Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs

And no, I don’t give a fig whether the greatest beneficiary is Sir Allen Stanford’s ego. How many billionaire philanthropists are not self-publicists? So long as Caribbean cricket prospers as a consequence, who cares?

And no, I stressed, the game’s least time-consuming, most slapsticky format does not, in itself, prompt snottiness. If the match was to be conducted over 50 overs per side I would feel no different. If it lasted five days, moreover, any enhanced enthusiasm would be more than counter-balanced by the fact that only one team would be rewarded for their efforts.

Wherein lies the rub. “There are two teams out there,” Bill Woodfull famously informed “Plum” Warner from the Adelaide treatment table during the Bodyline series, “and only one is playing cricket.” The philosophy here is not dissimilar.

Yes, if a catch goes up with two runs required off the final ball, the tension will be enormous, and sport is nothing without suspense and drama. But the consequences of fielding fallibility will be too great for comfortable viewing, not least since, no matter how strenuously they protest, the sinner will be forever damned in the eyes of his team-mates. In a close game, even a mid-innings mistake will be magnified out of all proportion.

The “winner-takes-all” concept may make for riveting entertainment, but it is not one that bears even a passing resemblance to fairness. And one of sport’s foremost attractions, for this observer, is that it dispenses justice with greater efficiency and regularity than any court of law. Or life in general.

So, good luck KP, Chris Gayle and company – may the best men win. But no, this is one armchair spectator who has no intention of watching.

It ironic that the 20/20 cricket here in Antigua has been so much fun (i can honestly criticise it because I have actually attended the matches) that I have not been paying attention to the more traditional forms of the game (e.g. India/Aus, etc.).

The other irony is that the persons who put down this new form of cricket are only falling behind and are increasingly ignored(esp if they don't even watch the matches on the telly) to the point that there is even less [real] resistance for it to flourish.

Thank you, all armchair participants.

I am glad that these 'PURISTS' are not running ICC. If that was the case, you can bet last penny in your pocket that the 90% of the 15-40 demographics would not be paying attention to cricket. The fact is that a wide majority of the people do not have time or patience to endure a five day test.
I have one solution, divide the cricket in two parts test cricket for these guys with ample amount of time in hand and T20 for those who want to watch it. The fact is test cricket is not gonna bring dollars to coffers, and if these 'PURISTS' have their way cricket would by no different than a niche sport with limited following (field hockey). That would definitely make the 'armchair spectators' happy.

A professional cricketer should have a right to earn money. I agree with having relevant test cricket (Ashes, Ind-Pak) occasionally, but T20 should be the focal point of the game else the game of cricket would never be a truly global sport.

By using your analogy it would mean that you have never watched the finals of any world cups. The eternal question pops up why do we pay so much to watch professional sports....why not just watch amateur sports....no winner no losers!

Our society is based on winners and losers so your argument doesn't hold sway unless your objection is to the fact 20 million go to the winner and nothing to the side coming second? Then again who cares for the finalists of any sporting tournament....truly we only remember the winners and ask the runners up yourselves, they would change everything for that elusive first place!

It is not comfortable watching because there are 20 million at stake or because we can't bear to feel the pain of the second place team and the individual who will invariably blow the game?

Sports always had its ugly moment...Seaman missing the Ronaldinho free kick or Herchelle Gibbs dropping Steve Waugh or Mike Gatting reverse sweeping that delivery....we treasure them all...

This are changing and some people do not. These are those who will suffer. Most English are upset that we don't have to look up to them no more. Thanks God for that. If the English are complaining so much maybe Stanford should spend his money with some other team than England. Soon we will see England insignificant as relic of the past. This form of the game has had a positive side to it. West Indies is becoming a better fielding team that has been the main cause of our undoing, giving the opposition 14 batsmen. Next time they tour the West Indies we will be strong enough to take our belts out and give them a good sound beating and send them back home to mumble and complain.

I totally agree with Lloyd, even though the ethics of this Stanford showdown maybe wrong all it does is get people talking about cricket, which surely can only be good for the game? And Rob it is not as though these players, one of whom might be the one to drop this catch for $20 million, do not know what they are letting themselves in on. I am sure that they will be quite happy to take that responsibility in order to win the money.

