Comments for en-gb 30 Wed 23 Jul 2014 21:51:57 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at geodonthaveaclue Its not brain surgery to guess that money will beat formats any day. However, what many do not realise that a decline in test cricket will also affect the shorter versions of the game. The sudden imbalance in the rewards available to those who make it to the T20 teams (IPL or Stanford) mean that kids will no longer grow up with dreams of wearing the whites and scoring double-hundreds or taking five-fors with blistering pace. The T20 virus has been unleashed and will now undermine the game the way it is today. I've made a more melodramatic statement on my blog: Fri 14 Nov 2008 10:47:04 GMT+1 jovialANANDSAMUEL It was an excellent article by Mihar. I think its time the ECB forget their arrogant attitude and accept the folly of denying the English players in playing in the IPL which incidentally revolutionised world cricket. The ECB is now eating humble pie after their unwise honeymoon with Stanford. Its still not too late to change this arrogant attitude and let the English players play in a more well planned event like the recognised IPL. Forget the circus with Stanford and get on with the reality that the IPL has proved to be a block buster! If not England will not only miss the bus but the boat as well! And that would be great pity for the English players and fans and not only that for the Indian fans as well!. Thu 06 Nov 2008 12:42:35 GMT+1 Joe A decent article by a decent bloke. I prefer to read Mihir Bose than to listen to him speaking but he always seems to hit the nail on the head every time. For some reason I find him very sincere and I like the fact that he keeps his sources to himself. Shows integrity as far as I am concerned.A few personal comments:- I love history and will read just about any book on the history of just about any subject. What fascinates me the most is that nothing basic really changes. Only technology and social mores and tastes change. If you substitued the phrase Twenty20 in every article and blog that have being written recently with the phrase One-Day or Limited Overs then all you would be doing is reading what was written several decades ago when One-Day cricket first started. This is just another step in the evolution of cricket and is only natural as it reflects modern day society.- Of course the ECB are to blame for making a poor decision in this regard. The change to satellite TV from terrestial TV was explained as being the best financial option. If that is the case then the same criteria should have applied here but it is difficult for people in power to relinquish the reins regardless of the consequences. The 4 FAs in the UK are even more guilty of this sin and whilst the ECB are better in this regard (no need to worry about Scotland and Northern Ireland!) they are still culpable.- Where we have changed socially is that a lot of people just do not have the patience any longer for 5 day Test Matches and the attendence figures for 3/4 day County Matches are derisory. Many of us just do not have the time let alone the freedom and lack of responsiblity to spend so much time watching cricket. I always thought when I retired that it would be great to spend the rest of my life touring the world and watching Test Match cricket. I suspect that if I live long enough this scenario is unlikely to happen because no-one will be playing Test Series any longer. Everyone now say Aaaaah, Didums!- Whilst I agree with a lot if not most of what Pierrelebrun says in #32 I have to disagree about Twenty20 being better than Test Cricket. It is just a different form of a great sport. There is room for both versions in terms of entertainment right now but perhaps not in the future. It is just product placement - look at the Mars Bar. I remember when they were huge and you could only buy one size and they were a meal on their own. Now you can get them as tiny little single bites as well as an icecream and even deep fat-fried in Scotland. I hope this does not contravene the BBC rules as I am not endorsing the products - please remove this sentence if it does.- The problem is that everything always boils down to money. Nothing new there you may say but the real key is how do you measure the success of a sport? Football is no longer just about what you win. It is more about what it is worth in terms of TV and marketing revenues and the same thing is happening to all sports including cricket. The main exception to this is athletics and several other olympic sports because results in these are currently being judged on medals won and not on the TV revenue generated. This is why we did so well in Beijing and why London is hosting the Olympics in 2012. Hats off to Seb Coe and all the others who may bankrupt the capital but will be able to point to a medal table which shows the UK ABOVE Australia. Worth the national budget if you ask me.