Twenty20 for $20m

Last updated: 11th June 2008

Twenty20 for $20m

Also see

Join the Sky Sports Debate on Sir Allen Stanford's Twenty20 challenge.

Texan billionaire Sir Allen Stanford has revealed his plans for a series of one-off Twenty20 games between England and a West Indies Legend XI.

The five matches, played once a year, will see the winner claim all - with the £500,000 up for each of the victorious players and $20million in all available for the winning team.

The first match will be played in Antigua on November 1 but is Stanford's Twenty20 challenge good for the game?

Or is cricket in danger of selling its soul, especially as Stanford is not a fan of the Test match format of the game?

Join the Sky Sports Debate and let us know your views by filling in the form below...

Comments (27)

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2

King Darren says...

how can this be good for english cricket? cricket is test match cricket. a player hasnt made it untill he plays a test match for his country. so why this multi-million t20? surely its going to have side affects on our test team? imagine the seniorio where kp, collingwood, broad turn up at lords for a test match in the brand new aston martins, laughing and joking about how much money they've earnt. then think of some of the other players like vaugheny, cook, hoggard the heart of our test team. surely theres going to be a split down the dressing room? envy? t20 is close to making cricket a farce!

Posted 13:24 19th June 2008

Dave Pimlott says...

Last night on Sky there were two cricket matches, West Indies v Australia (day 5 of the test) and Middlesex v Surrey in the Twenty20 Cup. I was fixated with the test match as the Windies attempted to break the world record run chase, the game from Lords just didn't tempt me at all. Twenty20 is like fast food, it's quick, modern and exciting but leaves you feeling slightly empty at the end of it. A test match is like a Sunday roast, it may take longer to preparte but it's packed with exciting ingredients, has more courses, and leaves you feeling very satisfied and content afterwards. I prefer chicken and stuffing over burger and fries anyday.

Posted 13:25 17th June 2008

Louise Disney says...

I am in the middle for this debate... yes, it is good for the game because the Windies get to play more and because of the large amount of money surrounding it, it will get a good public interest. on the other hand it will encourage other "Stanfords" to get into the game, offering large amounts of money to get teams to play in their country. Tests are not boring, It involves stamina and patience, and it is not in danger of dying out even though many people find it boring. 20:20 is entertaining but just look at the Ashes 2005...

Posted 10:25 17th June 2008

Joe Maloney says...

The long test matches make cricket so boring to watch, 20/20 is the best thing for cricket. Its faster and alot more action. Also its about time someone put some money into cricket.

Posted 14:20 16th June 2008

Keith Comley says...

20/20 is the way to go, who has the time to watch a 5 day test match. Its fun, its entertaining and its opening cricket up to a mass market. Alternatively you can always go back to the cucumber sandwiches, maiden overs and people whos job is to try to bat out the last day for a draw. ZZZZZZZZZ

Posted 00:11 16th June 2008

Maha Hussain says...

I cannot believe what T20 has done to cricket. This new Stanford rubbish... it's just another bang bang event to throw money around and watch some bis sixes. WHO CARES?? I don't. What most disgusts me is the behaviour of most English players over it. It's disgusting. Especially Kevin Pietersen. I was a big fan of his, but I think I have lost respect for him "T20 is going to overtake 50-over cricket?" I don't think so!!! Not if people like him stop behaving like homeless beggars drooling over money like a starved dog over a bone! For English players, regaining the Ashes and improving their sorrowful ODI rankings should be more important than some ugly T20 garbage. If they treat ODI cricket with such disdain, I see Bangladesh and Zimbabwe coming in ahead of them in the rankings. And then we'll see what they think about T20 being more important. MONEY??? Get a life, KP. Get a life, England. Get a life, the whole cricket world!!!

Posted 07:16 15th June 2008

Graham English says...

This appeared to be merely a pipe dream when its concept was first announced, and look now at the volume of t20 tournaments across the world. Stanford's vision is based on the West Indies situation, where he injected 3 million dollars to boost the standards . This new level of interest will encourage youngsters but will not produce a better English test players for the future, the skills and temperament required are too different.

Posted 12:00 14th June 2008

Paul Sherer says...

Im not sure about Tony Moss comment regarding selectors having nerves of steel or being the player bordering on selection. The best one day players will the ones picked simple as that. I think I would rather have a fit Flintoff that Wright for that match any day.

Posted 16:22 12th June 2008

Steve Perry says...

I wish I had the confidence that many seem to have in the ECB managing this situation correctly.Mr Stanford has come waving his chequebook and the powers that be have been puckering their lips and cleaning their noses in his wake. It is easy to say that the money is good for the game but what happens when it runs out ?,or he deicides to focus his energy and more to the point his cash elsewhere ? My impression has been that the ECB got caught out by the IPL and are just chasing the money irrespective of the long term consequences to cricket in general. Whatever he thinks a couple of 20/20 games are not going to reverse the fortunes of West Indies cricket ,and cricket in whatever form is never going to take off in the States .

Posted 14:40 12th June 2008

Simon Worley says...

Not sure if I can get excited about a match where the winning players will win a treasure chest of loot similar to a Poker head-tohead show down. Am I cheering because KP has hit a six out of the ground or he stands to earn £250k from it. Good luck to the players who profit from it but my emotion won't be running high!

Posted 14:20 12th June 2008

Hermes Solomonides says...

i think Stanford is a genius! what insentive this gives the England boys to start smackin the ball out of the park, and knocking middle stumps out of the ground. i think this will be an incredibly exciting event.

Posted 14:17 12th June 2008

Tony Moss says...

