posted Oct 10, 2008

True, Moby, maybe my remark was made out of exasperation....

There is a vast difference in how the two cricket publics view this series. In the Caribbean, the Stanford Super Series has been enthusiastically embraced by the cricketing public, except for a few journalists and old-timers on the wrong side of 40....

But the antipathy here in England towards this series borders on the vicious, at times. It reminds me of other comparisons.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 10, 2008

The whole Stanford thing is an awful concept...the pressures on the umpires (without, for example, the ability to refer lbw decisions to the third umpire) will be huge.
All top sport stars should be well paid, but Stanford is way off the mark by assuming you get a better contest by making the stakes higher.
Top dollars attract top stars, but 'West Indies All Stars' v England is a mile away from the top two 2/20 sides playing...India vs Australia.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 10, 2008

Yes, Shivfan - you may well describe the antipathy as 'viscious'. I'm not a huge fan of twenty20; and am also the wrong side of fourty; but that's old enough to understand that one must either move with the times or risk becoming redundant.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 10, 2008

Me too....

I'm a big fan of Test cricket, and always will be. But my kids are not....

So, last year, I dragged them to the Oval to watch England play WI in a 20/20 match. They complained on the entire train ride down, saying that they're going to bored, and how they wanted to go home.

But the match was a close humdinger, and the kids loved it! I know they will watch 20/20 cricket again....

I think we have to accept that a large segment of the younger generation prefer this form of the game.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 10, 2008

Moby

The Stanford hoopla will be swiftly forgotten and whether the England players make the money or not it will not have any influence on their decision to go to the IPL, or not.

The Sri Lankan tour is in doubt because of the IPL. If it doesn't go ahead then expect KP and the rest to spend a full series in the IPL. If it does go ahead then the better England players will as sure as hell spend some time in India - maybe on a match by match basis.

The ECB is certainly naive as well as incompetent. If they think, as you suggest, that Stanford's millions will keep the England players happy to such an extent that they will ignore the IPL then they are juts plain barmy! Oh, and by the way, what if the Stanford XI wins the bloody match!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 10, 2008

Censura,

You certainly have a bee in your bonnet concerning the ECB. Just repeating the same points again and again until everyone agrees with you may work with some; but it won't work with those who are capable of thinking for themselves.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 10, 2008

"The whole Stanford thing is an awful concept...the pressures on the umpires (without, for example, the ability to refer lbw decisions to the third umpire) will be huge.
All top sport stars should be well paid, but Stanford is way off the mark by assuming you get a better contest by making the stakes higher.
Top dollars attract top stars, but 'West Indies All Stars' v England is a mile away from the top two 2/20 sides playing...India vs Australia."

1) the umpires are paid to do a job - no problem there, no matter how much money is at stake....

2) Nobody said it would be a better contest because the stakes are higher. But the two 20/20 matches played between these two sides last year were close affairs.

3) Indian and Aussie fans will want to see their two teams play. In Antigua, the cricket fans want to see the WI play, and this time it's England....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 10, 2008

Moby

If you take the trouble to actualy read my last post you will see that I am responding to your point about the IPL. . I have not repeated myself - and you haven't answered my point.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 10, 2008

I have not answered it because I consider it to be spurious - and have come to the conclusion that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this one.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 10, 2008

Moby

I don't think that you know what "spurious" means. If you did you wouldn't use it in the way that you have. 0/10 I'm afraid... Must try harder.

add comment | complain about this comment