September 18, 2012

Is the World Twenty20 on par with the World Cup?

ESPNcricinfo staff
92

No, it isn't

Twenty20 cricket has no history like one-day cricket does and the shortest format hasn't acquired the seriousness of the 50-over game yet. Most fans consider the World Cup the real deal.

Yes, it is

The World Twenty20 in its present form is a much tougher competition than the World Cup, with smaller margins for error because of the shortness of the format. T20 is the game's present and future.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • lal-against on September 22, 2012, 14:30 GMT

    This T20 world cup so far is BS cricket. This is the worst I've seen it so far. Waste of time watching it.

  • Muhammad Seemab-against on September 22, 2012, 14:21 GMT

    No, its not and may nvr be on that level... bcz T20 is like "hit it" and one day cricket is "Play it"

  • faisal-against on September 22, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    Although t20WC is very exciting but it cant match 50 over WC in terms of quality & interest. 50 over WC is still favorite of pure cricket lovers..

  • Bala Vimalan. S-against on September 22, 2012, 11:52 GMT

    No. It is not. Because Current T20 is like what we are playing at village level. It purely depends on one or 2 lucky players on the day. Any top bowler can go like one doesn't in the list.Its not worthy to weight with 50-50.

  • Ashwin Ravishankar-for on September 22, 2012, 11:28 GMT

    Look, I watch cricket all the time. Whatever match I am always staring at the television. My mum hates cricket. Since it is a shorter format, she finds time to watch. It makes the game more fun for my family, because it is funny to watch her call the people by their wrong names or mistakes a pakistani from an indian. I love T20, even though I hate playing it!

  • Hari Ravi-against on September 22, 2012, 9:50 GMT

    T20 is very young and needs to settle down. It definitely has a larger acceptance and many new teams can gain entry. However, as these countries do not have enough exposure it will take time before they become competitive, a-la Bangladesh. T20 is still looked at the e-quotient of cricket and will need some maturing to be accepted as serious business. In fact the likes of IPL are making it a more marketing gimmick than serious cricket. I think ICC should promote Under19 cricket more to develop the game at the grass root level.

  • Chris Silva-for-for on September 22, 2012, 8:01 GMT

    What ever we say and believe the fact remains, cricket is a spectator sport. Test matches and even ODI's do not attract the numbers as T20 does. So give it a chance. More people who show an interest in cricket better it is for the game.

    We cannot get stuck with high polluted ideas thinking TEST cricket is the only thing. We have to change with the times.

  • Mustafa-against on September 22, 2012, 7:15 GMT

    You know what, I've got a really good idea, let's shut up, watch cricket and enjoy life as it is, there is no point in comparing foolishly the t20 wc with other wc as the obvious winner (in today's era is t20). T20 wc is fun, exciting and belligerent in its own way, the 50 over matches are better and more fun in their own way... Let life be as it is guys!

  • Indiapride-against on September 21, 2012, 20:47 GMT

    The T20 World Cup is a show for the fans fun to watch, fun to play but the 50 over is still so much thrilling. Nobody will watch the full match but it has never been boring either. T20 is fun but stupid.

  • Faria-for on September 21, 2012, 18:02 GMT

    yea t20 cricket is more fun :) The best format :) To take decisions quirky & and u have to do change Ur strategy according to situation its more exiting :)

  • lal-against on September 22, 2012, 14:30 GMT

    This T20 world cup so far is BS cricket. This is the worst I've seen it so far. Waste of time watching it.

  • Muhammad Seemab-against on September 22, 2012, 14:21 GMT

    No, its not and may nvr be on that level... bcz T20 is like "hit it" and one day cricket is "Play it"

  • faisal-against on September 22, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    Although t20WC is very exciting but it cant match 50 over WC in terms of quality & interest. 50 over WC is still favorite of pure cricket lovers..

  • Bala Vimalan. S-against on September 22, 2012, 11:52 GMT

    No. It is not. Because Current T20 is like what we are playing at village level. It purely depends on one or 2 lucky players on the day. Any top bowler can go like one doesn't in the list.Its not worthy to weight with 50-50.

  • Ashwin Ravishankar-for on September 22, 2012, 11:28 GMT

    Look, I watch cricket all the time. Whatever match I am always staring at the television. My mum hates cricket. Since it is a shorter format, she finds time to watch. It makes the game more fun for my family, because it is funny to watch her call the people by their wrong names or mistakes a pakistani from an indian. I love T20, even though I hate playing it!

  • Hari Ravi-against on September 22, 2012, 9:50 GMT

    T20 is very young and needs to settle down. It definitely has a larger acceptance and many new teams can gain entry. However, as these countries do not have enough exposure it will take time before they become competitive, a-la Bangladesh. T20 is still looked at the e-quotient of cricket and will need some maturing to be accepted as serious business. In fact the likes of IPL are making it a more marketing gimmick than serious cricket. I think ICC should promote Under19 cricket more to develop the game at the grass root level.