- The type of player who excels at Twenty20 will be different in many ways to those who currently play Test Cricket. One Day cricket has meant fitter, faster and more agile players and has benefited Test Cricket where run rates are much higher and run outs are more likely than they used to be. This is also possibly, if not certainly, why we are getting so many results in Test Cricket in 3 or 4 days rather than boring 5 day draws. The English players in the final of the Stanford Cup were not really likely to win it and I was surprised they got there in the first place as they are not suited to this version of the game. This point has been made already in several other blogs and the accusation that is was all just a sweetener seem to hold water. Pity they only got a freebie busman's holiday out of it!- As someone who reads all the BBC sporting blogs I have to say that whilst the ones on cricket and rugby are more erudite and often extremely well written the football blogs are usually more amusing. I know this sounds patronising and is a generalisation but there you are. In summary, this is yet another area where we Brits (Or more accurately we English and Welsh) are being left behind by the colonial friends and foreigners we so generously took the game to centuries ago. I am just grateful that I will always have memories of the 2005 Ashes Series to keep me company in my dotage as I do not expect we will win anything else again in my time. Consider this - we are the country that thought up, developed and popularised one-day cricket but have never won the World Cup. Everyone else has done so at least once - I wonder why?Cheers, Joe. Thu 06 Nov 2008 11:57:32 GMT+1 jovialANANDSAMUEL Excellent article. Its time someone spoke the truth of the arrogant ECB attitude. They do not seem to realise what the English cricket fans or going to miss by the arrogant mistake of missing the IPL bus! Its still not too late to change this attitude for the benifit of the fans in the UK. Thu 06 Nov 2008 09:39:39 GMT+1 pierrelebrun For the Indians out there, I loved the IPL. I am British, and think T20 is much better than Test cricket.First, you have time to watch it. Second, better atmosphere because it's POPULAR - despite what people write on the web, it's MORE POPULAR here than Test cricket. You can see that from the grounds. Third, because it's the same game, it's just compressed. The only skills lost are patience, endurance and concentration - the same skills that make marathon-running boring to watch. A "test" so extreme, it requires the same skills of the audience. Fourth, cricketing skills will actually improve. It's a more attacking game. Bowlers only have 24 balls a game. Each one counts. They have to improvise and bowl different balls, not just line and length and wait for a mistake. HOW BORING! Fifth, because it's actually exciting and attractive, you can develop the game more widely, by focusing on local teams, not just endless boring matches between international teams.All this nonsense about how T20 depends on test cricket for developing the players...if you just had T20, you'd develop more or less the same skills. Maybe you'd develop them better, because you wouldn't spend so much time standing in the outfield all day, or waiting hours to bat.I wish the Brits who write on blogs AND the British commentators would show a bit more imagination and stop being so patronising in the most old-fashioned lofty traditional that's-what-daddy-did way. That's meant to have died out decades ago. T20 is Cool Britannia!That's mostly what led to the debacle of the Stanford series, undermining the confidence of the English team. How people could criticise ENglish cricket for getting into bed with Stanford, when they've already gotten into bed with Murdoch is typical Ye Olde English hypocrisy.Giles Clarke should resign since he led English cricket down this blind alley, which was 100% foreseeable. English cricket should have drawn from Britain's knowledge of running sports e.g. Premiership, and built an EPL here with private money before the IPL got going. That could have transformed the sport in this country. Now lord knows what's going to happen. ENglish fans should fact up to the fact Test cricket's going to die out sooner or later. There will be no-one left to play. (It's not that popular anyway even in England: the only series that gets full grounds and big TV audiences is Ashes. Wake up and smell the coffee!)For those who say it's easy to say in retrospect, I was writing such comments for two years. Yes I loved test cricket all my life, yes I hate ODIs - but things are changing. Embrace it or go and find another stuck-up sport to watch - polo ain't for me. Wed 05 Nov 2008 14:11:01 GMT+1 mankyblue not really a fan