket League Championship) the Dutch finished joint third on points with the UAE, just one point behind Afghanistan and 6 points behind the Irish.

The top two teams of this two year, multi-continental competition qualified automatically for the CWC, and had their ODI status guaranteed for at least a few more years.

So how far off automatic qualification, and avoiding the potential (and ultimately real pitfalls) of the CWCQ, were the Dutch?

Unlike the UAE and Afghanistan, the Netherlands had two games which did not end in a win or a loss. They tied with Ireland (who beat everybody they played except for a solitary blip versus the otherwise hapless Kenya), and they had a rain-affected no-result with Canada.

Their tie with Ireland was one of the most extraordinary ODIs ever, with Michael Rippon clearing the rope off the final ball to earn the Netherlands the tie.

The fixture between the Dutch and Canada is perhaps more interesting in this anaylsis. In the 49th match of the WCLC the Dutch stumbled to a meagre 143 before the rain cut the game short with the Canadians on 62-1. 20 overs had not been completed, and thus a no-result was called.

It is impossible to know what would happen. And it would be intellectually lazy to look at what happened the following day at the same venue (where Canada were bowled out for just 67, in a completed game which the Dutch won comfortably by 9 wickets) and suggest that the Dutch would have won the 49th WCLC game. But it is not out of the realms of possibility.

Alas, that is sport. A twist of fate perhaps stopped automatic qualification for the CWC and ODI status. Or perhaps it saved the Dutch from the embarrassment of defeat by a very poor Canadian side. All that remains certain is that the Maple Leaf North-West Ground (where both matches were played) was a bowl first ground that weekend.

“So?”, those who believe that the ICC are right will say. “Close, but no cigar, that is sport”. You might retort: “Indeed it is, how tremendously observant of you”, all the while feeling incredibly irked, yet proud of your biting comeback.

But that is not the question. The question is whether the Netherlands merit ODI status. Over a multi-year and multi-continental 50-over competition, they were 1 point (and a few NRR decimal points) off ODI re-coronation.

Surely their consistent performance is evidence enough that they are indeed one of the Top 16?
Moving onto the second question, does being one of the Top 16 mean they deserve to be excused their poor performance recently in New Zealand?

The Netherlands will have been disappointed with their loss against Namibia. Particularly given the African side won just two of their 14 fixtures in the WCLC – no glowing endorsement that they merit being considered one of the best 16 one day sides in the world. Alas the ICC has said it will be so, and lo it was so (ICC 1:31).

Despite the setback, the Dutch went into their final group game vs the Kenyans knowing that anything other than a drubbing at the hands of a side who finished eight points adrift of them in the WCLC would see them safely into the super 6s.

Despite an excellent century from Barresi (137 off 150 balls) and a decent total of 265, the Kenyans produced a Herculean effort to overhaul the total in just 35.4 overs). The Kenyans thoroughly deserved their win. It also gave them the final spot in the super 6s ahead of the Dutch on NRR.

The extraordinary hitting of the Kenyans was the final nail in the coffin for the Dutch. Despite a two year WCLC campaign, which could have so easily seen automatic CWC qualification, and guaranteed ODI status, they left New Zealand without a spot in the CWC and facing the ODI noose.

Should one game, in one tournament, decide whether a side is one of the Top 16 over and above a two year campaign? Surely not?

The ICC’s decision can be viewed one of two ways. Either their decision making process around ODI status is seriously flawed, and they have not viewed the evidence properly; or this is an example of complete disregard for A&A competition and rankings.

The first possibility shows an ignorance, and perhaps negligent disregard for A&A cricket. The second, if true, betrays an arrogance and lack of care for A&A cricket.

Neither enhances the image of an omniscient and benevolent ICC.