The World Cup - a prized asset (Allsport).

By Andy Hampson, PA Sport

Since its humble and tentative beginnings, the World Cup has developed into cricket's most prized asset.

Ashes series and other Test encounters between leading nations may remain the playing pinnacle of the game - but without the World Cup the sport would be poorer both as a spectacle and financially.

The tournament has enriched the game in so many ways. Quite apart from the millions of pounds it has generated, the World Cup has provided a pleasant and entertaining diversion from the slog of Test series for players and spectators alike and enlarged cricket's global shop window.

By providing at times magnificent entertainment, the competition has awakened the apathy of those whose interest in cricket is only fleeting as well as doing wonders for the game's international profile.

The International Cricket Council's global expansion plans have also been reinvigorated and their decision to admit 14 teams this time round has offered a clearer path for developing countries. Their well-intentioned restructuring of the game in nations of associate and affiliate status is heartening for all those who want to see the game played across a wider international base.

Their new divisional structure allows lesser lights to one day have a crack at the big boys. Holland, Namibia and Canada, the lucky countries to get a shot in this World Cup, are not expected to set the tournament alight but the legacy they can create for the game in their own countries could be significant.

And the money on offer to them and other teams is not to be sniffed at.

With the World Cup as its crown jewel, the ICC recently tied up a US 550million deal with the Global Cricket Corporation to cover television and marketing for seven years.

The unseemly dispute with players over image rights that this led to and manifested itself before the Champions Trophy was clear indication of the commercial clout that cricket, and particularly the World Cup, now possesses.

On the field, competition has increased to such an extent that the tournament is now rightly placed high on most countries' list of priorities.

England coach Duncan Fletcher has certainly made no secret of the fact that he has spent the past two years devising his approach to the competition and other sides in the past have devoted all their energies to it.

The best example of this was when Sri Lanka won the tournament in 1996.

That success had a huge impact in their (admittedly already cricket-mad) country and they have since gone on to dine with the best at Test cricket's top table.

Some of the matches in recent World Cups have been absolutely spellbinding and since 1992, when the tournament received its first widespread television exposure, the event has gone from strength to strength in giant bounds.

Winning a tough Test series will be probably always be regarded as a greater achievement, but rarely can the five-day game match the drama of Australia's semi-final win over South Africa in 1999 or the devastating batting of Sanath Jayasuriya in the tournament prior to that.

That such moments were enjoyed by both the purists and the less dedicated is proof that the World Cup now provides an important link between the traditional followers of the game and those they wish to attract to it.

The big-hitting, multi-coloured day-night razzmatazz of the one-day game is the future of the sport as it looks to attract huge audiences both in the stadium and in front of the TV.

South Africa certainly has the potential to provide all this in the forthcoming tournament. The fiery atmosphere at Johannesburg and the beauty of Cape Town coupled with the United Cricket Board's ability to present the one-day game will create the perfect stage for the players. It is hoped they can deliver.

And if they do, an as entertainment package, the competition cannot fail. Having all the world's best players together in one country to compete in one event over a short period is an enticing prospect.

Whether or not the eventual winners are the best team in the world or not, however, is open to debate. The hit and miss nature of one-day cricket means that any one of the world's eight or nine top sides could win it.

One-day internationals are often played in series and it is rare that a side suffers a complete whitewash.

It may be unlikely that any of the four non-Test playing sides or Bangladesh will win a game against established opposition but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Zimbabwe - or dare it be said, England - could beat Australia in a one-off situation.

What the World Cup does offer, though, is some sort of context to all the one-day international cricket that is played each year.

With so many series played, there is a definite feeling that some games lack any serious meaning and the World Cup does give something to aim for.

It has even been suggested that it could be played for every other year, because unlike its football equivalent it does not require two years of qualifying games, but the matter was never seriously debated. Apart from being difficult to fit into the calendar, you can have too much of a good thing.

The World Cup has been a success every time it has been played. This time, with the event being hosted by a country still anxious to impress and prove to the rest of the world that it is eradicating the stains of its past, there is no reason to suggest this one will not provide many more memorable moments.