The Stanford circus has never enjoyed a high reputation in the English press, so the first hint of problems has caused the vultures to descend on it before it has even died. One report went so far as to say that it was hard to see any “positives” from the venture, and that is surely going too far.
First, there’s the venue. The Stanford Cricket Ground looks to be an excellent place for watching cricket, with comfortable stands, informal grassy banks, and pavilions and other buildings which please the eye. Transplant this to Worcester, below the magnificent cathedral, or even Taunton with the old church at the corner, and you would have a perfect English county ground.
But the playing surface is not ideal. Sir Allen has made clear that he does not think much of Test cricket: this is a pity, because the pitches used so far would have been ideal for the fourth day of a Test match. Crumbling, two-paced and bouncing unpredictably, it could provide a fascinating duel as batsmen attempt to grind it out – Test cricket at one of its bests.
As a stage for Twenty20, though, this is inadequate. I don’t like slogfests much: watching a team rattle up 220 in 20 overs gets monotonous. The ideal is a game where par is about 156, nudging eight an over, but on Stanford’s pitch par seems to be about 128, or barely above a run a ball, the kind of total which does not encourage the enterprise and invention which characterises the best Twenty20 batting.
Then there’s the umpiring scheme, in which the players do not appeal but the on-field umpires and the third umpire can consult on anything, with the third umpire having a responsibility to alert the on-field umpires if they make a mistake which he can pick up on the TV. There hasn’t yet been a third umpire override, but there have been two or three decisions where the on-field umpires have asked questions of the man with the replays to check things before giving out or not out, and it has worked well to my eyes at least. I hope that Simon Taufel and the others agree and tell ICC so.
And then there has been Trinidad & Tobago, who deservedly won their (relatively) big money game against my Middlesex boys. In the spirit of Ted Dexter, whose bizarre excuses for poor English performances entertained us so much 15 or so years ago, I shall hypothesise that Middlesex were put off by T&T’s strip, which gave them the appearance of having walked through a trough of whitewash on their way out to the middle.
In truth, though, Middlesex were undone by the money.
I have argued before that prize inflation a la Stanford does not pose an existential threat to civilisation; if he wants to offer vast prizes, then I don’t see why cricketers should not play for them if they are so inclined.
But at a practical level, the size of the prize may be counter-productive in terms of spectacle. Players terrified of errors are all the more likely to commit them – and the drops in the field this week have matched anything Wall St or the FTSE have had to offer this month. The danger is that jangling nerves will mean that the winning team is the one which makes the fewer dreadful mistakes rather than the one which plays the best, that it becomes a freak show rather than a vibrant cricket spectacle.
In theory, there are ways of fixing problems with the pitch or the fear factor. What is less easy to fix is Stanford himself, who seems the sort whose main topic of conversation is how awesome he is, which makes the timing of this event unfortunate, because this month the market in awesomeness has been cornered by Barack Obama.
About the pitch, I just have to say that even though some of the games have been low-scoring, they've still been very good games. I caught the second half of the T+T-M'sex game, where Middlesex bowled excellently, the Gangas consolidated sensibly, and the Ramdin-Bravo partnership carried on the re-building (equally sensibly) before exploding in the final few overs to carry T+T to an unforgettable come-from-behind victory with balls to spare. Even though they were only chasing 118 or so, I still think it was one of the bets T20 games I've ever seen. I think it also proved once and for all that T20 won't necessarily destroy the skills neccesary for first-class cricket.
As for the positives emerging from the tournament, I understand that the WICB has some big plans for Stanford's money with regard to extending their first-class season and their A-team. Perhaps the media should give that fact a little more recognition than they've been doing so far.
Posted by: rohan at October 31, 2008 9:58 AM
It may indeed be a rich man's world.... but if you subscribe to it (as the ECB has done) you can't have it both ways! Lets not forget that he has always maintained that he wants to improve WI cricket and regenerate interest. this is one way of doing it if not the best way.
Stanford may be a proud business man and lets be honest no one enjoys having that in your face. What amazes me is the reaction to his so called "antics" which has been blown completely out of proportion. People say its bad for the image of cricket - do people who watch 20/20 really see it as REAL cricket? Its enjoyable , good to watch and a different game in itself.
The overpaid english player who will recieve 0.5 million for their game should shut up and perform. For once the SUN have got it right!
Posted by: Roger@1stslip at October 31, 2008 12:35 PM
Enjoyable article thanks Mike.
