By Benjamin Conkey
November 4th 2008 @ 3:07am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Stanford helps rebuild Calypso cricket
Not only did England’s Twenty20 side lose the richest prize in world sport, they also lost all respect for their smarmy American-born host Allen Stanford.
Sir Allen (the Poms are wondering how he got knighted) was shown on the big screen mildly canoodling with several of the player’s wives and he also broke a moral rule in sport by letting himself into the dressing rooms.
Then again, it is his ground.
Needless to say, it didn’t go down well with the England players. They were fuming and wanted out. “The money doesn’t matter” they insisted.
But one look at the England dugout during their woeful innings indicated they cared. There were no smiles, just solemn looks as they realised the week would count for nothing.
To make matters worse, Chris Gayle and Andre Fletcher came in and smashed the ball around to record an emphatic 10-wicket win, proving there was nothing wrong with the pitch, just the England mindset.
The England players might dislike Stanford, but there is no denying he is helping West Indian cricket. I was initially skeptical about his philanthropic interests, but after watching the impressive young talent his Twenty20 domestic competition has uncovered and seeing the excitement of the supporters, perhaps a Windies world cricket revival is possible.
Just like the American election, it is change West Indian supporters can believe in.
The main reason the Superstars have done so well is the fact that Stanford was more than willing to receive outside help. It would have been easy, and considering the money invested, justified, for him to select the team.
He managed to put his ego aside by bringing in former West Indian greats such as Viv Richards to choose the perfect mixture of experience and youth from the Caribbean.
It was a stroke of genius by Stanford to schedule the match on Antigua and Barbuda’s independence day, which guaranteed parochial support.
A sell-out crowd cheered every wicket.
The players had “Stanford Superstars” on their sleeves, but you could tell the crowd and sometimes even the commentators were really cheering or “rooting” for the West Indies.
In between the compulsory camera shots of Allen Stanford in the stands (no doubt it was in the television contract), one close-up of a local woman with tears running down her cheek just before the Superstars won reminded the world that the match was not just about an advertisement for a corporation, but actually meant something to the people.
Suddenly West Indian patriotism was back.
If you believe the media reports, the Stanford Superstars spent six weeks in a training camp for the biggest match of their lives.
Twelve-hour days with strict curfews broke old habits of West Indian teams taking a laid-back approach to their cricket. Whatever they did in the camp, it worked.
When Darren Sammy dismissed the dangerous Kevin Pietersen, he celebrated like Raphael Nadal or Lletyon Hewitt winning a Grand Slam, falling flat on his back in elation.
Then there was 20-year-old opening batsman Andre Fletcher.
He was one of the stars of the week and is definitely one to watch out for.
Yes, it’s only Twenty20 cricket, but as Ian Chappell has mentioned in the past, if a batsman has a great technique, they will score runs regardless of the format, whether it’s ten overs or unlimited.
As I wrote last week, Test cricket is in trouble because of the 20/20 revolution. Stanford despises the traditional game. It is up to the West Indian cricket board to make sure they build on the Twenty20 success by continuing to develop Test cricketers.
Thanks to Sir Allen, there is now a few million in the bank to invest for the future.
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(3)
To answer your question, Paul Okon is their coach. He is relatively young...
Loading ...
Greg Russell said | November 4th 2008 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Ben(jamin),
Since no-one has offered a comment on your article, I will. After all, you can’t be left to fight the war against rugby domination of this website all on your own!
1. So someone actually watched this match?
2. I don’t mind T20 as a format, but it has to be seen in the context that the shorter the format, the more random the result, and therefore the more matches need to be played to find the better team. So my own view is that T20 “finals” should be played much like American baseball final series, i.e., as best of 7. Thus I read very little into the comprehensive win by the WI in this match. After all, if 1 match can give a meaningful result, then one has to accept that Zimbabwe is a better T20 side than Australia.
3. The same has to apply to assessments of individual players, as you give of Andre Fletcher. That said, my first ever look at Gautam Gambhir was in the T20I at the MCG last January. India was thrashed by 9 wickets (how relevant was that result by the end of the summer? This also illustrates my point 2 above). Gambhir made about 25 and looked really impressive. I wrote to a friend that although 20 balls is nothing to go on, Gambhir looked a super talent. He duly delivered 3 centuries in the ODI series last summer, has now made back-to-back test centuries against Australia, and people are talking about him as the next batting superstar of world cricket. So you might be right about Fletcher.
4. It is now clear from the events of last week that all this was about was Allen Stanford getting a whole lot of publicity for himself. Unlike the English press, I don’t have any problem with that - after all, he’s paid $20m for it. But what I do have a problem with - and this follows from my comment with your preview of this match - is that the ECB and the WICB accepted his ridiculous payment scheme. They should have just called Stanford’s bluff and told him that prizemoney would go to both teams, or else he could not have the self-publicity.
5. For me the ultimate hypocrisy is that the administrators (ECB and WICB) accepted it being all or nothing for the players, but at the same time their own shares were a guaranteed even split of $7m. What’s good for the goose should also be good for the gander.
6. Having said all the above, the English players were clearly so poor that perhaps they deserved what they got, i.e., nothing.
Benjamin Conkey said | November 4th 2008 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Hey Greg thanks for your comments. I agree with most of your points.
I’m sure not too many people watched it in Australia as it was on ESPN at 8am on a Sunday morning. However, it was broadcast in 100 countries.
I think a one-off match works. The teams did get their respective practice matches so it wasn’t like they were coming in blind. England were just disgraceful. They were trying to hit balls outside off-stump to fine leg and then looked surprised when they got bowled. Whereas the West Indian batsman played normal cricket shots and found the boundries when the field was up in the first six overs. Then once their eye was in they went for the big shots.
Definitely agree with you about the hypocrisy of the administrators. Especially the ECB as they denied the England players a chance to play in the IPL, then as soon as Stanford comes along and offers the cricket boards money they jump at the chance.
Dave said | November 4th 2008 @ 6:01pm | Report comment
The saying “all that glitters is not gold” somehow comes to mind re this publicity stunt.