Pietersen: the right attitude

The critics will be all too quick to turn around and point to them making £600,000 for a couple of hours work, so we don't want the players to be charging around bragging about it.

Nasser Hussain
Quotes of the week

STANFORD SUPER SERIES
Live on Sky Sports
Stanford Superstars v Trinidad & Tobago
10.15pm, Sat, Sky Sports 1
England v
Middlesex
9.00pm, Sun, Sky Sports 1
Trinidad & Tobago v Middlesex
9.30pm, Mon, Sky Sports 1
England v
Trinidad & Tobago
9.00pm, Tues, Sky Sports 1
Stanford Superstars v Middlesex
9.00pm, Fri, Sky Sports 1
Stanford Superstars v
England
8.30pm, Sat, Sky Sports 1

Also see

• The man with a plan
• Superstar pen pics

The Stanford Super Series is a double-edged sword, but there's no reason why cricket should be fearful of the money on offer.

Yes, in the present climate it is an awkward one, but why should our sport not get its earnings up? We don't mind it happening to our footballers or our golfers, so why not our cricketers?

We all admire the skill levels they already show and there is nothing wrong with increasing the pressure these guys are under to perform as well. It makes great viewing when you know someone is standing over a putt for $1million: he's either going to choke and miss it or be celebrating a nice windfall, which is what this is all about.

I don't know why we should be scared of it in our game. If you still truly believe cricket is the game of gentlemen and players then we shouldn't go down this road, but let's be honest, cricket has moved on.

The one big concern I have is that England, or whoever wins, will have to be careful. The critics will be all too quick to turn around and point to them making £600,000 for a couple of hours work, so we don't want the players to be charging around bragging about it.

They have to be humble and realise they are in a very, very fortunate position. But no-one in their shoes would turn down this opportunity and we cannot blame the cricketers involved, or indeed cricket for going this way. Kevin Pietersen was spot on when he said his players had to make their minds up what they would do with the money and not go round telling the world how much they have made.

I also hope the Stanford Superstars are more than an up-and-coming West Indies side led by Chris Gayle. My other big fear is that the Stanford side are all out for 80 off 11 overs and England knock them off for three wickets in what turns out to be little more than an exhibition game. I know there have been legal issues with selection, but this has to be a competitive game.

Pressure

I would love nothing more than to see it go down to the last over, with one side needing something like 10 runs to win it. I just hope it is like Twenty20 Finals Day over here in that respect, because then it will be all about the money. Then it will be about pressure and then it will be about who has got the bottle.

Imagine being asked to bowl the final over with all that money at stake, knowing it could cost you and your mates $1million? The only person I can think of who would relish that is Darren Gough, because he probably doesn't need the money but also because he is so tight, you know he would come good!

England have to be professional about this as well. That is a must with the money at stake. They have to forget about what they could cost one another if they lose and whatever the outcome, they have to be mature and grown up about it all. If someone does mess up at the death, they have to react like sportsmen do across the world.

When John Terry (pictured) cost Chelsea the Champions League by missing that penalty against Manchester United, all he could do was apologise to the fans, strap his boots back on this season and try to get his side back to that moment a year on.

Peter Moores and the management team need to make sure there are no repercussions either. They have got a very difficult tour of England coming up after this and they cannot afford to have any ill-affects hanging over them.

They have already had a tough old time selecting the squad for the Stanfords - that is one panel I am glad I was not on!

Specialists

They have gone with their tried and trusted players from the longer formats because Kevin Pietersen created something against South Africa in the summer that was the starting point for this England side and they want to carry things on from there.

That means treating a Twenty20 game like a 50-over contest in terms of selection at least, but they were faced with a tough choice. Did they risk upsetting the likes of Dimitri Mascarenhas, Graham Napier, James Foster and maybe Joe Denly, all Twenty20 specialists on the fringe of things, or do they hack off the Alastair Cooks, Matt Priors and Ian Bells of the world with that India tour coming up?

Personally I would have gone with a few more Twenty20 specialists, picked from outside the England squad. What happens if Andrew Flintoff turns up injured on the day and can't play? They will then be losing a six-hitter without anyone to replace him. Napier and Mascarenhas would have been my choices.

It will be interesting to see what they do about the spinners as well. Historically spinners not only play a major part in our Twenty20 Cup, but also in the Stanford games. It's all very well for Middlesex to focus on that because their success last season was based around Shaun Udal and Murali Karthik and they have to stick with it.

But the ground is a bit of a postage stamp and although this isn't in an international game as such, we saw at the Twenty20 World Cup that spinners got blasted out of the ground, so the same could well happen here.

England's success in limited overs has also come through their seam bowlers, so I see no reason why they would change that - especially with so much at stake.

What do you think about the money coming into cricket? And have England got it right in choosing to ignore the Twenty20 specialists in the county game? Let us know your thoughts by filling in the feedback form below...