Glad you are finally coming round to the view that - like most new fads from the US - the size of the prize-money is just ludicrously ' excessive '. As you rightly say, the ridiculous size of this prizemoney will certainly negatively impact on the way that the players play the game.
I still cannot for the life of me understand how such a supposedly venerable body as the ECB got entangled with this charade.
Posted by: Mark at November 1, 2008 3:13 AM
Well Said Rohan, Fazeer Mohammed wrote an excellent piece on the hypocrisy of the English players and Press. Stanford is the best thing to happen to WI cricket in years and understandably people in the caribbean are a bit upset by the hypocritical writing of the English press except for a few. Why can't these people enjoy the cricket and congratulate stanford instead of portraying him as the devil incarnate. I hope stanford's boys beat England if for nothing else to gain a bit of satisfaction from their whingeing over a potential 20 million dollar payout. Stanford is doing a lot for WI cricket more than the ICC which ruined the caribbean world cup last year. Stanford is encouraging the traditional cricket carnival atmosphere and wants to see WI cricket back where it should belong at the top of the cricket tree. All cricket fans should rejoice in that. Even the english press who are not for the first time acting like real killjoys in anything related to the England brand. Go Stanford!
Posted by: JJDW at November 1, 2008 6:28 AM
It is amazing that the article talks about 'comfortable stands' and 'informal grassy banks' and does not talk about how awful this whole Stanford issue is. $20 million for a cricket match that means nothing to anyone except the players. It is not helping WI cricket, it is merely indulging the ego of a rich American. I know it is not as simple as this, but $20million? Schools and hospitals can be built in poor areas, so much can be done, but instead rich men flaunt and brag and smile with pretty (married)woman proped on their laps. It is in line with football in terms of greed and blindness to the real world. People starving, nations being run by dirty money and brutal leaders. Poverty and suffering, but still money blinds us. I love cricket and sport in general (and cricket is not nearly as wealthy as other sports - NFL, Premiership etc) but it is all going too far. ($250,000 a week wages?? please)
Naive? probably. Missing the point? yes. But if we look deeply my point is a valid one.
Samir Chopra lives in Brooklyn and teaches Computer Science and Philosophy at the City University of New York; his academic interests include the philosophical foundations of artificial intelligence and the politics of technology. In his third undergraduate year, he captained Mathematics in the departmental cricket competition (and lost to Chemistry in the first round). Samir played C-grade cricket in Sydney and makes guest appearances for his old club when possible (and desirable). Samir runs the blog Eye on Cricket and the cricket page at The Faster Times.
Paul Ford is a co-founder of the New Zealand cricket supporters' cult, the Beige Brigade. He was once described by a current New Zealand cricketer as "looking spastic" even mucking about with an Excalibur and a tennis ball in the backyard. Paul bowls right-armed Nathan Astlesque "nudes", his batting would make Ewen Chatfield look elegant, and he is a committed fielder. He sometimes grows a beard to hide his double chin and inhabits a periphery of cricket that Cricinfo is proud to be glimpsing through this blog.
Stephen Gelb grew up in Cape Town, a short walk from the beautiful Newlands ground. Always a better student of the game than player, his passion for cricket survived eight years as a student in Canada, where he learned to love baseball too. He lives in Johannesburg doing economic research at The EDGE Institute and teaching at Wits University.
Mike Holmans, a database consultant by profession, has spent thirty summers (and a few winters) going to the cricket. Brought up in one and working in the other, his dearest wish is for a season to end with Yorkshire winning the county championship by beating runners-up Middlesex by one wicket with five minutes to go. If it’s also a summer when England win the Ashes, so much the better.
Born in Colombo, educated at Oxford and now living in Brisbane - Michael Jeh (Fox) is a cricket lover with a global perspective on the game. An Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, he is a Playing Member of the MCC and still plays grade cricket. His views on cricket might best be described as those of a "modern traditionalist". Michael now works closely with elite athletes in his job as a manager at Griffith University in Queensland.
Saad Shafqat takes special pride that his cricket-watching life began during the three-month interval between Javed Miandad's debut Test in Lahore and Imran Khan's 12-wicket haul at Sydney. Although a practicing neurologist based in Karachi, cricket has never been far from his activities. He has co-authored Javed Miandad’s autobiography Cutting Edge and has been a contributor to Cricinfo since 2005. His regular column Reverse Swing appears fortnightly in Dawn, Pakistan’s leading English daily.
RSS Feed
