Do you agree with Michael Holding?

Question

Michael Holding has slammed the upcoming 20/20 Stanford game, calling it a farce, and saying he is against it as it is more about making money and promoting Stanford, than in promoting cricket in the West Indies. He has also decried 20/20 in general, saying that it is again more about finances than in developing the game.

Do you agree with Holding?

Answer 1

Well i have to agree and disagree.

If the 20/20 Stanford did not have a large amountof money in it, do you think we'd be talking about it right now? If the IPL did not have money in it do you think that it would have caught the media's as well as the player's attention?

What's the aim of putting money into these tournaments? It's to get people's interest.

In today's world people are driven by money. Money talks, it gets people talking which is one of the best forms of advertising. It's all about getting the interest of the people and the players.

However saying this, Michael Holding has a point.

People need to draw the line here. I think it's okay for tournaments to have lots of money in it but there must be a line drawn. We have the IPL, EPL, Stanford and many countries have shown interest in holding similar tournaments such as Australia and Pakistan.

I read an article interviewing Mahela Jayawardene.

["You can’t have three or four Twenty20 international tournaments a year. You just can’t have that. It has to be controlled. Tests are very important; one-day cricket is important."

"It is important to that you sit down and get your priorities and everyone needs to get together and find one big solution. That is, to have one big tournament where you get all the revenue and cricket-playing countries to share that." ]

How do you think tournaments are going to compete with each other? How do you think that they will get the interest of the players to play for THEIR tournament instead of others?

More MONEY, because in the end that's the difference for the players, their all T20 tournaments, its the amount of money that'll make the decision, the more international players the more viewers, the more TV organisations pay to broadcast..

I agree with Jayawardene, we can't have a heap of tournaments competing with each other, it's not going to work. The cricketing world as a whole needs to sit down and look over this before it gets way out of hand.

Answer 2

Of coarse,  he is my favorite player. I have a large Michael Holding cardboard cutout in my room. And i also think that he is very intellectual.  

Answer 3

I agree with Michael Holding.

20-20 is about entertainment and therefore more about finances than developing the game.

Answer 4

he he he he

hope to see similar question about one day international and test cricket after  Australian and England's tour of India

you still live with the illusion that u can perform better in other two formats

stop criticizing T20

Answer 5

Yes I do,100%

Answer 6

hypocrites, all come and make money in commentary and want it in olympics too expecially aussies, why they come to IPL and play, if this is a rubbish game. he cant do anything , the money of people will dictate the rules and right now the norm is 20 20

Answer 7

I agree with him entirely, it's the worst thing to ever happen to cricket, not because of the game as such, but because of the way it is being used to take control of  cricket by India.  

Answer 8

My Nickname I Don't Know has already given a great answer so I shall keep mine short.

Yes I do agree with Holding, the Stanford game is a farce.

Other than making money and trying to deflect attention away from the big money leagues of the IPL I don't see the point of the Stanford game whatsoever. As far as I'm aware it serves no purpose as it won't count as proper international game anyway so why send our players (other than so they can all make a boat load of cash that is). It's not about promoting cricket anywhere, it's already huge in the Caribbean and here at home, it's about promoting some American bloke and his business interests.

Surely the ECB should be concentrating less on making silly amounts of money from silly one off games and spend more time on important matters like keeping the BCCI out of our game, ensuring our county system is producing future international players and ensuring our current international players are winning important matches.

I like the 20/20 format, it's exciting and a lot of fun to watch but I think it's gotten out of control and the Stanford game is just another example of money swaying the minds of the people in charge.

Answer 9

well...yes & no.

firstly, hes definately right about Stanford, thats purely to promote the sponsor and make money, the only way that game can do any good is by instead of giving the money as prize moeny, it should be put into cricekt at grass roots level in the west indies cos i think world cricket would look alot better if the windies had a stronger side

about T20 being a farce overall, well, while i personally dont lilke the game, i think it can do some good, if it promotes the game to youngsters and gets them playing the game, and if it gets people watching then, well frankly, yes it can do some good, but personally, i dont mind T20 cricket as long as it doesnt take players away from Test Cricket, for test cricket should always be the highest priority

Answer 10

I agree it is a bit ridiculous and certainly more about Stanford than promoting the game, however i will definitely be watching it!

I think 20/20 can definitely have more of an appeal to young kids starting out than test cricket can so if it gets them interested in the game its surely a good thing. Naturally the more popular it is, the more money it will generate and if a county gets more revenue from its 20/20 games than from its test matches then whats wrong with that? the money still goes into the club.

Answer 11

yes i am

Answer 12

Yes, 100%. I think the influx of Americans looking to cash in on the worldwide popularity of British sports is a dangerous thing that should be resisted.

American interference has led to a lot of discontent in the English sports scene. Take Liverpool FC for instance, the two owners can't come to terms, one tries to buy out the other's share, Rick Parry was asked to resign, players are unhappy and results, until last season, were unsatisfactory. Elsewhere in the EPL, fans are priced out of tickets as foreign owners need to pay off the big loans they have taken to buy clubs for self-enrichment.

I don't think "Sir Stanford" (how did an American get knighted?) understands the game in any way except in monetary terms. His idea that 50 over versions of the game needs to be phased out asap is not one that will go down well with people like me who grew up watching an enjoying the 50 over version, and only later understood and appreciated Test cricket.

I hardly ever watch a full 100 over game (50 per innings), usually watch the beginning and end of the first innings, and the chase (last 20 overs) of the second. Sponsors and advertisers realize that the 16th to 40th overs in the first innings and the first 30 overs in the 2nd are downtime, nobody watches the game and hence the ads and thus fewer people will buy their products. But shall we let the sponsors/cash injectors strip us of a perfectly good form of cricket just because they cannot make decent enough returns on their investment?

It seems obvious to me that such games are more about money and boosting the rich man's profile than about good cricket. I am with Michael Holding in denouncing Stanford's (and every other rich guy's, American or not American), plan of turning the game into "crickentertainment", similar to American sports where singing, dancing and half-time shows are the main offerings and the game itself secondary.

Answer 13

i agree with Holding and sturdy supporter of anti 20/20 campaign~

Answer 14

I agree with Holding to an extent. I don't think 20/20 should have been introduced at all at international level, better left to county players. Of course people may disagree thats my opinion. For me they should be promoting test cricket as I feel this is where the players are really tested.  

Answer 15

I have a lot of respect for Holding and I feel he is correct on this issue.

I'm not impressed with Stanford and his complete lack of respect for the history and traditions of cricket.

Shame we can't clone Holding several dozen times and give him ALL the top jobs at the ICC.

Answer 16

well its a good thing buy promote the game to a higher level to try to see who is the best in a shorter version of one dayers in gerneal

Answer 17

Absolutely 100%

Answer 18

NO! He's being an old, closeminded purist! The truth is, you look at the crowds that have been coming to T20 these past few years... lots of kids and women, as opposed to Test cricket, where you see either middle-aged men, or no one at all!