Kenya strike blow for emerging nations' hopes of moving alongside world élite

Kenya won in the nick of time, like the cavalry arriving to head off the enemy at the pass. By beating Sri Lanka so convincingly on Monday they have forced the critics of the World Cup's format into permanent retreat.

Steve Tikolo's team finally rebuffed the widely held opinion that small fry have no place in the tournament because they are cannon fodder. The 53-run victory also means that the next World Cup in the West Indies could be bigger than ever, with 16 teams.

A day earlier Canada's John Davison had scored a scintillating century against the West Indies which also stopped sceptical pundits in their tracks but it needed a shock victory, not a freak individual performance, to tilt the balance.

It has sometimes been tempting to suspect that the intention to make cricket a global game has as much credibility as Dr Evil's plans for world domination in the Austin Powers films and is just as daft. But the 2003 World Cup has eventually demonstrated that the game can be spread and that the gap is narrowing.

There have been a few bleak moments, none bleaker than when Canada were bowled out by Sri Lanka for 36. But Canada also beat Bangladesh, so the balance sheet was even. Minor nations are not yet in a position to beat the established sides, but they are beginning to niggle and cause embarrassment.

The man who can feel most pleased about this is Bob Woolmer, the former England all-rounder and South Africa coach, who became the International Cricket Council's high performance director 18 months ago.

"I have been very pleasantly surprised," he said yesterday while watching the Netherlands put up a solid show against Pakistan. "They have all done a lot better than I could have envisaged. Canada's win over Bangladesh was a complete surprise; Kenya's over Sri Lanka was a classic case of the big team underestimating the little one. Had Namibia's batsmen gone on for half an hour longer against England there could have been a severe embarrassment on the cards."

Woolmer has spent 18 months working with Kenya, the Netherlands, Namibia and Canada, the ICC's four associate members who won entry to this tournament. He and Andrew Eade, the ICC's development officer, have been so satisfied with progress that they are drawing up plans for minor nations at the 2007 World Cup. They would like four groups of four, with the top two qualifying.

"There is still an awful lot of work to do," said Woolmer. "There is undoubtedly talent there, but we have to work on structure, facilities and coaching. We have a 10-point plan in place. In 10 years, probably less if people really want to do it, we could have 16 teams round the world competing in one-day international cricket on competitive terms."

The key to improvement in the one-day game, almost perversely, lies largely in introducing the longer version of the game to minor countries. "We all know it is one-day cricket which generates the money," says Woolmer, "but I can't emphasise enough that it is only as good as it is now because of the lessons learned in the longer game.

"I hope we can eventually introduce some form of two-day club cricket to the minor countries and then establish a multi-continent, first-class tournament with teams from Europe, America and Asia."

Amid the positive outcome there is one large obstacle. The performance of Bangladesh has been atrocious. They were the last full member to be elected three years ago, but they are clearly not up to it.

Bangladesh have yet to win a Test and have not won a one-day match for years. There will be a natural reluctance to elevate anybody else. But Eade said: "I don't especially see an increase in Test-playing nations. What we are seeking is more countries playing one-day cricket competitively. Too many commentators are still negative but we are getting there." They can thank Kenya for that.