From Kishore Sharma, United States of America

Here is the issue - the Olympics is about performing at the highest level in any particular sporting activity. In cricket this means test matches, though as a compromise 50 over games may suffice (after all we have a highly publicized 50 over World Cup). The problem is that the Olympic schedule may mean that only 20/20 games can be fitted in - even 50 over games may be deemed too long. In my view, an Olympic medal would have no meaning whatsoever if it is obtained on the basis of winning 20 over games. It would not represent anything remotely near the highest and most nuanced level of the sport. It would simply mean producing cricket at, and for, the lowest common denominator and, in my eyes, would be meaningless !