I agree with the writer that it is grossly unfair to have a winner take all with so much money on the line. It would have been far better to have the money divided as follows:$15,000,000 for the winners and $5,000,000 for the losers. That way the game would have had drama without the sight of one team leaving the field totally dejected. This is a simple solution and I don't think for one moment that nobody among the "Legends" did not consider it. Unfortunately Stanford does not seem like one to take advice and it shows with such a ridiculous format. However I will still be watching as it promises to be a great game. May the best team win.

It is tragic that a few snooty journalists have put the future of this nascent competition in jeopardy. I'm sure many people thought the same about the Ashes back in the 1880's - 'just a frivolous distraction from proper, historic, cricket between counties.'
The Stanford competition is never going to replace Test Matches, but it could become a fun and flashy highlight in the calendar with a history of its own - not to mention the new fans it could create in countries that have previously never touched cricket.
I sincerely hope that Mr Stanford hasn't been put of or offended by some of the very personal criticism he's come in for. He could turn out to be the best thing to happen to cricket for a century if he's given the chance.
I'm not even a big fan of 20/20 normally. I much prefer Test Matches, but this competition has a new kind of excitement and I'll certainly be watching.
I just hope I'll get the chance to watch another similar contest next year and the year after.

I am a young Australian cricket player/follower and 20/20 is just not for me. Everything about it reeks of baseball so why I ask do we want a weak alternative?

People who love 20/20 should watch more baseball, and leave the great game alone. We don't want fans that don't or won't appreciate the true form of the game.

The thing about 20/20 is that it fades very quickly. I have vague memories of India winning something, but I'm not sure exactly what. Was that a world cup? I don't know; I don't particularly care.
I think the underlying question here is- would England be playing if there wasn't 20 million on the line? The answer to that sums up 20/20. Despite what people may say, there is no true passion in 20/20. There is an immediate, short-lived satisfaction, but nothing more.
Test cricket is the only form that brings out the true tension of the game.

Absolutely agree Rob.

How on earth can such a supposedly venerable body as the ECB have become involved in such a ridiculous charade of greed and self-promotion.

Most aspects of this game are 'ludicrous' and that it is happening in such a loose and excessive form is a sure confirmation of what low levels of morality, control and vision administrators of the game are stooping to.

These are worrying times.

I tried to watch the game, but I found it far too boring. I felt that the only way I could have watched that game was if I was strongly partisan. I seldom if ever watch cricket strongly supporting one team over the other; it was one the beauties of cricket that I could do that. This game lacked that element.

I understand Allen Stanford's team won. Perhaps that might do some good for those players.

I watched it from neighboring St. Kitts. I wasn't carried away with winning 20 Million. But we won and finally the powers that be in West Indies cricket might begin to understand that the professional game requires a professional approach -- at all levels. So, first, we won, and next, the team won 20 Million - and I don't begrudge them one cent. And I believe the Caribbean cricketers might very well do better when they are fully accountable for the results - and so a winner take all may very well have got their undivided attention. Cricket is alive in the Caribbean -- it still isn't well, but it hasn't died yet -- and who knows we may yet rule the world again. It's about attitude, pride and preparation - Test cricket, 50 overs, 20/20 - it's the same general concept and if you can win at one you can win at all!! Horay, Sir Allan and the rest of the Disciples (oops sorry - Legends).

All of what you have said is inconsequential Rob, now that the game is over. No dropped catches with 2 balls to go, nobody to 'blame'. But I couldn't help but notice the switch in the England captain's position, from 'we have come to play cricket', to 'things outside of cricket distracted us'in the post match interview.
One winner? Everybody knew what the score was from the begining, so irrelevant in my view. Winner take all was the deal.
And there will still be test cricket, tomorrow and beyond.

TEST CRICKET WILL NEVER BE OFF THE SHELF. there is no harm in stanford. in fact it was horrible to watch EUROPE/ENGLAND screaming at AMERICA and literally saying that AMERICAN MAN slept with the EUROPEAN's WOMEN, WHICH IS AN ISSUE VERY FAR AWAY FROM CRICKET. Europe (and England) should and must realise that they are subordinates to the US. The Caribbean already knows that, and has no problem accepting money from Stanford for cricket.

