ICC T20 World Cup 2024 USA/West Indies (June 2-June 29)

[JackOutback]

T20 is fast food cricket, it doesn’t need the weight and heft of four years. But I also believe there should be little or no bilateral series. Just play the T20 circuits and WC.

It’s also a more volatile game, subject to more changing fortunes, it’s not a ‘cream rises to the top’ form of cricket, so every two years seems fine. You’ll likely get different winners every time.

 

[NYRB]

Also a side note , Rashid Khan got fined from the ICC for this.

 

[Around the Wicket]

T20 is fast food cricket, it doesn’t need the weight and heft of four years. But I also believe there should be little or no bilateral series. Just play the T20 circuits and WC.

It’s also a more volatile game, subject to more changing fortunes, it’s not a ‘cream rises to the top’ form of cricket, so every two years seems fine. You’ll likely get different winners every time.

True, IMO it'll be the first format where a minnow pulls off a win.

 

[cricketnut14]

True, IMO it'll be the first format where a minnow pulls off a win.

makes sense since the odi world cup and champions trophy are down to 10 and 8 teams.

 

[cricketnut14]

T20 is fast food cricket, it doesn’t need the weight and heft of four years. But I also believe there should be little or no bilateral series. Just play the T20 circuits and WC.

It’s also a more volatile game, subject to more changing fortunes, it’s not a ‘cream rises to the top’ form of cricket, so every two years seems fine. You’ll likely get different winners every time.

agree just play world cups - leave the bilateral series as no one really plays their best XI.

have your franchise stuff and play test series - if they clash - then so be it.

it keeps the test fans and the 20/20 fans happy.

 

[ioppolo]

makes sense since the odi world cup and champions trophy are down to 10 and 8 teams.

ODI world cup is back to 14 teams from 2027.
Even still, associates pour a lot more resources into T20 and it captures a bigger player base too.

 

[Teen Wolf]

It’s also a more volatile game, subject to more changing fortunes, it’s not a ‘cream rises to the top’ form of cricket, so every two years seems fine. You’ll likely get different winners every time.

View attachment 2031611

True, IMO it'll be the first format where a minnow pulls off a win.

Has nothing to do with the format of T20 cricket itself.

IPL champs: CSK x5, MI x5, KKR x3
BBL champs: Scorchers x5, Sixers x3
Women's WC: Australia x6

I'd say that's a pretty clear indication that the cream does in fact rise to the top. The reason for less consistent winners in the men's T20 WC is because Australia has never prepared for it properly.

 

[Cmarsh]

T20 is fast food cricket, it doesn’t need the weight and heft of four years. But I also believe there should be little or no bilateral series. Just play the T20 circuits and WC.

It’s also a more volatile game, subject to more changing fortunes, it’s not a ‘cream rises to the top’ form of cricket, so every two years seems fine. You’ll likely get different winners every time.

Yet we have the two best sides from this tournament playing in the final.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

Yeah I feel having it every two years waters down the prestige of it. Like, who cares. Even when we won a few years ago it wasn't a big deal. It is good for the smaller nations though to get a hit.

 

[JackOutback]

Has nothing to do with the format of T20 cricket itself.

IPL champs: CSK x5, MI x5, KKR x3
BBL champs: Scorchers x5, Sixers x3
Women's WC: Australia x6

I'd say that's a pretty clear indication that the cream does in fact rise to the top. The reason for less consistent winners in the men's T20 WC is because Australia has never prepared for it properly.

Australia is one team, that doesn't account for the volatility in winners (Windies twice, England twice, no one else more than once, a trend that will continue if SA win).

Yet we have the two best sides from this tournament playing in the final.

And will they be the best in two years?

 

[big_e]

Australia is one team, that doesn't account for the volatility in winners (Windies twice, England twice, no one else more than once, a trend that will continue if SA win).


And will they be the best in two years?

I'm not sure what your point is? Is it bad that there is a variety of teams at the top? Or would you prefer if it is was like the 50 over World Cup, where the last three semi-finalists have been:

2023: Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa
2019: Australia, India, New Zealand, England
2015: Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa

 

[JackOutback]

I'm not sure what your point is? Is it bad that there is a variety of teams at the top? Or would you prefer if it is was like the 50 over World Cup, where the last three semi-finalists have been:

2023: Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa
2019: Australia, India, New Zealand, England
2015: Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa

No, if you look further up, I'm arguing it's good and why I am happy with a T20 WC every two years as you will get a variety of results. If you had a 50-over WC every two years, the results would be very similar. In T20, a brilliant series by one or two individuals can shape the tournament, a new player can change a team's dynamics.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Australia is one team, that doesn't account for the volatility in winners

One team that would win most of the time if it took the tournament seriously.