  • Chris Silva-for-for on September 22, 2012, 8:01 GMT

    What ever we say and believe the fact remains, cricket is a spectator sport. Test matches and even ODI's do not attract the numbers as T20 does. So give it a chance. More people who show an interest in cricket better it is for the game.

    We cannot get stuck with high polluted ideas thinking TEST cricket is the only thing. We have to change with the times.

  • Mustafa-against on September 22, 2012, 7:15 GMT

    You know what, I've got a really good idea, let's shut up, watch cricket and enjoy life as it is, there is no point in comparing foolishly the t20 wc with other wc as the obvious winner (in today's era is t20). T20 wc is fun, exciting and belligerent in its own way, the 50 over matches are better and more fun in their own way... Let life be as it is guys!

  • Indiapride-against on September 21, 2012, 20:47 GMT

    The T20 World Cup is a show for the fans fun to watch, fun to play but the 50 over is still so much thrilling. Nobody will watch the full match but it has never been boring either. T20 is fun but stupid.

  • Faria-for on September 21, 2012, 18:02 GMT

    yea t20 cricket is more fun :) The best format :) To take decisions quirky & and u have to do change Ur strategy according to situation its more exiting :)

  • John-against on September 21, 2012, 18:00 GMT

    T20 is exciting and fun to watch but, while 50-over cricket has lost a bit of appeal in bilateral series, a full WC is still the pinnacle of world cricket. I'm sure that most England and Australia fans would still rank the Ashes as the most important for them and many other fans around the world may prefer Test cricket in general and a series against a particular opponent specifically, e.g. India vs Pakistan, the fact that a world tournament brings every major nation and many smaller ones together is something that Test cricket can't compete with yet and, as a tournament, the WC means more than the WT20.

  • Ravi-for on September 21, 2012, 17:56 GMT

    Yes it is. Although it should be spaced out more. Like every four years instead of the way it is right now. But it is definitely as important as the ODI one

  • V Minas-against on September 21, 2012, 17:40 GMT

    World Cup (50 overs) is more valuable than WT20. There is more thrill in the 50 format than T20. Especially after bringing more changes with respect to the power play and hence teams have to plan the innings accordingly. In a T20 you cannot gauge the teams real strength.(Its like a lottery and any given day any team can win the cup).Already the interest in the IPL matches has reduced as compared to the first 2 editions.

  • philip kaye-against on September 21, 2012, 16:15 GMT

    T20 is an ugly perversion of cricket for those without discipline or staying power. Players with a good eye but terrible technique like Levi can prosper which tells you all you need to know about it. Id rather watch Baseball - at least that is an authentic sport.

  • Rahul Vasudevan-against on September 21, 2012, 14:04 GMT

    An ICC World T20 Trophy cannot match the ICC Cricket World Cup. But T20 is an ideal platform for giving exposure to the Associate/Affiliate teams. Moreover 16 teams for the WorldT20 and 10 teams for the Cricket World Cup is the best way forward

  • Vinod-against on September 20, 2012, 23:23 GMT

    T20 should be seen as an initiative to bring in non-cricketing nations into the sport and not the ultimate cricketing championship !! ODI World Cups are certainly superior.

  • @Chandimalogy-against on September 20, 2012, 19:38 GMT

    World Cup is more valuable than WT20. Luck plays a big part in T20s which is not good for a sport. 50 over game is more balanced I think. It also need bit of luck. But not as much as in T20s. Also quality & talent are big factors in longer formats, which allows us to find the real winner.

  • Dylan DPC-for on September 20, 2012, 12:59 GMT

    This is a sport where in formats co-exist with each other and not compete with each other. It is not that t20 cricket is competing with ODI & Test cricket, rather all three are playing different roles in the development of the game.

    Coming to the question, a tournament consisting of 12-best teams is still a big thing and it is on-par with the 50-over. The 50-over may be treated with higher respect since it started in 1975 compared to 2007 for t20 edition. The 50-over WC proves who is the best side from the 50-over format and the World T20 shows us the best side from t20 format

  • Hadi-for on September 20, 2012, 12:45 GMT

    I really do not remember any classic T20 international or domestic matches with the exception of the first t20 world final between Ind and Pakistan. The shorter format leaves less lasting memories and there is currently an overdose of it. There is something charming in a prolonged battle between bat and ball, there is time to recover even if something bad happens the first innings or first spell. Somehow though in the modern times, t20 is for the masses specially in subcontinent. The world has evolved and so has cricket and it will continue to evolve so right now its t20 that's more important. We are witnessing history :)

  • Nash-against on September 20, 2012, 10:35 GMT

    No it wasn't and isn't and never will be. Things like IPL are ruining cricket, but the world t20 is an improvement, and that's all. There is no competition between the two.