The 20/20 bubble will burst sooner rather than later. The game's core supporters don't like it and the casual fan will move onto something else once the novelty wears off. A sport needs its hardcore supporters to survive.

There are supposed to be 4 more of these matches? By the fourth or fifth time, will anyone care? Doubt it!

20/20 will eventually fill a niche just as ODI's used to. That niche is getting some money into the game from the masses who are too dumb and impatient to watch tests so that the rest of can enjoy real cricket.

Well i guess any English fan shouldn't have watched this game in first place because history suggests that England has never done anything great in world cricket. They are always out of the World Cup in first phase. They will talk about Ashes for 2 years and will loose it 5-0. Which other country these days loose a test series by the margin of 5-0 ?? Peterson for all his talks of being a 10,000 test runs man still has to prove himself in subcontinent. Same is the case with Flintoff. They will come to India, will loose the test series & ODI series and would blame it on stomach bugs & harsh weather. Well, if you can't perform in all conditions then you are simply not good enough to be called a good test team. Australia and India seem to be the only countries, which can perform in all 3 formats of the game in any part of the world

Sir Stanford you are a legend. Look how PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE are coming here and whining. If people wouldn't have cared then probably they wouldn't have cared to write as well.

I love test matches but India-Australia test match? Arn't they playing 2 series in less than a year? Really don't care because as a neutral I am overstuffed. What a boring test match at Delhi. Pain for 5 days. At least we saw some sixes and fours in Stanford and it ended in 2 hours.

HEY POOR RISHI MIND UR LANGUAGE
WHT THE HELL UR SPEAKIN ENG DIDNT LOSE ASHES 5-0 JUST LIKE DT THEY DINT HAVE THEIR FULL STRENGTH TEAM
IND IS JST GIVIN FIGHT TO AUS CZ DEY ARE DEPLETED & IND LOST SERIES IN AUS TOO
ENG HAS DONE GR8 IN WORLD CRICKET
IND STILL HASNT WON SERIES IN SOUTH AFRICA & NZL WICH ENG HAS& DEY WON CB SERIES & HAVE JUST BEATEN WORLDS 2ND BEST TEAM 4-0
THIS STANFORD GAME WAS JUST ONE BAD DAY & COMPLACENT TEAM LIKE IND CANT BE NO.1 EVER CZ THEY ALWAYS HAD GR8 PLAYERS BUT THEY NEVR HAD IT
ENG HAD DER TIMES TILL 92WC WHEN THEY PLAYED THEIR 2ND SUCCESSIVE FINAL THOUGH THEY LOST BUT
ENG STILL MAINTAINS 50% WINNING RATE IN ODIS
IN TESTS ENG R MUCH SUCCESSFUL TEAM THAN IND
BTW YOU SHOULD NT FORGET SOUT AFRICA THEY R ALSO DA REAL CONTENDERS TO BE NEXT NO.1
SOUTH AFRICA & ENGLAND R NEXT NO.1
INDIAN & AUS WILL JUST BE HISTORY
AND AS FAR AS GETTIN KNOCKD OUT IN 1ST PHASE OF WC IS CONCERNED DEN WT ABOUT 92 & 07WC
SEE UR TEAM`S RECORD 1ST.ENG WL BEAT IND IN IND 4SURE

You make no sense, its not that its T20, its not that its an awful lot of money, its not that the ground and play are sub-par, its not that every second minute you get to see a jovial billionaire instead of the game... but rather because instead of a 70-30 (or almost any other split) it happens to be 100-0. But wait, even that isn't exactly true... there are supposed to be 5 matches, giving each team 5 chances to win this amount. Thats still not fair? Well then, if you don't take the opportunities life gives you, life is never going to be fair.

"Are you mad because the game is sponsored by an individual that does not have any ax to grind..." Sir Allen is grinding a huge axe - US TV rights. that is his true game.This farce was a waste of time as far as cricket is concerned, good for the WI who have cashed in and Eng got just what they deserved for getting involved with this foolishness. Unfortunately the same nonsense will be back for another four years but we don't have to watch. We can watch Test cricket.

If people don't bother to watch Stanford than why are they taking pain in writing article and commenting about it. Just think that England cricket team were on holiday for one week. If you don't like don't watch it because it matters for someone like me who really who loved the idea of Stanford 20/20.

