Oh, look, obviously there have been some weather-related annoyances, but putting that aside, there have been some extraordinary performances, and I think the key takeaway from this particular tournament is demonstrating the positive impact the T20 format has had on the cricketing world by bringing the less well-known nations closer to being competitive and even defeating them on occasion.
Namibia defeated Sri Lanka in the first game, the West Indies were defeated, and Ireland defeated England. It has a history of being surprising and, in my opinion, sparks a lot of attention.
Twenty20 cricket is sometimes criticised by purists and sceptics who believe that. It is a very disposable format that won’t provide the unforgettable moments that lengthier formats do. Do you believe that perspective is currently shifting?
In my opinion. My only piece of advise is to avoid attempting to compare the formats; it’s difficult to picture some people ever coming around to it. Because they are very different but yet [genuine cricket] at their core, T20 is a nice, well-received, and well-liked format because it is authentic cricket.
It is not jeopardised by the quantity of participants on the field. The presence of wildcards that give you a second opportunity if you are eliminated, or any other gimmicky mechanism.
Traditionalists would undoubtedly claim that there are several gimmicks there, but in reality. It is just a greatly shortened version of the game of cricket as we have always known it.
So, like I said, don’t compare them. This is primarily for amusement purposes, but if you tell the players that it’s not important or serious, I imagine they’ll look at you with disdain because they understand how much it means to them to represent their nation and compete for a World Cup.