  • Talib-for on September 20, 2012, 9:11 GMT

    Obviously not as popular as the ODI world cup but come on guys how old is it? 5 years BARELY. How entertaining is it? Way more than the ODIs and no doubt about that. I do not care how the conservative old fashioned society thinks but one has to grow up and walk along side with the rest of the cricket lovers. I am sure one days were not as popular back then as compared to Test cricket but now just look at the turn over at The Oval at an ODI specially during the world cup. I am not sure whether to support the given argument or go against it but this format of game has gained immense attention given it wasn't introduced long ago. This is a fast moving world unlike 30 years ago without internet so learn to keep up with the pace unless you want a blow on your shoulder like the one Saurav Ganguly got against the fastest bowler of the world, SHOAIB AKHTAR :)

  • SachTlg-against on September 19, 2012, 11:45 GMT

    Well No- 50 Over cricket is still the established norm and mind you judging by the last world cup it is still in good health. Of course people don't like meaningless 5 match series but the 50 over cricket world cup still remains the pinnacle. T20 is the more popular and there is a chance that it might overtake the 50 over game but not in the near future.

  • Jagger-against on September 19, 2012, 9:24 GMT

    I like to have a relaxing nap during the cricket and wake up with the game still on, not already finished.

  • Waqar Qazi-for on September 19, 2012, 8:29 GMT

    The problem with Test was it was too long and a new format had to be introduced which was more time saving and commercially marketable; but nobody knew how short it should be! One day was created to decrease the duration from 5 to 1 day? but why not to a few hours so it could be more exciting, more energetic, more demanding in terms of athleticism (making cricket a contender for olympics). I'd ask the One day lovers what's the difference between one day and T20 except for the time wasting in One day? Infact One day should be scrapped completely and the two T's should remain, Test and T20! T20 is the only format to introduce cricket in other countries.

  • Snehasis-against on September 19, 2012, 4:26 GMT

    Frankly i just dont feel any special about t20wc.actualy no use of it. I have watched cwc2012's every match and enjoyed. T20 is good at club only i say.and if this wc will be a flop dn srilanka's mis management must b the coz

  • Anton-for on September 19, 2012, 3:22 GMT

    I just feel every test series should be played in context. At the moment lot of the series are simply played for the sake of it and fans are losing interest. The Ashes, for example, was amazing in 2005, but the last two Ashes series have not captured peoples imagination. if a prestigious series like the Ashes capture imagination, what chance has a Pakistan Vs Sri Lanka test series? If each series was played part of test championship running 4 years with the outcome of each series being important in that context, then it will provide meaning and fans will show more interest.

    ODI matches just go on for too long; seven/eight hours in the modern day is just unacceptable. 20-20 is fast and lots of action, so no need for the 50 over game. 20-20 is also a better way to take the game into new countries like the US, China, Continental Europe.

    I would also like to see players showing more urgency on the field. These days teams go through 13 overs an hours compared to 16 three decades ago.

  • Anton-for on September 19, 2012, 3:13 GMT

    Personally I would like to see the 50 over game to end. There is no longer a need for 50 over game as 20-20 has overtaken it in popularity. Yes, 50 over game is more of a test for player than 20-20, but having three versions of the game is completely unnecessary and, if the administrators are not careful, will alienate fans. Its difficult to follow the game for many fans when there are three formats. Its an overkill. The only reason why the ICC won't do away with the 50 over game is because they have signed these very long term TV deals that includes includes 50 over world cups and a host of other ODI tournaments.

    I would like to see a world test championship over 4 years culminating in a final between the two top nations with the country finishing top having home advantage in the final decider.

    As for 20-20, I would like to see a world cup played every 2 years with 16 countries in it. This would give smaller countries like Afghanistan, Kenya, Holland, Ireland and others a chance.

  • nandika-against on September 19, 2012, 1:20 GMT

    one day cricket format test the skills of all the 11 players involved in a team.that is the real cricket.no way one even compare it with 20twenty cricket.

  • Biggus-against on September 19, 2012, 0:39 GMT

    No, not even close for me I'm afraid, though I understand why the kids love it with it's instant gratification akin to video gaming. For me T20 is too abbreviated to develop any sort of real struggle and has all the thematic power of a drive-by shooting.

  • Gizza-against on September 18, 2012, 23:56 GMT

    The less overs in the game, the less seriously it should be taken. Simple. If you have a cricket game where there is only one ball for each innings (not even one over) a team of 2 year kids can beat a team any major national side. Just one flukey 4 or 6 for the 3 year olds and a flukey miss for the adults and there's the game. Having said that Twenty20 is still a bit of fun.

  • salman meghani-for on September 18, 2012, 22:12 GMT

    Thats what people used to say when ODI was introduced that they are no history. History will be made!!!

  • CricketNNS-against on September 18, 2012, 21:44 GMT

    Definitely not. The World Cup has a huge history, and many thrilling matches that have been remembered over the years. The World T20 is nowhere near, this is just the 4th edition, and many people don't take these as seriously as a World Cup match. I'm sure it'll come to (hopefully) in it's own time, but for now, the World Cup is the king of kings.

  • Mustafa Moiz-against on September 18, 2012, 21:41 GMT

    Absolutely not. The T20 World Cup isn't even on par with the Champions Trophy. ODI cricket is and will remain a superior format. T20's entertaining, but a victory in T20s doesn't feel the same as a win in ODIs or Tests.