of your work but a decent enough article.The old boys of english cricket need to get there collective heads out of each others backsides and free up english cricket to join this gravey train....... if not the whole game in england will suffer for years to come Tue 04 Nov 2008 21:50:41 GMT+1 Humerouspatronus An astute observation of the situation. However I fear that the overkill of 20/20 may damage the game. I also firmly believe that all the 'fanfare' surrounding 20/20 will, in the long run, die down and the public will look for something else. Are we then going to have to play 10/10 or middle wicket competitions as the next new idea or initiative? However we do need to get in on the action as although in the future interest may not be at the fever pitch it is now, 20/20 is here to stay.I personally think that if the ECB had been in at the beginning with the Indian’s IPL then we could have come to a compromise over scheduling. Then a winter IPL and a summer EPL in a small window would have been possible. Then two major cricketing nations would have cornered the market. But we do not have anybody with vision at the ECB. The idea of a 20/20 champion’s league is exciting. There are no national club competitions to my knowledge with each member country running their own competitions but with the champions never playing other countries champions. So it’s new and I am looking forward to it.What we need in this country is what happened in South Africa. The board control the game and when they wanted to reduce the franchises they did so and that was that. They did not need to go to a’ first class forum' to run the game, they had the authority and they used it. We need less teams and this in turn will root out journeymen players who no longer can play for England and stop young players from rising in the game. If your good enough at 16 then you are good enough and do not have to wait until 25! It will also mean that young players need to be better as well to make the first class game as there will be less spots available. Below this we would then have a stronger recreational league programme where many of the quality players of the past came from. In a roundabout sort of way this will then lead itself to an EPL with city franchises. Basing teams on major cities with high population areas will be good business sense. At the moment the present proposed new system will mean EPL is a non event and is just 'another 20/20 match' with no razmattaz, innovations etc. Where is the appeal of seeing another 20/20 match with the same counties when you can see 20/20 matches through the season? Just think what allegiances fans can have for city teams as in football? And you can then recruit players based on the population around your ground to maximise appeal e.g. Asian players in Leicester and Bradford, Australians in Birmingham (OZ bar etc) and London. I am sure there are other examples of this. Link this into coaching, clinics with some of the best players in the world in schools during the length of the EPL and during term time and you then have the basis of a pretty long-term and successful business plan. And you are going to make money - this is almost guaranteed with ticket sales, television rights, merchandise (shirts like football but not as expensive), catering etc. After all which television company would not pay millions to show the EPL final with the best players in the world from Lords, the home of cricket? Tue 04 Nov 2008 18:26:30 GMT+1 sensibleCHARITY I wasn't a supporter of the concluded Stanford series due to the fact that tye of cricket will not do anything to bring WI cricketers and ratings competitive to other Test playing nations. But, I was taken back by the comments of Pieterson after the game. I have great respect for sportsmen especially those who respect themselves. As the old proverb says "When the fox couldn't get the grapes he said it was sour" Think before speaking Pieterson. I wish the England team all the best during their tour in India. Tue 04 Nov 2008 08:14:31 GMT+1 Toinette Thanks, Mr Bose for an excellent and informative article.Much as though it hurts, I have to recognise that Twenty20 cricket is in the ascendancy. As someone who rates Test Match cricket as the ultimate form of the ultimate sport, I am now truly worried for its future.I also agree fully with sublimesuperspur (post #15). Mon 03 Nov 2008 22:16:29 GMT+1 ScottWozniak Interesting article. Personally I think the ECB should stick two fingers up to the ICC and the BCCI and tell them to get stuffed, withdraw their membership from the ICC and do their own thing in this country. England don't need the ICC or the BCCI, who are turning the International game of Cricket into a money go round circus farce. The ICC seem to think they have the power to alter game results against the Laws of Cricket as well