So what's wrong with Stanford. Simply it is not bully like IPL because of whom (IPL not ICL) players like Shane Bond get banned? Unlike IPL it doesnot affect international calender? See Sri Lanka are not touring england next year because of IPL and westindies may not send their strongest side. Cricket board like ECB or WICB are not benefited from IPL. Just see who (IPL or Stanford) is actually creating a circus.

Knight, u chat so much rubbish!!! I watched the best part of the five days of that Delhi test match and after having watched that I can definitely say that it was well worth getting up at four in the morning on all five days!!! Seeing as u obviously didn't do that, u don't even know how great the batting from laxman and gambhir really was with some class shots rather than watching gayle slap the ball for six to win the game which was utterly one sided!!! And to watch India's greatest ever spinner retire was an emotional moment for all Indian cricket fans!!!!!!!

Like the other article says, perhaps stanford doesn't know much about cricket, but more so american market economy. 3 hours or less baseball, hockey, football matches, big prizes. Look how much money the IPL was making, why can't someone else get some cash.

Also, perhaps who would want to want to watch a match knowing the other team didn't want to be playing...or even, why make it a big game if you know your gonna lose...trial and error, or guess and test...if the 1st edition doesn't work, never know what round 2.

I agree with Rob in that I certainly never took any notice of it. Maybe not for the same reasons as you Rob but I have a high level of disregard for it. There will always be arguments for and against 20/20 cricket. 'Proper' cricket fans will always want to see the contest between bat and ball. The skill of a batsman to endure a first day greentop or survive on a fifth day turner and a bowler good enough to exploit those conditions. Of course there is no less skill in a bowler being able to maintain line and length on a belter of a batting wicket and eke out the odd wicket. 20/20 is fours and sixes. It was invented for non cricket fans as a way of getting money out of them. I was a bowler (at the rather lower level of play that I engaged in) and if 20/20 were the only form of cricket, who would want to grow up to be a bowler?? 20/20 has a market of course. It is exciting enough but only if done sparingly. It is like a reality TV show at present. The market is getting flooded with it.

Well Said Joe and Hyacinth, as a cricket fan I am delighted that a businessman like Stanford is putting his millions into regeneration of caribbean Cricket in my opinion the caribbean crowds in the caribbean with their team doing well like what happened last night. Personally there are few more uplifting sights in world sport. I hope Stanford keeps doing the wonderful job he is doing in the caribbean. It is sad that English media have talked the way they have, I know Stanford won't care a jot what people in England thinks because what people in the caribbean think about his interest in their cricketing welfare is what really counts! Because the ICC and the rest of the cricket world certainly don't except being opponents these days and thanking their lucky stars that they are not facing up to the glorious west indian teams of yesteryear, and getting their you know what kicked and sent back humbled by caribbean cricketers. I think Stanford now knows that in England people moan and moan.

All the talk about good of West Indian cricket seems very shallow. If Sir Allen was serious about 'greater good' he needed a much better long term approach. 20 million winner takes all makes for a few instant millionaires and does little to nothing for developing quality cricketers. You don't build a team in 6 days by splashing 20 million dollars at 11 men. Let's wake up!

I love Test cricket, but I enjoyed the Stanford series a lot more than the third Test. Test cricket should to my mind be a reasonable contest between bat and ball, and although Laxman and Gambhir played some nice shots, for the most part watching everyone just bat...and bat...and bat was like having my teeth pulled. And while it was nice to see the crowds come back for Test cricket in Dehli, I really think the groundsman owes it to the cricket-watching public to provide a pitch that batsmen might actually have to earn their runs on.

But the Stanford Super Series, ironically enough, was a genuine contest between bat and ball. The Middlesex-T+T game was excellent, an tense affair that went right down to the wire, as was the England-T+T match, and if the final wasn't quite that tense, at least it was great to see the carnival atmosphere back in the ground and a professional West Indies XI again.

Hey Josh,

Big niche T20 and 50-overs fill. Casual spectators pay the majority of the bills. If it wasn't for them, Test cricket would go the way of real tennis- skillful, full of history, totally irrelevant to the cashed up sporting public. If you're stomping out of the stadium, get me a beer will you- Kingfisher or XXXX, old chap!