Right now the biennial WTC is on track to have 3 different winners in a row... I guess that would mean Test cricket isn't a "cream rises to the top" game?

 

[Around the Wicket]

Why are some arguing against the fact T20 is the most open format??

It clearly is.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Some people say "the great thing about Test cricket is you don't get fluke results, unlike that T20 shit".

Those same people, ~11 months ago: "Australia were lucky to retain the Ashes".

 

[010203]

Yeah I feel having it every two years waters down the prestige of it. Like, who cares. Even when we won a few years ago it wasn't a big deal. It is good for the smaller nations though to get a hit.

After Australia beat New Zealand to win the 2021 World T20, Ian Smith said something along the lines of "Oh well, we only have to wait a year to have another crack at winning this tournament". Sums it up really.

 

[eltrain]

Interesting survey results from cricinfo


I’m (only just) in my 20s and can’t say I know anyone who places more importance on the World T20 than the ODI World Cup. The Ashes and the Border Gavaskar trophy seem considerably more important than both, but we’re probably a unique case in the global context.

 

[big_e]

Interesting survey results from cricinfo
View attachment 2033689

I’m (only just) in my 20s and can’t say I know anyone who places more importance on the World T20 than the ODI World Cup. The Ashes and the Border Gavaskar trophy seem considerably more important than both, but we’re probably a unique case in the global context.

Timing probably has some role here, too.

 

[Around the Wicket]

Interesting survey results from cricinfo
View attachment 2033689

I’m (only just) in my 20s and can’t say I know anyone who places more importance on the World T20 than the ODI World Cup. The Ashes and the Border Gavaskar trophy seem considerably more important than both, but we’re probably a unique case in the global context.

TBH for the interest of cricket they need to get rid of the 50 over game, too much cricket atm.

 

[Cleavy]

TBH for the interest of cricket they need to get rid of the 50 over game, too much cricket atm.

and as soon as that happens, they'll plug the gaps with even more T20s

 

[JackOutback]

They should just play domestic T20 cricket year round, no bilaterals, Tests take precedence.

 

[akkaps]

Am I the only one that wants to see the 50 over work?
Now that we are getting around 100 countries into T20 cricket, I wanna see them start pushing towards 4 day cricket. The 50 over game is that mid stepping stone. Jumping directly from T20 cricket to 4 day cricket is too big of a jump.
I would rather see more 50 over cricket over 20 over cricket

 

[JackOutback]

Times have changed since they heyday of 50 over cricket. There’s too many different entertainment options. Not many people are setting aside eight hours to watch cricket as I did when younger. Test cricket is a little different because you can put it on in the background and dip in and out over the course of days.

I don’t think it will go away at the domestic level and they will continue to play ODIs as long as the Workd Cup generates money and ratings. But I think it’s done as a major draw outside of the WC.

 

[revo333]

Am I the only one that wants to see the 50 over work?
Now that we are getting around 100 countries into T20 cricket, I wanna see them start pushing towards 4 day cricket. The 50 over game is that mid stepping stone. Jumping directly from T20 cricket to 4 day cricket is too big of a jump.
I would rather see more 50 over cricket over 20 over cricket

It's a shame but now with teams scoring 200+ consistently in T20 there's not much point to play 50 over cricket anymore.

It will take time to adjust but I think most people will come around to accepting T20 in 5 or so years.

This year was the first time I started taking an interest in the IPL.

I admit it is a little funny now to watch a 50 over game from 30 years ago and see teams struggle to get to 220. It was great at the time but it's a totally different sporting landscape now.

 

[Around the Wicket]

It's a shame but now with teams scoring 200+ consistently in T20 there's not much point to play 50 over cricket anymore.

Only 3 200+ scores this World Cup in 55 games, its all in the pitch produced, this World Cup was my favourite T20 tournament ever because scores of 110 were getting defended.

IMO its whats destroyed the 50 over game, I don't enjoy watching batsmen at no risk of getting out on out and out roads, if they went back to sporting wickets where 220-250 was a good score I'd probably enjoy it again.