as allowing a country like Zimbabwe to remain a full member who simply do NOT meet the ICC's own criteria for full membership. The BCCI seem to think they can place their own 'special advisers' within the ICC and have little interest in International Cricket over and above what profits they can generate from it, as well as thinking they have the power to say globally who can and cannot play in the ICL and other world leagues. For gods sake get the hell out of this madhouse and leave them to it. Mon 03 Nov 2008 20:55:40 GMT+1 FatGerman #24 - he did ask Australia and SA. They turned him down - because they're throwing their lot in with the Indians and allowing their players to play in the IPL. Like England should have done. Mon 03 Nov 2008 18:58:41 GMT+1 FatGerman I'd like to respond to the people (mainly Indians I think) who are saying that a lot of English fans were negative about the IPL. Yes, we were, but it's not for the reasons you think. We were negative about the IPL because English cricket fans are very wary of anything that might threaten the supremacy of Test Cricket. Test Cricket is what we love, it's the cricket we love; 20-20 is just a game with none of the subtlely of a Test match. Now, it's a very English attitude that when something comes along that threatens something we love, we criticise it. That's just what we're like here.However, unlike the ECB, most of us don't have our heads buried in the sand. We see the reality of cricket as it is today and recognise that the IPL is a force to be reckoned with and that in order not to get left behind we have to join in. Doesn't mean we're pleased about it but that's the way it goes. If test Cricket starts to die out because of it, well we'll have have a good old English moan and then find something else to do. Mon 03 Nov 2008 18:56:43 GMT+1 slimsno as a west indian i think mr. stanford made a mistake in signing a 5 yr deal with the ECB...he should have gone for 2, 3 max. some points to note: 1) agreed that stanford's ambition to get cricket into the US is more on the improbable side. however stanford was the first person to fully explore the commercial and entertainment powers of 20/20 with his 2006 tourney that was fun and had a fitting finale...his tournament came BEFORE the ICL, the IPL and the 20/20 world cup. I'd want to speculate that because of that tournament's success investment into 20/20 was hurried up.2) stanford got into bed with the ECB because he saw the ECB as a major player in world cricket affairs and a business deal with them seemed great given the WICB pull little weight. (stanford knew his regional 20/20 would no longer be that lucrative for him because of the deluge of 20/20 tournaments that popped up after his). however the english public i think already made up their minds abt the man without getting to fully understand him......firstly he is a business man for pete's sake! the negative take on him was reflected in the press given to him...WI cricket needs a saviour and stanford is the closest we've had. eng cricket doesnt need one i assume and i dont think stanford was pretending to be one; he was merely trying to do some business.3) cricket in the carib is different from in eng...sorry if our 'garden party' game doesnt fit with ur 'gentlemanly game'. even before the tourney one had the BBC gave the feeling that eng already had the money in their hands. (nobody stopped to consider that the WI normally do well against eng in limited over cricket)...anyway here's where i think stan went wrong. he should have tried for a more fun team like aus or SA...imagine 4 more yrs of playing england for $20 M? i just hope the superstars win at least 3 of the remaining 4.... Mon 03 Nov 2008 17:20:39 GMT+1 oldasiahand Both the ECB and the BCCI need to be taken down a peg. Both are too arrogant and bullying: the BCCI's attitude towards players in the ICL is reprehensible and in violation of EU competition laws (not that they care but the ECB should). The ECB still thinks it is the Imperial Cricket Conference and the colonials should tug their forelock to their bettors.Any chance these two can get together in the wider interests of cricket? Mon 03 Nov 2008 16:31:18 GMT+1 Noelrands Surely the main point of the match was not the money itself but that Staford put a team together in the West Indies, trained them over 6 weeks and turned them into a world class side, making England look like amateurs. Even when they played Trinidad and Tobago in a warm-up, England looked woeful, winning by 1 run. I know that 4 members of the side had stomach upsets but we are talking about an Island side, not the National side (if you can have a National side formed of a group of countries which is starting to look doubtful in the West Indies).How on earth do we heat up our present squad? I mean they get a trip out to the West Indian