http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml en-gb 30 Fri 08 Jan 2010 17:52:26 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=18#comment12 Maybe, the superstars have been practising for 6 weeks under those lights.Home-ground advantage is supposed to be an advantage. You didn't think Stanford invited England down there to GIVE them $20million.They're gonna have to work for it.I wonder who will win tonight's match . . . England? or T&T? Tue 28 Oct 2008 23:13:34 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=16#comment11 Has anyone any idea who WILL be in the super stars team? Tue 28 Oct 2008 18:17:02 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=15#comment10 Hi TMSOn the blurb (on this website) it says that Jonathan Agnew is commentating - but so far, I’ve heard Arlo White, Mark Hand - but no "Aggers". Did I miss Mr Agnew? And what about Sir Viv, please?Cheers Tue 28 Oct 2008 16:45:55 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=13#comment9 Also, maybe they could spend some time making the outfield a bit quicker by simply cutting the grass low - after all, I thought that Windies tracks and outfields were always quick? Tue 28 Oct 2008 13:04:02 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=12#comment8 This post has been Removed Tue 28 Oct 2008 13:02:00 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=10#comment7 Why is this sleazy charade even being considered a real tournement? It's not as if it's even a England v West Indies 20/20, just an exercise in seeing if a bunch of millionaires makes a bit more money. I can see why the players are there, but can't understand why Radio 5 is wasting taxpayers money by being there (unless Stanford is paying for this as well). Tue 28 Oct 2008 12:41:42 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=9#comment6 Why did Stanford say "Professional sport is UNFORTUNATEY all about making money" ? If he really thinks it's unfortunate why is he doing this ? Tue 28 Oct 2008 11:44:03 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=7#comment5 >> "I can see those lights taking a lot more blame. Perhaps the local boys have specially adapted eyes. . ."Nope, but didn't I hear that they've been practicing intensively on that pitch and under those lights for six weeks? The England boys haven't played since the SA series.I think there's a very real chance of England finding themselves caught a little cold by a team that have been building and working hard to peak for this game. Just like Middlesex did... Tue 28 Oct 2008 10:18:43 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=6#comment4 So it won't suit the swashbucklers and caneswipers but is that really what makes a cricket match good?Perhaps Stanford isn't as stupid as he looks. He invited England to play not to GIVE them $20 million but to make them PLAY for it.Most of the English media has reported about this match like it is a 'gimme' for England. All the talk about how the English players would/should treat their overnight wealth. They seem to have forgotten that they have to play and win first. The WIndies gave a good account of themselves when they played England in the 20/20 matches here last summer. And the local conditions just might suit them better.It's interesting that Middlesex (county professionals) got beaten by T&T (mainly amateurs).I can see those lights taking a lot more blame. Perhaps the local boys have specially adapted eyes. . . Tue 28 Oct 2008 10:07:36 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=4#comment3 The matches so far have been grim-faced scrappy affairs, enlivened only by the comedy catching and the spin bowling of the likes of Karthik and Baddree.And of course, some great betting opportunities as outlined in my blog:http://thecricketpunter.blogspot.com/ Tue 28 Oct 2008 07:45:28 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=3#comment2 I am happy for the players to rake in the cash but, as a keen cricket fan, I couldn't give a monkeys who wins these games. I was infinitely more interested in the enthralling battle between Bangladesh and New Zealand in the test match last week. Tue 28 Oct 2008 03:29:51 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=1#comment1 Sure, it was not a helpful surface for run scoring, but it has made for two excellent, tight matches, where sides have had to sweat to get a result. Last night's match may not have had a lot of sixes, but it did show that T20 can be subtle and involve tactics and thinking. T20 with short boundaries on a dead surface is just a slug-fest where mediocre batsmen can make runs by chancing their arm. Last night and also on Saturday, it was the class batsmen who got the best results by judicious hitting. It probably made both matches closer to "real" cricket by having a far more even contest between bat and ball.Personally, I found last night's contest enthralling as both sides tried to come to grips with a tactical problem. Had England played a second specialist spinner it might have ended-up being a lot more one-sided than it was. Even though the final margin in runs looked small, there was never a realistic chance of Middlesex getting the runs. Had Malan come in earlier it might have been closer, but realistically England were always in control once Middlesex got behind the run-rate early. Mon 27 Oct 2008 14:04:46 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/10/stanford_headache_for_batsmen.shtml?page=0#comment0 There is some irony in the fact that the brashness and bling of 20/20 and the brashness and bling of Alan Stanford have been somewhat fettled by the subdued nature of the cricket because of the pitch. The cricket is still fascinating to watch, and that swimming pool looks like a big target for some egos!Will we have to look at TV coverage of Mr S surrounded by beauties and walking round the ground shaking people's hands like some idol? Not sure I can bear that! Mon 27 Oct 2008 09:58:48 GMT+1