Great post M. Just thought I should reply to some of your points.

Firstly, yes - there was a little bit of my post which could be described as hypocritical in that my plans would involve playing across more countries when that's what I was criticising in the first place. However, what I was really trying to say was that the distances involved are silly really. England sharing the competition with Holland, Denmark etc. would still involve tiny travelling distances, and splitting the sub-continent between Pakistan/Bangladesh and India/Sri Lanka would actually give the subcontinent 2 world cups in each cycle involving smaller distances rather than 1 in every cycle. Despite what you, and logic would say in that money is very important, the ICC could not allow the West Indies or New Zealand never to have the World Cup and bow to the sub continent at all times. And actually, I'd imagine that a lot of the players all around the world would love to be able to play the world cup final at Lords every now and then!

The 'plan' I outlined of 6 regions on a cycle would allow 2 out of these 6 to be hosted in the passionate centre of world cricket that is the subcontinent, but would also allow the rest of the test playing nations to host the premier competition. Also, allowing the subcontinent to be split in 2 would allow Bangladesh to host MORE games, as they really should. The Bangladeshis have shown in the past an ability to provide decent facilities and sold-out games with fantastic supporters. I'd like to see this recognised and Bangladesh given more games rather than 1 or 2 side shows!! The Associate Countries deserve what Bangladesh have received in the past, and the way I propose to do it would allow Namibia, Holland, Kenya, Bermuda, Denmark, Scotland and Ireland all to share in hosting the world cup. However, none of these countries could host the competition on their own - there simply are not enough stadiums, let alone international stadia! And why shouldn't Dhaka or Chittagong host a quarter final, even a semi final. I bet that the support there would be fabulous, regardless of who was playing!

The reason why England has hosted 2 more world cups that the Subcontinent combined is that the first 3 or 4 World Cups were hosted in England. That wasn't 'fair' but I think that the perception at the time was that the final had to be at Lords. Thankfully, we've moved on since then, but that doesn't mean we should regress to a similar sort of situation, but having the competition in the Subcontinent every time. I think we can all see that this is a worldwide game, and the sport shouldn't be dominated by any one party as it was dominated by England in the past - that would be counterproductive and I doubt that Australia and England would kowtow to the Subcontinent as England forced others to do to themselves in the past. I would imagine that England/Australia touring India brings in nearly as much cash as India/Pakistan games, so I cannot see that the new world cricket order would be as aggressive as to try and dominate the game at the risk of alienating England and Australia.