sons with the WAGS, not a bad life. And just roll over waiting for their stomachs to be scratched.Finally I think they made far too much fuss over Stanford's unconventional manner. Does it matter that he went into the dressing room, larked about with the girlfriends? Did he do anything indecent? As far as a lack of respect is concerned, I think the entire English team have a long way to go to earn anyone's respect. Mon 03 Nov 2008 16:24:49 GMT+1 nishinvicible For once Mihir u have hit the right chord, i feel the stanford circus was more of a farce, sort of lottery cricket , where england cricketers had a chance to make hay But i rightly believe in wht KP said that they were not focussed. Cricket is cricket for what it is , money is a part of it.No Stanford can deny this fact Regarding Your comment that England will be lost in the Mercurial world of 20- 20 .I feel ECB have to connect with the IPL , they may feel that IPL is harsh on Not allowing ICL to be recognnized , But thts the way it is working now.And one more sad thing is country like India working the ideas of the EPL and the UEFA right under the nose of the ECB Wake up guys Time to move on Mon 03 Nov 2008 16:15:29 GMT+1 Jonathan S From a purely business point of view, perhaps we should have gone in with India at the start of the IPL.However, I think that the replacement of test cricket by 20-20 in terms of importance is now well on its way and the game will now be changed for ever. That is what really concerns me, not being in at the get go with the IPL.The whole Stanford series was a debacle for England, more likely to be remember for food poisoning and groped wives than cricket.As the "if you have the money, you can do what you like" culture takes over our game, there are sure to be more to come. Mon 03 Nov 2008 15:31:35 GMT+1 ILOVEMYDENHAM There are two reasons why we would never be able to consistently stage a serious cricket competition in this country. Firstly our weather is too poor and unpredictable (especially with the restrictions on timig imposed by television coverage - I wonder how many other readers have been to see live T20 only to have the game slashed down to a handful of overs because it can't possibly be allowed to over-run).The second reason has already been mentioned by sublimesuperspur (15). The ECB has already managed to seriously damage the interest of the British public by flogging off the TV rights for years to an elite broadcaster. How will we ever get people playing cricket if only a fraction of the population can even watch it?! Mon 03 Nov 2008 14:30:08 GMT+1 AndyPlowright "The Indian Premier League has been successfully modelled on English football's Premier League. The Champions League is modelled on the Uefa Champions League -and Indians are confident it will also be a success. Given how much the television rights have fetched it is hard to argue."...and these criteria are the ones that keep being dragged out to show that the IPL is a success. Spectator figures are never brought up. It's solely TV rights and how much they've ben flogged off for. If we're going to use television as our yardstick, you can say that Lalit Modi is cricket's Simon Cowell. Now, Cowell has developed a product worldwide. American Idol, Pop Idol, X-Factor... all three of them offering up karaoke repacked shorter versions of tracks associated with great artists. 20-over cricket is the same: sorter, quicker, less satisfying. The real measure of IPL success can not be judged yet. It will be seen in 10 years time, when Tendulkar has long retired and a new generation of youngsters are coming through. Will they be following Test cricket and hoping to take part on a Delhi fifth day wicket that's offering turn and bounce? Or will they choose a placid wicket and a game that last three hours with instant fame for hitting 30 from 12 balls? It is pointless to say that the Indian model is a good one as yet. It needs to be played and then reviewed. I'd argue that following the Premier League model is great for people who want to spend and make money. This season has been the best Premier League season for ages. The reason hasn't been more cash flooding in a la Man City. It's been because Hull and Stoke have come and matched the overpaid millionnaires and also beaten them on occasion. The success of Hull and Stoke show the Premiership for what it is: four clubs of real quality and a lot of overpaid average performers. Do we want cricket to go the same way? I don't. Mon 03 Nov 2008 14:15:03 GMT+1 chennaiboy only after this stanford debacle ,all are praising IPL.But still time is not over.This is just first year.England still can work with Bcci and develop cricket internationally. It is shame that stanford game is used to promote cricket in USA.When english fans cant digest ,how come americans like it?US people will laugh on