Originally Posted by Sanz
No, There are many reasons why IPL is better than T20.
1. It allows some of the players who are either forced to retire or not picked for reasons best known to respective boards to be still part of the game. I so want Wasim Akram to join Chennai SuperKings and show the world that he could be an abolute king of the bowlers in another format even at this age. For me the best part of IPL was watching Hayden demolish the bowlers, something I am forced to miss in Official T20.
2. It gives a chance to players like Gilchrist/Warne to show their leadership skills, something our Cricket Administrators never allowed us to witness in last 20 years.
3. It brings accountability, If you do not perform you are fired, VVS Laxman was removed from captaincy, so were Dravid and Ganguly. John Buchanan is gone and that makes it a lot more competitive.
I can think of more reasons when I have time..
I find that too many retired stars makes it more of a 'fun' tournament than a serious one. I guess seeing Hayden is good, but at his own admission, it was retiring that gave him the mental freedom to play that way.
I have a feeling that Cricket Administrators did allow us to see Gilchrist's leadership skills. Didn't he preside over Australia's first test tour win in India in many years? A tour that was probably longer than the IPL, too.
And I think players are dropped/fired if they don't play well in both the IPL and the T20. Although granted, the IPL is probably more ruthless as long-term building of the team is irrelevant as there is a new auction after three years. Therefore development of a player's career isn't so important.