  • coachie ballgames-for on September 18, 2012, 20:46 GMT

    Twenty20 is the future. With ESPN behind it in the U.S. it will be massive. The ICC should look to hold the Twenty20 in the U.S., just like FIFA took a chance in 1994. Games could be held in South Florida, Los Angeles, D.C., and New York. Just look at what a massive success the '94 World Cup was. Twenty20 is the perfect format to pull in neophytes and the perfect format to grow the game.

  • Mujahid Bhutta-for on September 18, 2012, 20:35 GMT

    T20 World Cup means to control your nerves.............

  • Harry Harendran-against on September 18, 2012, 20:12 GMT

    I hope for the sake of cricket this is the final T20 world cup. It's held in a country and the opening game at a grounds which has more political connotation than cricket.

    Spectators are not going to fill up the grounds as in IPL

    The shorter version is all big bang

    The opening game was a bore

  • DavidR-for-for on September 18, 2012, 19:58 GMT

    It's too early to say...at the same time, I don't know why there is always a need for comparisons. Just enjoy the cricket! There are going to be brilliant moments in this tournament. My only criticism is that there should be "a two years gap" between the World Cup. By having it every two years run the risk of overkill.

  • DavidR-for on September 18, 2012, 19:58 GMT

    It's too early to say...at the same time, I don't know why there is always a need for comparisons. Just enjoy the cricket! There are going to be brilliant moments in this tournament. My only criticism is that there should be "a two years gap" between the World Cup. By having it every two years run the risk of overkill.

  • Sam-against on September 18, 2012, 19:22 GMT

    T20 is good but for real Cricket fans, ODIs are the real deal. When I discuss this with my fellow Cricket fans who also love Tests, they say to me that because most people have no time for Tests, they instead watch and/or follow ODIs. But when it comes to organisation of T20 and ODI world cups, T20 world cup is simply ahead because it takes 3 weeks where as ODI world cup a mammoth 6 weeks. Instead in my view, the T20 world cup should be upto 16 teams where lower ranked teams seriously has a chance of beating a top ranked with 4 groups of 4 and 50 over world cup should be upto 12 teams 4 groups of 3 like the current 2012 T20 championship because most associates struggle to compete in 50 overs as compared to 20 overs. This will save a considerable amount of time and be more sufficient.

  • Smith-against on September 18, 2012, 19:12 GMT

    No way 50 over is the best infact I 'd say its even better than Tests because Number 1, it takes one day to get the results same with T20s but Test much much longer. But since this article is about T20s and ODIs definitely ODIs because its perfectly balanced and batsman even bowlers can have time to settle in and play their shots/deliveries simple as that. With T20, there's simply no if not very little time to set yourself. The only reason 50 over Cricket gets a lot of stiff now is Number 1, too many meaningless series is being played such as the recent ENG-IND series in India and recent ENG-AUS series, series which will be played again next year so that's why 50 over gets a lot of stiff. Also the 50 over World Cup is too long and instead should be upto 12 teams instead of 14 because there are not too many strong associates out there therefore pointless world cup matches in 50 over. You should have 10 full members plus 2 associate qualifiers in 50 over world cup simple as that.

  • aayush kataria -against-against on September 18, 2012, 18:17 GMT

    not yet ,but its definetly getting there but i remember world cup the hype is diffrent ,the feeling is diffrent but Wt20 is gaining importance and becoming special year by year and that day is not far away when its get on par or i think tough to get more importantance becouse of the history it has and the pride with it

  • aayush kataria -against on September 18, 2012, 18:17 GMT

    not yet ,but its definetly getting there but i remember world cup the hype is diffrent ,the feeling is diffrent but Wt20 is gaining importance and becoming special year by year and that day is not far away when its get on par or i think tough to get more importantance becouse of the history it has and the pride with it

  • DWILSON-against on September 18, 2012, 18:14 GMT

    my view is that by having the T-20 so frequently, we are devaluing the game.With all this 20-20 leagues in the world the players will soon do a KP. Packer was castigated when i was young now we have a tournement every year. LONG LIVE TEST CRICKET.

  • Thamara-against on September 18, 2012, 18:01 GMT

    I think 50-over cricket is still a tough challenge for any team. It calles for more patience and skills whereas 20-over cricket is more about big hitting. That is why even non-test playing nations have been able to surprise big international teams on many occasions. In my opinion, 50-over cricket still has it's place in international cricket and it is different from twenty20 cricket in many ways. What has happened now is that after 20-20 cricket came along, people have found 50-over cricket boring because of middle period of the inning being sluggish in 50-over cricket. That is why ICC has been trying out all sorts of things in order to make 50-over cricket as entertaining as 20-over cricket. But it is not going to work in that way any way. when you look at the winning teams of 50-over world cup so far, you can see that it has been won by very strong teams which had very good balance in the team. Therefore, I think 50-over world cup is much more difficult competition.

