"Which teams will have a field day can hardly ever be determined on the basis of the playing XI" © Getty Images

So, which is the best Twenty20 side in the world? Didn’t last night’s game pretty much answer that question? Ironically though, I’d still be wary of putting my money on the winner. Isn’t Twenty20 cricket all about a given day and not so much about a particular team? Success and failure is anyone’s call. Which teams will have a field day can hardly ever be determined on the basis of the playing XI. Hence, both Australia and England should be kept on the same pedestal for their brilliant showing in the tournament.

But how can we possibly throw Pakistan out of the race? Runners-up in 2007, winners in 2009 and semi-finalists in this edition, Pakistan have proved to be one of the most consistent sides in a format where inconsistency is the only consistent thing. If you don’t believe me, ask our Men in Blue. Australia, England or Pakistan - three editions in four years and we still cannot be 100% sure about which team rules the roost in this format. Is it the nature of this format or is there more to it?

Before going into the reasons, here are a few statistics to lay the ground for my argument. India, for instance, play no less than 30 ODIs and more than four to five Tests in any given year. The more the number of matches, the more it helps a player hone his skill and become a specialist. On the contrary, the ICC has put a cap of seven [international] Twenty20 matches a country can play in a year, barring the World Cup. Oddly enough, the reason for this cap is to discourage teams from taking Twenty20 too seriously and hence safeguard the 50-overs format.

Well, if that be the case then how does one explain three World Twenty20s in four years? On the one hand, the ICC prohibits teams from playing more matches and on the other hand, expects them to compete at the highest level almost every alternate year. Isn’t it ironical?

Australia was the best side in the world for over a decade not just because they won three World Cups in the interim but for their consistency over a period of time. We could gauge their quality because they won against all oppositions, both home and away. But is there a similar platform when it comes to Twenty20 cricket? The answer is a resounding no.

It isn’t a secret that the more you play, the better you become. If the teams play more Twenty20 cricket, they’d identify Twenty20 specialists at the highest level and not in club or franchise-based domestic tournaments. A player might be devastating, batting at No. 4 for his franchise, but might prove a dud at No. 7 in international cricket. These players would then have specific roles assigned to them on the basis of their expertise. Eventually they’d start working like a well-oiled unit, quite similar to how most teams operate in the other two formats.

No longer do we pick the best Test players for 50-over cricket automatically. Then why are we still picking our best ODI players to double up as Twenty20 players? The reason is pretty straight forward - we are still in the phase of trial and error.

It's about time the ICC either takes this format seriously and allows teams to play more games or leaves it - with the exception of the World Twenty20 - for just the clubs to compete. For seven matches in a year is neither here nor there.

"I’m sure that the charm of the World Twenty20 won’t be wasted on the followers only if the timings and the venue is more appropriate" © Getty Images

Why compare the ICC World Twenty20 tournament with the IPL at all? Anyone who knows and understands his cricket would give his right arm for the bigger, mature and more accomplished contest of the two. Of course, grumbles about the Twenty20 World Cup being a bit humdrum are growing. No doubt, the ICC version comes across as the plain-Jane of the Twenty20 format, especially after a dekko at the swankier IPL. The reasons though, could not be cricketing but purely commercial and logistical.

Timing
The World Twenty20 is happening on the heels of the IPL, which is certainly quite an overdose of this format. However much you like the sport and the format, there’s bound to be some viewer fatigue. Devout followers will still watch, but even they would choose their games. People who started following the sport only because of the IPL are most likely to give it a miss.

And it’s not just the timing of the tournament but also the timings of the matches which are detrimental to its following. To cater to the Indian audience, matches start at 9.30 am local time. But is it fair to expect the locals and tourists to flock the stadium? For example St Lucia, where India played their league matches, is a small tourist destination. How can you expect the tourists to wake up and be at the ground at 8am for the morning match? With hardly any live audience the atmosphere in the stadium goes for a toss. Unfortunately even starting that early isn’t solving all the problems. The second game starts at 11 pm IST and which means the match goes on till 2.30am. Regardless of how good the match is, most of the Indian audience will turn off their TV sets after midnight during weekdays.

Following
Since the IPL is an Indian tournament with Indian players involved in every game, a decent turnout in every stadium is guaranteed. But that’s not the case in the West Indies. Yes, they might come in droves to watch their home team in action, but one cannot blame them for not turning up to watch an India-Afghanistan game.

For me, another thing that is not exactly working for the World Twenty20’s is that all the matches are day games. The idea of donning coloured clothing and playing with the white ball was to add to the visual appeal. And that appeal can truly manifest itself if the matches are played under artificial lights. While you can have an odd day-game in coloured clothing, having all the games during day time is a dampener.

What we should be talking about is the cricket, not the paraphernalia. Obviously, we’ve been somewhat blinded by the glitz. But if comparisons are inevitable, then the World Twenty20 sweeps it away hands down - firstly, there’s no bigger honour than representing your country and no bigger charm than rooting for your country. Secondly, the quality of cricket played in the World Twenty20 is definitely a lot better than that of the IPL, for obvious reasons. The clash is always amongst the equals and you’re always bowling to or batting against a quality bowler which is equal to quality cricket.

I’m sure that the charm won’t be wasted on the followers only if the timings and the venue is more appropriate.