T20 World Cup Cricket

Image : http://www.flickr.com

What will be the status of the winners when they emerge victorious from the tournament this month? It may sound to be a strange question, but think about how absurd it would in any other sport. Imagine, six months after the FIFA World Cup, another tournament, also called the World Cup was played with pretty much the same teams fielding pretty much the same player in a pretty similar tournament format with pretty similar viewing figures (bothReasons and on television), but with 45-minute games instead of the full 90th

I am not questioning the existence of T20, because I love cricket, and I understand that this ultra-intense, short format means the game that people can an entire game to watch in one evening after work, it gives the game more stimulus more coverage, more peak-time advertising opportunity and thus more money. There is also a great spectacle.

I just think its going to be strange if there were two worldMaster of cricket.

Test cricket is of course a very different kettle of fish, tactics and gameplay are completely different game than the one day. The length of time will be played, and massive opportunity attracts means that a ranking system page is the only way to produce a 'world number one team, "while 50 overs-a is suitable for concrete results in the finite time a tournament. 20-20 is very much as 50-50 in its style and ethos: score as many runs as possibleas fast as you can, as many runs as miserly limit as you can. He can also 'Cup will be played in a tournament in the world, "why we have this second.

The winner will therefore entitled to win the World Cup Cricket and the best in the shortened version of the game. But the team that lifted the World Cup Australia India in the West a few months ago have already suggested that title. And "Twenty20 world champion" does not really meannothing, at least not yet: so few T20s are played internationally (England have played the most in history with a total of 6; India have played only 2) that no one really care. The games are so short that a second-rate international team lift the trophy imaginable. The deficiencies in Zimbabwe side could perhaps be papered over three hours at a time which would undoubtedly lead to a collapse of an entire day or more. What happens when a "minnow" to win the whole thing? They are so playedrarely by the test-Nations that the "world champion" label will be redundant until they play again the tournament.

One solution would be an annual or biennial T20 tournament is not played outside the international T20, have. Then it would be clear that T20, while popular and important, is not of the same caliber and class as the official Cricket World Cup, in the same way that Six Nations is the highly competitive every year, but with theWinning side makes no claims to total global superiority. Perhaps the difficulties vanish like T20 is its niche. But the easiest solution to avoid this time argument or confusion would be if Australia won the Danged thing. No doubt they undertake.