  • Vignesh-against on September 18, 2012, 17:56 GMT

    It's a huge crime to compare t20 to 50-50. They're both different and very exciting. But the 50-50 is much bigger and means a lot more. You need your fitness levels to be up there. You've got more chances to redeem yourself in a 50 over match, whilst t20 just needs you to blink and you miss. Being ranked number 1 in 50 overs mean a lot more than t20. As, we saw recently, Australia drop to 10th position in t20 rankings. 50 overs and t20 are two different games of cricket. Shining in t20 depends on luck and not strength. 50 overs is all ways my pick and should be for everyone.

  • Don Belliappa-against on September 18, 2012, 17:42 GMT

    T20 may be fast and exciting. But, no way is it close to replacing the 50 over world cup according to me. The only format after tests to rate a particular players skill is the 50 over format. T20 is a money spinner and not a patron of the game. It will kill cricket if encouraged. It is not a good example for youngsters. I am an ardent fan of the 50 over format. However, most of them would not agree. By no means do I think the T20 can replace the 50 over world cup. The 50 over format has a great history. Besides there are many records in the 50 over formats by great players that will be forgotten if the T20 format takes over. The IPL should be banned as it is spoiling the real meaning of cricket. No matter what 50 over format and tests are ultimate tests of skill and perseverance. Not T20. Never for it.

  • Muneeb Ahmmed-for on September 18, 2012, 17:32 GMT

    Its much interesting than 50 over so my vote is for T20

  • CricBellz-for on September 18, 2012, 17:29 GMT

    T20 cricket required more calculations and plannings than ODI cricket as it is much faster and quicker than ODI hence it requires greater level of skills to adapt with the situation in shorter time span!! One has to be on the top level of its game EACH and EVERY second!!! Hence a big YES coz you have to be a tough coconut on the field!!!

  • Mayuranaratnam selva-against on September 18, 2012, 17:27 GMT

    How long were Pakistan T20 World champions. A mere 9 months. Compare this to actual ODI worldcup where champions last for minimum of 4 years. No competition. It is like comparing a marathon winner with 100 m race. A small error can make you loose. Not true test of cricketing skills like test or even ODI where temperament ,skills, planning take precedence. Less overs you have to play, the more luck involved. More like gully cricket where you play for fun 2 lucky hits over fence can change a match on its head.

  • Raza Shaikh-against-against on September 18, 2012, 17:25 GMT

    Well this is no doubt that T20 is a entertainer game. But at the same time you need much skills players in this short format game,who can bowl,bat and good fielder as well.Compare to 50over world cup and T20 world cup I would prefer 50 over world cup where the patient was the key.

  • Raza Shaikh-against on September 18, 2012, 17:25 GMT

    Well this is no doubt that T20 is a entertainer game. But at the same time you need much skills players in this short format game,who can bowl,bat and good fielder as well.Compare to 50over world cup and T20 world cup I would prefer 50 over world cup where the patient was the key.

  • Gavin -against on September 18, 2012, 17:21 GMT

    The less overs you have to play, the more luck involved. So anybody can beat anybody. And thats why Pakistan are good at this format and Afridi considered the best. And if you play a ten-over match you really would have no idea who's going to win. But in 50 overs ODI team with better players in cricketing terms win. Example ODI WC2011

  • Puneet-against on September 18, 2012, 17:15 GMT

    No way, T20 is a lottery game

  • Chittivelu-for on September 18, 2012, 17:06 GMT

    Yes, T20, can be as good as 50/50 World cup, because as long as you feel it a "Nation's " victory rather than a "team's" victory.

  • Vivek Sehgal-against on September 18, 2012, 17:03 GMT

    Frequency needs to be reduced, 3 years minimum! Tournament needs to be longer and more competitive.

  • Mayur - Toronto-for on September 18, 2012, 17:00 GMT

    It is at par with ODI, but when played in either India / PAK / SA where you can attract crowd in most games. In SL may be tought. You are not seeing any crowed even in high profile game such as Ind/Pak.

  • Sudheer Sattaru-for on September 18, 2012, 16:59 GMT

    Yes! T20 format makes that no team can be favorite during events like T20 WC. I would love to see Netherlands,Scotland,Canada and Kenya also to be part of this WC, but that was stupid bargain by ICC limiting to 12 teams at the cost of one day WC. In One day WC obviously winner will be one among the top 12 teams, so there is no need to have 16 teams whereas in T20 Australia is at 10 th position but still they are favorites; Also talking about T20 WC importance it introduces the world many great players from associate nations to the world- like ten doetche, O'brien, Nannes... Allowing more people to play in T20 will not allow them to go to other countries to play more cricket as with the case of Morgan/Ed Joyce/Nannes...now Rankin too

  • Hassan-against on September 18, 2012, 16:57 GMT

    Although t20 world cups have shown that they can be very exciting and fun to watch nothing will ever be as big as the original world cup.

  • dickey bird-for-for on September 18, 2012, 16:34 GMT

    T/20 is like fast food.

    It is all about excitement & uncertainty. No pundit could predict a clear outcome. Good to test the fitness & consistency of players. need to cut off the bouncer allocation.

