The biggest debates that have surrounded the game recently have been over growing it. The International Cricket Council (ICC), which generates precious little funds of its own, does its bit at the grassroots, but they are spread so thin that making a sustained or significant difference has been difficult.

Despite this the game has grown at the fringes in places you may not expect.

Expatriate populations bolstered countries such as Kenya, Holland and from time to time, the US and Canada, while Ireland and Scotland managed to make the most of what little playing time and infrastructure they have access to and punched above their weight.

The one story almost no one could predict was the rise of Afghanistan. Perpetually war-torn, with no resources and little help, the fact that the Afghans took to cricket in the manner they did is stunning.

Historically, cricket has been played informally all across the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan border, but that’s hardly enough of a spark to light the kind of fire that’s now raging. Afghanistan beating any of the top teams in white-ball cricket is no longer an upset. It might have been when they relied on one extraordinary innings of all-out hitting or a spell of mystery bowlings unique at first sight that batters crashed and burned. But now they play as an organised, tight-knit unit with all bases covered.They still can’t play at home and use India as a base. Many of their players live in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), plying their wares in T20 leagues around the world. And yet, they won convincingly against England. It was not that long ago — 2012, to be precise — that Afghanistan were 26 for 8 from 9 overs in a T20 World Cup match against England. Major swathes of the cricket community were up in arms, suggesting that the participation of teams such as Afghanistan was devaluing the global tournaments.But 13 years is a long time. Which begs the question: which country is the next Afghanistan? In whom should the powers that be invest right now so that the fruits of planned and consistent support can be borne down the road?

A look at the top 10 scores in T20 cricket is telling. One was in a match between Cayman Islands and Brazil, another Hungary vs Austria then there’s Netherlands vs Namibia and Japan against China. Each time one of these outrageous innings happens, there is a meltdown in the cricket world. These statistics, it is suggested, devalue the achievements of players from the top nations.

While there is a ring of truth to that, how do you weigh the value of those statistics against the inclusionary nature of allowing any two countries who fulfil the basic criteria set out by the powers that be to play in an international match?

Exactly who gives a few countries, who were fortunate (in this one aspect only) to be colonised by the British and therefore took to the game long, long ago, the right to say that others should not be allowed to share the same stage?

When you consider the fact that Sri Lanka and West Indies did not make the cut to the Champions Trophy, you have to acknowledge that while this is tragic, and a loss to the game, it is a sign of the changing times.

Cricket wants American dollars so badly that the World Cup was taken there amidst much protest and eventual cost overruns. Cricket wants to be like football so much that it will be back in the Olympics in 2028 in Los Angeles. In the Paris Olympics in 1900, Great Britain and France were the only two countries who contested in the cricket event. It’s taken 128 years, but cricket still hasn’t understood exactly what place it wants to occupy in the world and how to get there.