The narrative around associate nations’ participation in the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup is shifting — not because supremacy and dominance of traditional powers have begun to stumble, but because the so-called minnows are giving a tough time to big teams. Longstanding criticism of the 20-team format of the T20 World Cup — that it results in lesser competitive cricket, dilutes quality, and waters down excitement — has been quietly punctured by associate teams’ performance, ambition and moments of genuine cricketing theatre.
Upsets Are Not New
Upsets involving Associate teams are not new. They have punctuated T20 World Cups for years.
Zimbabwe beat Australia – 2007
Netherlands beat England – 2009
Netherlands beat England – 2014
Afghanistan beat West Indies – 2016
Namibia beat Sri Lanka – 2022
Zimbabwe beat Pakistan – 2022
USA beat Pakistan – 2024
Zimbabwe beat Australia – 2026
Individually, these results were treated as shocks. Collectively, they tell a different story: the margins between Full Members and Associates have been shrinking for nearly two decades due to the T20 format. The shortest format of the game has democratised the game.
Afghanistan: From Associate to Blueprint
Afghanistan’s journey offers the clearest reference point for what sustained Associate success looks like.
Their shock victory over West Indies in the 2016 T20 World Cup was once framed as a romantic upset. Eight years later, Afghanistan’s semi-final run in the 2024 T20 World Cup confirmed it was never just romance — it was trajectory. In the T20 World Cup 2026, they declined slightly from the lofty standards they had set in previous editions of the tournament, but they still delivered the best game of the competition, as their match against South Africa was decided in the second Super Over.
Afghanistan’s success rests on three pillars:
- A domestic talent pipeline (They qualified for the semi-finals of the U-19 WC 2026)
- Exposure to elite leagues like IPL, BBL & PSL
- Specialisation suited to the requirements of T20 cricket
By 2024, Afghanistan were no longer “overachieving”. They were out-bowling, out-planning, and out-thinking established teams. Their semi-final appearance was the natural outcome of years of investment in spin attacks and fearless batting depth.
In that sense, Afghanistan have become the blueprint — proof that Associate or recently elevated nations can move from disruption to dominance if pathways are protected.
Associate Nations Are Performing
In the T20 WC 2026, Zimbabwe beat Australia by 23 runs. While chasing, Australia were never in the run and were outplayed by Zimbabwe’s bowlers. The decision of the England vs Nepal match happened on the very last delivery. Italy, who are playing the T20 World Cup for the first time, have beaten Nepal. When England beat Scotland on Feb 14, 2026, it was the first time in T20 WC history that Englishmen won from their European neighbours. Cricket is improving across the whole Europe.
The Netherlands had a grip on the match against Pakistan because Faheem Ashraf smashed 24 runs in the 19th over. The USA was looking to bowl India out under 130 before the India captain played a splendid knock of 84* and took India past 160. Ireland was also chasing Sri Lanka’s total. It was just in the last 5 overs that they lost the plot.
During the tournament so far, there were very few competitions that looked totally one-sided, and the quality of the competitions has remained the best in the history of T20 World Cups. These performances of Associate Nations are built not on luck but planning, execution, and self-belief.
Expert Voices: Rethinking the Narrative
It’s not just the performances that matter — it’s the context experts are now applying to them. Former South African pacer Dale Steyn expressed his emotions after the Nepal vs England game, “Nepal, I offer my services to you if you ever need them! Up, up and UP!”
Dr. Nauman Niaz tweeted, “Is this an Associates’ World Cup? This is the quiet wonder of T20 cricket: a format that compresses time and, with it, hierarchy. Skill gaps shrink, certainties dissolve, and the powerful are left vulnerable to brief, ferocious spells of belief. For twenty overs, reputation counts for less than nerve & the game becomes a little more democratic.”
Sachin Tendulkar wrote on X, “When new teams step up to the occasion, cricket’s global rise accelerates – USA Cricket did that yesterday, and their energy and enthusiasm was promising.”
This sentiment — that competitive exposure and sustained support are necessary for Associate teams to flourish — is now emerging as a mainstream position rather than a fringe argument.
What This Means for the World Cup’s Future
Critics of the expanded format feared that too many teams would dilute interest and dilute quality. But what we’re seeing is the opposite: diversification driving engagement. Close finishes, unexpected heroes, and storylines that transcend borders — these are the ingredients of modern sport, and they are abundant in this World Cup.
Associate teams mostly bring predictability that they will lose against giant sides, yes — but they also carry hope, growth potential and new markets for the game.
When America celebrates a Super Over triumph, or Afghanistan outplays New Zealand or Australia, the sport pulses with possibility. When Natherlands players like Bas de Leede talk of consistency and preparation rather than mere participation, it signals a post-hierarchy mindset emerging across the associates.
For broadcasters, pundits and purists who once questioned the 20-team model, what’s become clear is that the interest isn’t in the number of teams — it’s in the quality of competition, and that quality can come from anywhere.
A New Era of Competitive Depth
What we’re witnessing isn’t a blip. It’s the start of a long arc toward a more balanced global cricket ecosystem — one where Associate nations are not simply add-ons to the marquee teams, but worthy opponents capable of shaping the tournament’s trajectory.
Two years ago, the conversation was about whether teams like the USA, Nepal, and Natherlands belonged on the World Cup stage. Today, it’s about whether the established giants should ever take them for granted again?