    Bring in others to make a pool of 16) teams.

    Want to experience a shocker.... wait for the Afgans. They are rockers.

  • dickey bird-for on September 18, 2012, 16:33 GMT

    T/20 is like fast food.

    It is all about excitement & uncertainty. No pundit could predict a clear outcome. Good to test the fitness & consistency of players. need to cut off the bouncer allocation.

    Bring in others to make a pool of 16) teams.

    Want to experience a shocker.... wait for the Afgans. They are rockers.

  • Sundar-for on September 18, 2012, 15:59 GMT

    There cannot be a comparison. World T20 is the pinnacle of the T20 game and the world cup is the pinnacle of the 50over game. They are different formats and need to be respected on their own accord.

  • Zo-for on September 18, 2012, 15:58 GMT

    T20 is the only format where you can watch the entire game. Not many have time to watch a full day for an ODI game. Time to scrap ODI World Cup and have more T20 World Cups.

  • MG-against on September 18, 2012, 15:15 GMT

    World Cup that happens every year is NOT a World cup. It has potential to be great only if you let crowd built the intensity just ebfore 50 Over WC.

  • Saleel-for on September 18, 2012, 14:56 GMT

    There is no comparison, and the debate in itself makes no sense. They are two different versions of the game, but if there is a general inclination for which tournament determines true CRICKET CHAMPIONS, then that would be the ODI World Cup. - It comes once every 4 years, as opposed to 2 - It is a better gauge of cricket skill over T20 - It is a longer format which requires the skills to sustain consistently over a longer duration of the tournament than 2 weeks. I still love the Twenty20 World Cup, but it is not ranked higher than the iconic ODI World Cup.

  • rubanarendharan-for on September 18, 2012, 14:00 GMT

    The competition is between bat and ball always. In ODI the bowlers try to contain runs and picking wickets. and the batsmen have given 50 over's they have to balance it with both aggression and defence else they would colapse below par. In Test the batsmen have unlimited health potion and what they need is to survive. But unfortunately bowlers get limited health potion through which they have to be consistent and to take wickets. 20Twenty, Its the game where bowler's are groomed. And the batsmen showing there real face.

  • Aravinth-for on September 18, 2012, 13:58 GMT

    T20 is big, when it comes to No of fans, money and entertainment. It gives opportunity to a lot of people to perform and perish... But 50 over game is the real game of cricket. Skills come out well when you are fresh... Keeping your self skilled when u are tired is the real challenge.. It's fulfilled only in the 50 over format... You have to master certain skills to play 50, I'm not saying t20 ain't need any skills, but you can still survive in T20 if you are lucky to top edge the ball to the 3rd man boundary so often. 50 is the best always.

  • Naveed-against on September 18, 2012, 13:58 GMT

    Cricket is a gentlemen game. Test cricket is real cricket, agreed that people do not have time these days to watch test cricket and the real art of cricket. Yet they satisfy their craving by watching some 'Holligan' format of cricket (no real strategy involved) and that is T20. The one day format is still good, where some brain storming is involved and is still an acceptable format.

    What is next 10-10 or 5-5.

  • Triple A-against on September 18, 2012, 13:56 GMT

    I still think there is some ground work to be done with T20 before it reaches the heights of the ODI World Cup. I do feel that since the batsmen play very aggressively from Ball 1, the bowlers should get more privileges and the boundaries should be put right against the stands. Only then will an even contest ensue. Otherwise this will continue to just be a bang-hit-out format to please the inconsistent watchers of cricket, not the real fans. Simultaneously, I feel the 50 over format should be reduced to a 40 over one, so that there is a little more briskness in play.

  • Arun-against-against on September 18, 2012, 13:51 GMT

    T20 can never match 50 over worldcup.... T20 jus for entertainment... Worldcup for cricket fans!!

  • Arun-against on September 18, 2012, 13:51 GMT

    T20 can never match 50 over worldcup.... T20 jus for entertainment... Worldcup for cricket fans!!

  • Manoj-against on September 18, 2012, 13:50 GMT

    No. Because luck plays a major role in T20.

  • Arun-for on September 18, 2012, 13:48 GMT

    Do or Die..Within 120 balls. No getting to know the pitch. You come You Hit You GO!

  • John Marcellin-for on September 18, 2012, 13:47 GMT

    Twenty20 cricket is definitely the future of the game fun wise.Its the only format that can compete with other sports and can build the type of excitement and atmosphere seen in soccer for example.

  • Haaris Kirmani-against on September 18, 2012, 13:42 GMT

    No it is not as big as the 50 over world cup, at least not yet. A lot of the world cup's prestige has to do with its history as well as the fact that the format lowers the chances for a couple of lucky victories securing you the cup. As the T20 rankings have shown over what is now a considerable sample size, it is still very much an experimental game where not much can be predicted and thus there is only so much that can be practiced. The strength of individual performance is far greater in T20 and thus the format just doesn't have the depth to it that the 50 over format provides. Last but not least, this tournament happens far too often; this is now the fourth World T20 in as little as 5 years and that seriously diminishes the prestige of winning. As it stands now the 50 over World Cup is the real deal however with time T20 could take over as it slowly becomes the premier limited overs format.

