Quadrennial or Bi-annual World T20

[icyman]

After India 2016, the next edition of the World T20 would be played in Australia in 2020. The cycle changes from a bi-annual event to being a quadrennial one. The ICC has in the recent past mooted the quadrennial concept, last applied to the Champions Trophy.

I for one, feel that the event should remain a bi-annual one as it gives a chance to the Associates to show their skills. Plus, with T20 being such a dramatic version, anything is possible. We've seen even the strongest of English sides crumble in front of the Orange.

What do you people feel ? Should it remain a bi-annual event or is the ICC right in proposing it as a quadrennial one ?

 

[zwarrior]

Even I feel it should be a bi-annual event. Playing the world cup is a dream for everyone. If the associates can't participate in the world cup, they won't get enough exposure/motivation to grow. Hardly any big nation tours the associates and vice versa. So, the associates will be playing matches against each other. They won't get a chance to face a bigger opposition. Unless they face some mighty team, they can't improve their skills. If cricket has to grow, ICC should make the WC as bi-annual one.

 

[stefan]

I think to grow the game its better to have it every second year.

 

[grkrama]

i would rather have champions trophy reduced to 20 overs and include al the associates!

 

[Targaryen]

i would rather have champions trophy reduced to 20 overs and include al the associates!

Champions Trophy has already been changed to different format (Test).

 

[CerealKiller]

Champions Trophy has already been changed to different format (Test).

The ICC, pressured by the broadcasters, rechanged it to the 50-over format.
I think the World T20 has been changed to a quadrennial event to accomodate the Big 3, so they can host everytime.

 

[Targaryen]

The ICC, pressured by the broadcasters, rechanged it to the 50-over format.
I think the World T20 has been changed to a quadrennial event to accomodate the Big 3, so they can host everytime.

That will take away all fun of watching WT20.

 

[Pinch hitter]

it is after 2 years or 4 years don't matter... associate teams need more matches against bigger quality teams... if they play more with top teams, they understand them self better and improve there game... i am tried of these 10 only good cricketing nations [actually 7 now days]

 

[icyman]

The Test Champions Trophy is different than the ODI one. The last edition was supposed to be the final edition of the ODI Champions Trophy; however the overwhelming response forced them to reconsider that decision.

As for the World T20, I'd rather have it every two years with an Associate nation being given the rights to host the same. Imagine if the 2018 World T20 was played in Ireland/Scotland. Gives adequate exposure to the game and also brings in a lot of revenue for the Associates. I'd even go a bit further and probably allot it to say China/ Singapore to spread the game further. The ICC can ask for bids from the Associates for hosting the same.

i would rather have champions trophy reduced to 20 overs and include al the associates!

Include all the Associates and have it as a knock-out. Lends more meat to the contest. This way all games would be interesting and a single slip-up might cost a good team and that would make it interesting. With the likes of Bangladesh, Ireland and Afghanistan a knock-out tournament might just be the dose that cricket needs.

 

[cricket_icon]

After India 2016, the next edition of the World T20 would be played in Australia in 2020. The cycle changes from a bi-annual event to being a quadrennial one. The ICC has in the recent past mooted the quadrennial concept, last applied to the Champions Trophy.

I for one, feel that the event should remain a bi-annual one as it gives a chance to the Associates to show their skills. Plus, with T20 being such a dramatic version, anything is possible. We've seen even the strongest of English sides crumble in front of the Orange.

What do you people feel ? Should it remain a bi-annual event or is the ICC right in proposing it as a quadrennial one ?

Definitely bi-annual.

not only are the associates affected, this gives more prestige to a world tournament which is not a true world cup, as that honour belongs to the 50 over format.

I guess India, England and Australia were too busy to play in the next 4 years so this was done to accommodate them.

 

[IceAgeComing]

I think that it should be bi-annual: I don't see the advantage of moving it to a quad-annual schedule. It doesn't take that long; T20 is a format that is unpredictable and it earns the ICC a lot of money which, if you actually had a revenue sharing policy that other sports have, would allow you to increase the amount of money that participating nations have to improve their facilities.

I'd also expand the thing as well to either 20 or 24 teams and get rid of the stupid "first round" and let everyone who qualifies for the competition play as equals. We have the strongest set of Associate and Affiliate nations ever, we should let more of them have an opportunity to play full member nations.

i would rather have champions trophy reduced to 20 overs and include al the associates!

i'd be interested to hear your structure for this; you're talking about including 110+ nations!

 

[MattW]

i'd be interested to hear your structure for this; you're talking about including 110+ nations!

Imagine a format where there were regional qualifiers for 32 places, with round robin group stages progressing into a round of 16...

 

[CerealKiller]

i'd be interested to hear your structure for this; you're talking about including 110+ nations!

Not really. There are only about 40 associate members. The other are affiliate members.

 

[cricket_icon]

Imagine a format where there were regional qualifiers for 32 places, with round robin group stages progressing into a round of 16...

32 teams in a world t20?

No thank you.

 

[CerealKiller]

32 teams in a world t20?

No thank you.

Why not? If the format is good, it'd be great, imo.