the whole cricket community.Instead england can promote independently.But dont promote cricket in china for money sake.China is hell.They dont respect humans,international country. Mon 03 Nov 2008 14:07:58 GMT+1 eatingkingmacpherson I think this was an unfair game because wew had to do four replacements against Trinidad & Tobago and the four player were still recovering from the illness. but your bowling was diabolical and some times illegle bowling as they did it on purpose to make england have a small total. ithink there should be a rematch. Mon 03 Nov 2008 13:58:23 GMT+1 lee fett Great article Mihir.The ECB went on about selling the rights to international matches to SKY and how much money this would bring to grass-roots cricket then they go and miss the boat with this one. It would have netter them millions but because of their ineptitude they have missed out on that and we as punters STILL don't have cricket on terrestrial tele for everyone to enjoy.Congratulations ECB, fewer people than ever are watching cricket and now there's substantially less money than there could have been to ignite interest! Mon 03 Nov 2008 13:47:04 GMT+1 Pim_van_Delft Mihir,Could you please spell out on exactly which points [except regarding player availability] did the ECB and the BCCI not see eye to eye?Thanks. Mon 03 Nov 2008 13:34:23 GMT+1 captainferrari Good article. Not digressing but I am still confused though as to why England sent more or less their Test team to the Stanford 20/20. Other International teams base thier 20/20 team on the basis of how good they are in the 20/20 format. England seem to offer players like Bell, Collingwood, Prior the chance to play when they are known to require 10 overs to 'Get their eye in'...Harmison retired from the 1-day format so how can he be considered for the even shorter format ? Money I guess.... I think with this strategy, it will not be too long before England are rooted at the bottom of the 20/20 league behind the so called minnows of the game. If its a footie 5-a-side tourament, you don't send your first 11 a-side team do you at international level ? Mon 03 Nov 2008 13:03:51 GMT+1 Quick_Single Mihir, Nice piece and I think that your general message regarding having to embrace the IPL is spot on.Important also I think to note, with regard to the provision of 'high quality' T20 in England that the new structure in 2010 (involving abolition of Pro40) is something that the counties are far from supportive of. They are concerned (quite rightly I think) about market saturation. What Stanford week illustrated for me is that T20 is far from the guaranteed cast iron high quality entertainment some might suggest - there are still some dreadful T20 games, which the public will eventually realise. My question to you is why was there such a discrepancy in reaction and attitude? I would suggest that the England camp was extremely concerned about being villified by the press if there was honesty about the money being the sole driver. Alastair Cook said as much weeks ago, and then Moores and Pietersen were sent in on a clean up mission. Mon 03 Nov 2008 12:46:30 GMT+1 Andyj247 Im afraid england got what they deserve on Saturday - they have had a snooty attitude as soom as they got there that includes the team and the media pack including some of the BBC's own. This meant a lot to the west indies and hopefully can re kindle interest in the game again - i just hope its a long term thing - rather than a quick fix for Allen Stanfords benefit.The WCIB are a bunch of jokers and is a large part of the reason we havent performed for years - at least Stanford gave the team a chance to go into a proper training camp and the prepartion paid out big time (if you excuse the pun!)As for the ECB the article raises some good points India is where its at now and if they dont get on board - they will be left behind, its now or never for the ECB, English cricket is at a crossroads - which way will it turn? Mon 03 Nov 2008 12:42:38 GMT+1 chennaiboy More than any one ,english fans critisied IPl till end.And they cannot accept IPl as a succes even after the end of the series.I watched all the threads in BBC.SO how can you criticise giles for the debacle?His decision was based on english cricket,media,and fans not himself completely.BUT MR.mihir Bose wrote nice article about IPL after the end of IPL.But i saw only harsh comments about IPL from english fans.Even aussies criticised first,but later they accepted IPL. Mon 03 Nov 2008 12:36:53 GMT+1 NightRider #6, I do not think Mihir ever criticized the IPL. In fact, he was one of the very few journalists at that time who had very good things to say about the IPL and the opportunity it represented.Most points on this thread are spot on. It has been a sad week for English cricket. Their administrators have also been exposed as bunging