  • Rohit Bhagchandani-for on September 18, 2012, 13:40 GMT

    ODI World Cup and World T20 are different to each other...T20 will make its mark after this and next one in Bangladesh..ODI WC comes once in 4 year but T20 comes every alternate years..T20 has improved the standard of ODI as double centuries are possible in limited overs..and run rate of 8+ is a normal thing compared to a decade ago where 5 runs per over was great in ODI. so both are interconnected to each other..Even TEST MATCH.

  • sridhar-against on September 18, 2012, 13:38 GMT

    While the T20 WC may be regarded as a stepping stone to success in other formats, it is far from reaching the icon status that the ODI WC still commands. There are essentially three, self-explanatory, reasons for this: 1) IPL, 2) Frequency and 3) Legacy. The ODI WC does not compete with anything like the IPL, happens only every 4 years and has gone on long enough to have a great legacy. Almost all teams that have won a WC won this one first and the ones that have not, yearn for this one the most. Besides, Tendulkar does not play the T20-WC!

  • Priyantha Wije, Canada-for on September 18, 2012, 13:23 GMT

    Definitely Yes. T20 format is the fire-cracker, pressure-cooker version of this lovely game of cricket. Given the inherant unpredictablility of the format, there aren't any favourites...not really. Although being the hosts, Sri Lanka also would enter the encounter as the underdogs battling around. It's anyone's game. But the team with consistant endurance of unshaken mindset will be the final winners.

  • Ebad-for on September 18, 2012, 13:12 GMT

    T20 is quite exciting, and brings so many nations togather quite frequently. Teams show their best efforts to win and that makes it interesting. Not as big as the worldcup but... there should not be gaps in T20 world cup like Anand suggested, @Anand please donot compare T20WC/Worldcup scenarios with that of footy as in euro its not everyone from the world that takes part.

  • Shravan-against-against on September 18, 2012, 12:59 GMT

    The world cup has a huge histoty unlike the newer format of 20 overs per side. A world cup takes place every 4 years and winning a world cup is a little more awesome than the world t20. But I must accept that both formats are damn fun!!

  • Shravan-against on September 18, 2012, 12:59 GMT

    The world cup has a huge histoty unlike the newer format of 20 overs per side. A world cup takes place every 4 years and winning a world cup is a little more awesome than the world t20. But I must accept that both formats are damn fun!!

  • Shuddha-against on September 18, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    Nowhere near as big as CWC. in 2010, hardly any1 cared abt da south asian teams performance in da wt20. i mean c'mon i'm a b'deshi nd only da b'desh matches were followed wid avid interest. nobody evn cared tht match abt da oder matches. evn wen india who were favs crashed out of s8s nobody seemed to care.but in CWC 2011, evn after b'desh charshed out of grp stages of cwc, we followed all da knkout matches wid avid interest. we all had a 2nd fav team pak sl ind etc.so there is more excitement nd interst in cwc as u can clearly see

  • Ashiq-for on September 18, 2012, 12:25 GMT

    Not yet but not far behind either.Just look at the squads, thats the best each national team can put forward and the anticipation to watch the games is huge also.Give it a bit more time and its probably going to get bigger than the 50 over WC.. True Story :D

  • Aditya-against on September 18, 2012, 12:19 GMT

    The Cricket World Cup is the premier tournament in cricket. Over the years it has acquired history and teams plan their selection and strategies around the 50-over World Cup cycle which will never be the case with T20 cricket where team combinations can be a bit of a lottery just like the format itself. ICC Cricket World Cup is also one of the most watched sports events after the Olympics and FIFA World Cup, so I`d say that the ICC has to look after it carefully. The World T20 can be used as a format to introduce new teams to international cricket and give them a taste of the International arena. I would love to see a 16 or 20 team World T20 in the next two editions opening it up for more associates. That way it would have its own identity.

  • Aditya-for on September 18, 2012, 12:18 GMT

    The Cricket World Cup is the premier tournament in cricket. Over the years it has acquired history and teams plan their selection and strategies around the 50-over World Cup cycle which will never be the case with T20 cricket where team combinations can be a bit of a lottery just like the format itself. ICC Cricket World Cup is also one of the most watched sports events after the Olympics and FIFA World Cup, so I`d say that the ICC has to look after it carefully. The World T20 can be used as a format to introduce new teams to international cricket and give them a taste of the International arena. I would love to see a 16 or 20 team World T20 in the next two editions opening it up for more associates. That way it would have its own identity.

  • shardul Juyal-against on September 18, 2012, 11:55 GMT

    it is not.

