How will history view the 2024 Men’s T20 World Cup? Let’s ponder this one, shall we?
It was a tournament dominated by bowlers, of which India’s were the best. That is evident by the way in which Jasprit Bumrah, Hardik Pandya and Arshdeep Singh pulled the floor from beneath South Africa’s feet when the Proteas needed 30 runs from 30 balls with six wickets in hand during the final in Barbados.
The result gave India their first ICC trophy since 2013 and left South Africa stunned once again, unable to shed the ‘chokers’ tag into a fourth decade. You feel good for Rohit Sharma, after the selfness nature with which he batted during last year’s ODI World Cup and the way in which he led India during this tournament while embracing risk-taking, something that India failed to do in 2022. Rohit and the outgoing coach Rahul Dravid may not have seen eye to eye on all aspects of how to play cricket at this World Cup, but the pair needs saluting for sticking with a misfiring lower order and two left-arm finger spinners all through the tournament. Having the best fast bowler in world cricket today was an asset no other team could boast of, and it was indeed Jasprit Bumrah who was named Player of the Tournament. With this win, the trio of Rohit, Virat Kohli and Ravindra Jadeja retired from T20Is while Hardik Pandya completed his redemption arc and should be the man to resume captaining India in this format.
Aiden Markram’s team made history by getting past the semi-final hurdle and into their first World Cup final, but a classic South African choke saw them once again combust from a winning position. The hope is that this team can get back to playing cricket without demons from June 29.
This T20 World Cup was a resounding success for India, the cricket team and cricket ecosystem, and a case of so-close-so-far for South Africa. England’s campaign ended very tamely, and they will have to redefine their white-ball approach after failing to defend the ODI and T20 titles in the span of seven months. Several high-profile Australian cricketers will be pondering their futures. Afghanistan made history to reach their first semi-final, where a dodgy pitch and the brilliance of South Africa’s pace attack overwhelmed them.
Viewership for this T20 World Cup indicates that the shortest format’s pinnacle tournament may soon supersede the significance of the ODI World Cup, which should not surprise anyone. But this edition comes with a cautionary tale. Yes, there was a better balance between bat and ball but some of the pitches were not fit for a T20 World Cup, the travel arrangements left several teams frustrated and flattened and too many matches were orchestrated to suit the Indian market viewership from the broadcaster’s perspective.
The biggest men’s T20 World Cup ever, with 20 teams, was the ICC’s attempt to make the 2024 edition the most inclusive. And taking the biggest fixture in the sport to north America – where four years from now cricket will make its entry at the Los Angeles Olympics – to try and capture a new market did give the sense that cricket was going global.
The first problem was the hastily arranged venue on Long Island, in southeastern New York. The pitch, dropped in from Adelaide via Florida, was just not conducive to T20 cricket. While run-laden tracks day in and day out are laborious to watch after an extent, T20 cricket needs to be about entertainment. And watching batting reduced to a task on those drop-in tracks was not entertaining, with due respect to the brilliance of Bumrah in India’s defense of 119 against Pakistan. North America could yet become a good hosting nation, but the shoddy way the Nassau County Cricket Stadium was assembled with that unsatisfactory pitch took the sheen of a tournament like this.
The second problem was that no-show of too many Associate nations. Yes, you want to be inclusive when you term yourself a World Cup and yes, you want the smaller teams to mix with the big boys and gain from the exposure. But when teams like Uganda were bowled out for totals like 58, 39 and 40 it is just plain ugly to watch. Papua New Guinea also fared poorly, making scores of 77, 78 and 95 around one spirited total of 136/8 versus West Indies. Oman muscled their way against Namibia and Australia, briefly, but were then rolled over for 47 by England. Usually better than this, Namibia were bowled out for 77 by Australia.
Carrying the flag high for Associate members were USA, who beat Canada and Pakistan to make it to the Super 8 stage; Scotland, who beat Oman and Namibia, came close to defeating Australia and were 90 for no loss when rain cancelled their game with England; and Canada who beat Ireland, a Test nation. But when teams like USA show up in the Super Eights they are woefully out of depth and cannot compete, as we saw in the West Indies.
This is not to say that the first round of the 2024 T20 World Cup was all dull and dreary. Far from it. India versus Pakistan in New York was a low-scoring ripper. At the same venue a day before, Netherlands pushed South Africa to the brink with even fewer runs to defend. Both of USA’s wins were special. So too was Namibia’s Super Over win over Oman. Bangladesh beating Sri Lanka by two wickets was one to remember, as was South Africa’s one-run win over Nepal and their four-run squeeze over Bangladesh. Even a dead rubber like Pakistan versus Ireland at the end of round one was engaging.
Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand failing to make it past the first round may not have been entirely surprising, but it devalued the second stage held in the Caribbean.
Then there is the question of overkill, given that this World Cup came seven wickets on the heels of the ODI World Cup. We’ve now had T20 World Cups in 2021, 2022 and 2024, which of course had Covid-19 as a big hand in that. Next year we have the men’s Champions Trophy, followed by another T20 World Cup in 2026 and then the 50-over championship in 2027. A bit much, many will say, and the ICC really cannot have its fanbase being put off by too much cricket. Some sort of structure must be identified, as challenging as it is given cricket’s crammed calendar and the burgeoning of more T20 leagues (we saw three pop up just last year).
Of course, the business aspect of cricket is what has influenced the decision to have a T20 World Cup every two years as well as the return of the Champions Trophy. The TV revenue deals that accompany these tournaments is huge and cannot be overlooked at all, but the ICC and its stakeholders should sit down and look beyond the dollars and profit made and get cricket’s house in order first before looking to new markets and more revenue-generating opportunities. You don’t want a scenario where it becomes difficult to remember finals of these big ICC tournaments the way so many of us struggle to recall who won the previous IPL season.
So then, how will history view this T20 World Cup? It meandered a bit too long, it veered from being one-sided to throwing up some upsets, it offered us a rare spectacle of ball dominating bat, it attracted eyeballs and the team most expected to win it did end up winning, signaling the end of an era in Indian cricket. A success, for sure, but plenty for the ICC and host broadcasters to learn from, and avoid, given the rocky terrain that international cricket stands on with the burgeoning of so many T20 leagues.