fools. The choices that they made are quite shocking - exploring an IPL style English city-based leagues, first getting into tow with Middle East and Arab states, then getting into tow with Americans. All this to prove that they can put on a better show that India? Sorry guys, you cannot. Let your people play in IPL or they will not even sign contracts. I'm looking forward to the IPL auctions - it is 100% business as was mentioned in this post. Do not be surprised if only two or three people like KP, Flintoff get the top dollar and all the rest will be going for very minor money, even lesser than the local Indian boys. The businessmen really know how to value the true worth of the player.As far as the players go, well what can you say? Everyone from the players to the WAGs wanting to put up a show and get some air time, thinking and doing everything else except cricket, making some of the most hilarious statements about cricket and spending the money, etc. I do not think they got the point.1. It is about the cricket.2. It is a business.Well, they'll grow up. Mon 03 Nov 2008 12:12:20 GMT+1 Fredklug This was a good article that explained how all the various 20-20 tournaments have come about, and how one decision has led to another and so on.The review of recent 20-20 history also makes it clear that the ECB has a lot to answer for. Can I just add that this is the sort of insightful, knowledgeable and well-argued piece that we want to see from the BBC Sports editor. Some of the pieces published have been a bit 'so what?'. This is really good. And I hope it will go some way to shutting up the hordes of contributors who seem to take a really distasteful pleasure in slagging off Mr Bose's articles. Mon 03 Nov 2008 11:57:12 GMT+1 fahad_khan111 I think the comment about Stanford not investing in West Indian cricket is incorrect as he has given money to the WICB and also spread it across the different nations of the Carribean to promote cricket among children. He has made a few of the regional sides into professionals (full time paid cricketers) and the regional Stanford 20/20 was fun to watch and successful for everyone involved (players, organizors, fans). Also, the England vs Superstars match was shown on ESPN 2 in the United States. This is the first time I have seen any cricket on mainstream US television (non-PPV not Indian/Pakistani channel). Note: The match was not shown live and was 2 hr highlights but this has never been on ESPN here before Mon 03 Nov 2008 11:56:24 GMT+1 chennaiboy It is very great to see this article.But Mihir was also one of the guy who criticised ipl.The entire british media criticised.At last it is not good to put all the blame on one guy.Initially ,Even australia criticised IPL .Sucess of IPL is because of fans and players.Not board. Mon 03 Nov 2008 11:44:06 GMT+1 ChelseaSaffer Excellent article Mihir, i have to concur. England were made to look like muppets in a desperate attempt by the ECB to hold on to there status as the home of cricket. Is stanford going to give away $20 million every year and claim it's for the growth benefit of West Indies cricket? Is he going to pay that every year so that he could tap into the US market? The answer to both questions is surely no. Football can't break into the US market, so why would cricket? Excellent point made Mihir. Mon 03 Nov 2008 11:20:27 GMT+1 The Internet I think we will be passengers as you have saud and that the only way ]to be part of the train is for Counties to release the English players to play in the IPL Mon 03 Nov 2008 11:10:16 GMT+1 FatGerman Couldn't agree more Mihir. In my opnion Giles Clarke is a fool. The ECB (and, probably, the MCC) have to accept that if you start to run your sport as a business, the power will go to the people with the most money - which in this case is India. The ECB have created this situation, and their refusal to acknowledge it is to the detriment of English cricket as a whole. Clarke needs to swallow his pride and his old school tie and go cap in hand to the Indians. The English no longer control cricket - and as an English cricket fan I say - "who cares?" Mon 03 Nov 2008 10:56:21 GMT+1 levdavidovich Reasonable assessment of the current situation. The real test for the ECB will come next August/September when central contracts are offered to the England players for the following cricket year (October 2009 - September 2010). The players might not be quick to sign.("I am told India warned him it would not fly and they were right."......slipping into old habits? If someone tells you something, then name them and say when the conversation took place.) Mon 03 Nov 2008 10:42:39 GMT+1 Vox Populi I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say Mihir. Unfortunately english cricket is always held back by the old school tie brigade. Mon 03 Nov 2008 10:40:54 GMT+1