  • Krishnamurthy Narayanan-for on September 18, 2012, 11:41 GMT

    T 20 in its present format has thrown quite a number of new heroes who are more likely to dominate the world of cricket in the near future. The format requires all rounders and the ability to move quite fast between the wickets and also on the field. It allows the youngsters to be alert at all times during the time of play.Big hitters, economical bowlers, street smart stoppages etc. are going to rule the roost

  • shashidhar-against on September 18, 2012, 11:31 GMT

    No, it isn't as big as the World Cup: Twenty20 cricket has no history like one-day cricket does and the shortest format hasn't acquired the seriousness of the 50-over game yet. Most fans consider the World Cup the real deal.

  • Akheel-for on September 18, 2012, 10:43 GMT

    Twenty20 is the only format that fits the Olympics. that tells a lot......

  • anand-against on September 18, 2012, 10:16 GMT

    No at the present moment it is not as big as world cup.T20 needs to be packaged properly.It is being packaged similar to Champions trophy for every two year period which is not good for the future.A four year cycle should be followed similar to 50 over world cup.I like to see a two year gap between 50 over & 20 over world cup similar to football(World cup & Euro cup).I would like to see next T20 starting at 2017 subsequently 50 over World cup after 2 years.Both the format should be given equal importance.

  • Anish-against-against on September 18, 2012, 9:59 GMT

    The world T20 isn't so big as their is no records and the World Cup is longer.Teams take more risk in the World T20 and less in the World Cup because World T20 is still more experimental and you don't need as much planning.

  • Anish-against on September 18, 2012, 9:59 GMT

    The world T20 isn't so big as their is no records and the World Cup is longer.Teams take more risk in the World T20 and less in the World Cup because World T20 is still more experimental and you don't need as much planning.

  • Riaz Malik-for on September 18, 2012, 9:57 GMT

    When International teams face each other will full strength sides some even including Veterans to boost their squad I would this tournament is par with 50 Over world cup.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Riaz Malik-for on September 18, 2012, 9:57 GMT

    When International teams face each other will full strength sides some even including Veterans to boost their squad I would this tournament is par with 50 Over world cup.

  • Anish-against on September 18, 2012, 9:59 GMT

    The world T20 isn't so big as their is no records and the World Cup is longer.Teams take more risk in the World T20 and less in the World Cup because World T20 is still more experimental and you don't need as much planning.

  • Anish-against-against on September 18, 2012, 9:59 GMT

    The world T20 isn't so big as their is no records and the World Cup is longer.Teams take more risk in the World T20 and less in the World Cup because World T20 is still more experimental and you don't need as much planning.

  • anand-against on September 18, 2012, 10:16 GMT

    No at the present moment it is not as big as world cup.T20 needs to be packaged properly.It is being packaged similar to Champions trophy for every two year period which is not good for the future.A four year cycle should be followed similar to 50 over world cup.I like to see a two year gap between 50 over & 20 over world cup similar to football(World cup & Euro cup).I would like to see next T20 starting at 2017 subsequently 50 over World cup after 2 years.Both the format should be given equal importance.

  • Akheel-for on September 18, 2012, 10:43 GMT

    Twenty20 is the only format that fits the Olympics. that tells a lot......

  • shashidhar-against on September 18, 2012, 11:31 GMT

    No, it isn't as big as the World Cup: Twenty20 cricket has no history like one-day cricket does and the shortest format hasn't acquired the seriousness of the 50-over game yet. Most fans consider the World Cup the real deal.

  • Krishnamurthy Narayanan-for on September 18, 2012, 11:41 GMT

    T 20 in its present format has thrown quite a number of new heroes who are more likely to dominate the world of cricket in the near future. The format requires all rounders and the ability to move quite fast between the wickets and also on the field. It allows the youngsters to be alert at all times during the time of play.Big hitters, economical bowlers, street smart stoppages etc. are going to rule the roost

  • shardul Juyal-against on September 18, 2012, 11:55 GMT

    it is not.

  • Aditya-for on September 18, 2012, 12:18 GMT

    The Cricket World Cup is the premier tournament in cricket. Over the years it has acquired history and teams plan their selection and strategies around the 50-over World Cup cycle which will never be the case with T20 cricket where team combinations can be a bit of a lottery just like the format itself. ICC Cricket World Cup is also one of the most watched sports events after the Olympics and FIFA World Cup, so I`d say that the ICC has to look after it carefully. The World T20 can be used as a format to introduce new teams to international cricket and give them a taste of the International arena. I would love to see a 16 or 20 team World T20 in the next two editions opening it up for more associates. That way it would have its own identity.

  • Aditya-against on September 18, 2012, 12:19 GMT

    The Cricket World Cup is the premier tournament in cricket. Over the years it has acquired history and teams plan their selection and strategies around the 50-over World Cup cycle which will never be the case with T20 cricket where team combinations can be a bit of a lottery just like the format itself. ICC Cricket World Cup is also one of the most watched sports events after the Olympics and FIFA World Cup, so I`d say that the ICC has to look after it carefully. The World T20 can be used as a format to introduce new teams to international cricket and give them a taste of the International arena. I would love to see a 16 or 20 team World T20 in the next two editions opening it up for more associates. That way it would have its own identity.