Have your say

Given the cap of four overseas players, it doesn't help the team if one of them is an automatic selection regardless of performance.

In a tournament with so many young players unused to high-pressure situations, an experienced foreign head is invaluable.

Chennai, Mumbai, Kolkata, Delhi and Bangalore have the financial muscle to ensure they have the best players. The other teams, including Pune who entered the IPL late, don't stand a chance against their might.

Rajasthan, Punjab and Hyderabad and Pune might not have the attendant glitz and hype that surrounds the big five, but they compete as equals on the field. The fact that Rajasthan and Hyderabad won the first two editions proves that the underdogs can succeed in the IPL.

The political issue is out of Super Kings' control and taking matches away from Chennai would be disadvantaging them greatly and also depriving the IPL of some of its most fervent fans. Because each franchise has only one or two Sri Lankan players out of a contingent of 11 overseas players, they should take the inconvenience in their stride for the greater good of the tournament.

By sticking with the schedule and not allowing Sri Lankan players to play in Chennai, the IPL has potentially given Super Kings a huge advantage. CSK's Sri Lankan imports are fringe players unlikely to get a game, while the visiting teams will have to do without key players such as Malinga, Jayawardene, Sangakkara, Mendis, Mathews, Dilshan, Murali etc. Effectively CSK will be playing weakened teams in eight matches and have the home advantage.

Even before the most entertaining team won the tournament in an absorbing final, the World Twenty20 had the ingredients of a successful competition. There were several close matches, two ties, the batsmen didn't overly dominate, and the crowds were satisfactory.

The format rendered some of the marquee matches in the first round meaningless, rain was a spoilsport and the pre-seedings meant that all the teams that topped the group ended up facing each other in the Super Eights.

It gives all teams an equal chance. In this World T20, for example, England, Sri Lanka, India and South Africa enjoy an unfair advantage over New Zealand, West Indies, Australia and Pakistan - playing last in their groups means the first set knows exactly what do to progress, while the others can only do their best and hope results favour them.

It's a loss of revenue for the ICC and broadcasters. Also, net run-rate scenarios give the final group games - which could be dead rubbers - an extra edge.

Sehwag wasn't in good form, his fitness is ordinary, and playing four bowlers plus Irfan Pathan gives the side a better balance.

Sehwag's a match-winner and can destroy a bowling attack like few others. Teams will be happier not having to deal with Sehwag.

There's been a lot to like: quick pitches reducing the reliance on spin, memorable individual performances, and several players making strong comebacks.

The format, which removed context from the matches between strong sides, undermined the competition. And the rain ruined several potentially close matches.

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.

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.