20-20 is the Tool to take Cricket to the World
The T20 Quadrangular being played in Canada enters its last day today where Pakistan takes on Sri Lanka in the final and Canada and Zimbabwe go head to head in a 3rd place play off.
Pakistan taking on Sri Lanka in the final was expected, but I doubt anyone expected Pakistan to get there unbeaten.
I also doubt anyone expected the Canadian side to put up a fight against all 3 international teams.
Canada pushed Zimbabwe to the last ball and into a bowl out, and they gave Sri Lanka a mighty scare last night. Plus they had Pakistan in serious trouble on the opening day of the tournament, but thats not saying much - even the Irish get Pakistan in trouble every now and then.
We have seen in the past that the 20-20 format provides the lesser teams more of a chance against the stronger sides. Someone pointed out that its too less a time for the flaws to show.
Very true I think.
So the question then is that should the ICC promote 20-20 among the associate nations? Should it be used to attract countries such as the USA and China?
It will definitely be more appealing to the viewers there, plus if these lesser teams feel that they can actually compete against the likes of Australia, India, and Pakistan then they would be more serious about their cricket.
So is 20-20 the tool to take cricket to untapped parts of the world?
The flip side of this though is that cricket runs the risk of being known as only 20-20 around the world.
If the associate nations are bombarded with 20-20 tournaments left, right, and centre, then how would their teams be developed for the ODI game and test cricket?
But then, do they even want to play test cricket?
Or does the ICC really want to take test cricket to the rest of the world?
If its all about the promotion of the game and generating dollars then 20-20 is your tool and the world is waiting for someone to involve them in it.
Pakistan taking on Sri Lanka in the final was expected, but I doubt anyone expected Pakistan to get there unbeaten.
I also doubt anyone expected the Canadian side to put up a fight against all 3 international teams.
Canada pushed Zimbabwe to the last ball and into a bowl out, and they gave Sri Lanka a mighty scare last night. Plus they had Pakistan in serious trouble on the opening day of the tournament, but thats not saying much - even the Irish get Pakistan in trouble every now and then.
We have seen in the past that the 20-20 format provides the lesser teams more of a chance against the stronger sides. Someone pointed out that its too less a time for the flaws to show.
Very true I think.
So the question then is that should the ICC promote 20-20 among the associate nations? Should it be used to attract countries such as the USA and China?
It will definitely be more appealing to the viewers there, plus if these lesser teams feel that they can actually compete against the likes of Australia, India, and Pakistan then they would be more serious about their cricket.
So is 20-20 the tool to take cricket to untapped parts of the world?
The flip side of this though is that cricket runs the risk of being known as only 20-20 around the world.
If the associate nations are bombarded with 20-20 tournaments left, right, and centre, then how would their teams be developed for the ODI game and test cricket?
But then, do they even want to play test cricket?
Or does the ICC really want to take test cricket to the rest of the world?
If its all about the promotion of the game and generating dollars then 20-20 is your tool and the world is waiting for someone to involve them in it.
.jpg)
Q,
"But then, do they even want to play test cricket?" - I believe it would be better if they stuck to the Twenty20 format. Then they will give the stronger teams a good run for their money.
I agree Ott - the associates need to stick to 20-20 and the ICC needs to have more 20-20 tournaments for them.
There is no possibility for me to see this series... but tell me Q, how did Mendis perform in the 20-20 version?
Why Scorps? The matches start after the test day gets done... there have been some very interesting matches.
Mendis took 4 wickets against Zim and 4 against Canada. He didn't play against Pakistan but will do today in the final.
T20 is entirely the appropriate format to introduce other nations into the top flight.
And I believe it will lead eventually to them playing Test cricket.
You only have to look at the Ireland-Kenya match that is currently being played to see the players are keen to excel themselves in the longer formats.
Also, the skills required for T20 can only be developed by longer versions of the game.
Four overs a match is not enough time for a young bowler to learn his trade nor is T20 long enough for the batters to develop either.
As a cricketer, I admit that T20 is fun but for a real battle of wits and skill you need more time.
Every sportsman worth his salt wants to test himself, not only against the opposition, but also against himself.
The riches inherent in the shorter format will guarantee that there are enough resources to keep the traditional formats healthy.
It's a win/win situation.
Well said Nesta. I agree.
The associate nations need to play more 4-day / test / ODI cricket among each other to develop their skills for those formats.
And they also need to be put to test against the stronger nations in the T20 format - as u said the shorter format hides the flaws.
Win win situation alright but the ICC needs to act on it and have more frequent matches of these kind.
Now days, many T20 cricket matches are organized in various countries. This format of cricket becomes popular these days. It provides lots of money to cricket world and players.
http://www.t20livescore.com/