In fact, unlike this year's Games which was supposed to be in Durban but has ended up in Birmingham, there has never been a host for 2026.

Despite the Commonwealth Games Federation understanding the problem and substantially re-inventing its own expectations for its banner product, no city, at least until now, has progressed its interest sufficiently to be anointed as the host.

It will be hugely advantageous for Australian sport, as a whole, from the base to the pinnacle of the elite pyramid for the Commonwealth Games to be staged anywhere in the country in four years' time.

But if it happens to be Melbourne and Victoria as has been mooted this week, then surely that's the best possible outcome of all.

It matters not that this would all mean that Australia has staged the Games three times in two decades nor that Melbourne would book-end that time span.

After all, in the various debates about securing the future of the Games and its relevance, a permanent venue has always been one option in play. This is but a variation on that theme.

The changes made by the CGF make it absolutely possible for a host to bob up with just four years to go. And why not? Apart from the need to build infrastructure, if indeed any is required, there seems no real reason why the traditional six to eight year lead-in time is necessary.

Who knows how those in charge of the Brisbane Olympics are going to occupy themselves for the next ten years - especially given that many facilities are already in place and just need a spruce-up. The risk for them is that they will engage staff, contractors and consultants who may well end up working on Plan Z before the Games actually begin.

Melbourne would be perfect but other Australian cities and regions are still in play for the Games and seeking the nod from Commonwealth Games Australia.

Adelaide - originally the lay-down-misere to host when the CGF came knocking on Australia's door - may well be the only major player out of the race.

There are three major adaptations to Games hosting rules that make a short-notice hosting viable or even preferable.

First of all, there is no expectation that all or most of the sports are hosted in one location. It's been the case before, particularly with shooting and the early rounds of team sport tournaments, but now it's allowed, even positively encouraged.

Secondly there is no requirement to provide a centralised village for athletes and officials. For sure in the past this was a crucial element in delivering what became known as The Friendly Games, but even with a cost-neutral concept of selling it off as housing afterwards, it was one thing that did take time to construct and fit-out.

It is obviously also counter-intuitive to any concept of decentralised delivery.

Third and most significantly there are now only two required sports - athletics and swimming. The anointed host, its national Commonwealth Games association and the CGF can determine what best fits the local environment for up to 18 or so more.

There's no longer even a limited list from which to choose, just a requirement that each is an internationally practised sport.

So let's say Victoria gets the gig. There could be surfing at Bells Beach, mountain biking, park sports, sport climbing, hockey, basketball or netball just about anywhere.

AFL, trugo and vigoro are probably ineligible but the Canadians and Kiwis might help woodchopping present a case.

The new paradigm opens up all sorts of possibilities - croquet for example is popular in many Commonwealth nations. But any study of the current demographic engaged in lawn bowls at an elite level would reveal that a sport which starts out with a more senior cohort quickly morphs into something quite different when such opportunities arise.

Any Games host will prioritise sports popular with spectators and television viewers as well as with both recreational and elite participants. But with a short lead-in time those that can be presented in existing facilities with low on-costs will be very attractive.