I have no issues with Allen Stanford throwing his money around. If he wants to pay it, let the players play for it. My concerns though go to the selectors of both sides. Imagine being the player who is bordering on selction for the game and the selectors decide to go with someone else and right there your chance of securing your future go down the drain. They are going to need nerves of steel with the player selection. Do they pick the crowd favourite Flintoff, who's input will no doubt be minimal but has a huge profile and ego to match, or do they go with Luke Wright, a superb 20/20 player and possible match winner, for example? Good luck fella's!!!

Posted 13:40 12th June 2008

Amriaz Latif says...

i think its ludicas all this money being given away to national players, if Mr Stanford wants life back in cricket in west indies or round the globe he should spend the money on grass roots. if he wants a competion it should involve the community (street players). this would attract future interest and help West indian cricket finding new talant and improving the game. The way i see it he is not giving money its a business issue, more money making.

Posted 12:17 12th June 2008

Stuart Jaenicke says...

We are now in a world dictated by commercial drive! If you don't make money, you don't succeed. The same, regretably applies for sport and cricket itself. As a lifetime supporter of the sport and avid attendee to international and domestic games along with being a businessman this can only be the best thing to happen for cricket. Twenty20 as i watch last night at Canterbury is probably the most entertaining sport around at the moment and to move forward, the backing (money) needs to be in place to do so. Providing the core game is not affected (championship and test matches) then we have nothing to worry about.

Posted 08:39 12th June 2008

Sam Robinson says...

There is no reason why Test cricket and 20/20 cannot peacefully co-exist. 20/20 cricket is good for the game. Cricket has to compete with football and rugby. Anything that can raise the profile of the game and attract youths and more people to the game can only be good for cricket. I am sure that some of the youths who are drawn to the 20/20 ,will also make the transition to play test cricket as well as the shortened format of the game. The world is changing, therefore nothing remains static. Twenty years ago footballers earned pittance compared to now. The same is happening to cricket. A new day as dawned in the sport of cricket Long live test cricket! Long Live 20/20 cricket. Both of you will live happily alongside each other.

Posted 20:14 11th June 2008

Sim Patel says...

The team earning $20million from one match is just for the pleasure of 1 man! and thats it yes players who win will get rich but apart from that nothing will ever be said, it will be talked about for a day if that as every cricket fan knows anything could happen, money doesnt make players instantly great, and it could all be rained off and one teams earns all that money as a result of duckworth lewis! the world cup in the west indies was great and we know they can hold a majour tournanment, why only 1 match?

Posted 20:04 11th June 2008

John H says...

This is silly for cricket there is already the twenty20 world cup. We dont need another twenty20 world series. How can the ECB sit and moan about the IPL during its run saying that it is a franchise sport but suddenly when they are paid huge bucks its suddenly a good idea. Thats like saying to the world of cricket only England can do it. They should put their powers into stopping the kolpak ruling because in 5 years it will all mean nothing.........

Posted 19:20 11th June 2008

Darren Duquemin says...

POINT ONE: There is a place for T20 and there is a place for Test Cricket. I was at the Rose Bowl for the T20 clash between England v Australia (first ball of the Ashes summer in 2005) and I was lucky enough to be at The Oval for the fifth day of the Fifth Test (last ball of the Ashes summer). Both were fantastic, they were (and it's an odd phrase) the same but different. The interesting thing is the friend I was with at the Rose Bowl was not a cricket fan but loved it (perfect introduction to the game) and the friend I was with at the Oval was a mad cricket player/fan like me... who'd given over his emotions to Freddie and the rest of the boys for the whole summer. Perhaps my T20 buddy will graduate to the Test spectacle in a few years but an 'average' day at a Test certainly would not have got his attention the way T20 did! POINT TWO: Why are so many pioneers given such a hard time? Think back to Kerry Packer when so much of what he did to transform the game a couple of decades or more ago was lambasted but his World Series format of ODIs has/had been the benchmark for the ECB and particularly Cricket Australia ever since. This is the next evolution (and it is evolution not revolution!) and it only happens when a businessman with either no vested interest or a vested interest (you take your pick) acts as the catalyst and gives the 'committee men' a bit of a kick up the backside. Kerry Packer gave the cricket stars of his era an offer they could not refuse and Sir Allen Stanford has given the ECB an offer they could not refuse. The future was brighter with Packer and will be brighter with Stanford. Both put their money where their mouth is and you cannot argue with that. POINT THREE: Long live Test Cricket, long live T20 ... but the format that might soon RIP is the current ODI 50-over format which is neither one nor the other!

Posted 17:06 11th June 2008

Eneka Quamina says...

I agree with Tery Collins that this will not benefit the whole sport but just the pockets of the winning team. Also, so much money being poured into this form of the game, IPL, ICL and now Stanford, will damage the longer form of the game. Young cricketers will be learning how 2 hit the ball long distances rather than build an innings. Personally as West Indian, i wud rather see us top the ICC Test Rankings than win 20/20 tournaments. Sure players need 2 make a living, but i think the respective cricket boards should be investing money in the longer format of the game. Twenty/20 should go back 2 what it was when it first came into the game a fun match at the beginning of a series before the real cricket starts. p.s. CUM ON U WINDIES, LEVEL DA SERIES!!!

Posted 16:57 11th June 2008

Mike Gilbert says...

I dont see it as an issue as long as the governing bodies manage it correctly. Test Cricket and One Day cricket must be preserved as they are the pinnacle of any cricketers dreams, they also require different skills and strengths to master. There is room for all the formats of the game and it was, after all, inevitable that Cricket would become a richer game now that there is a format which is similar in duration to football or tennis. Even with these recent developments cricketers are still a LONG way behind footballers in the pay stakes so where is the harm in them earning some money for their not inconsiderable talent.

Posted 16:39 11th June 2008
  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2

Add Comment*

Send us your views

Are you a Sky Sports subscriber?

*All fields required, your email address will be kept private