Latest update August 26th, 2026 10:21 AM
Sir Allen Stanford’s flawed format
Can you imagine that Dave Mohammed collected a million American dollars from Sir Allen Stanford, for doing nothing, after the Stanford Superstars won against England? Mohammed did not bat, did not bowl, and dropped a catch that caused some inspiration to be lost by the West Indies.
If Mohammed had held on to the catch (a very simple one), then England would not have reached to 99. They probably would have been bowled out in the eighties, further denting their spirits and thus making it easier for West Indies when they went in to bat.
Under the Stanford formula, the winning team in the last super clash would see one million going to the eleven players. Was it Stanford who came up with that decision, or was it from his Board of Legends? Whoever it was, it was a stupid idea.
The format involved 17 players encamped for six weeks. The six that were left out of the final event collected just a meagre sum. This was wrong.
Some of those players inspired the final eleven in the previous match. One such person was Lennox Cush, with his bowling against Middlesex just two days before the grand finale.
A better framework should have been to assign a set amount of money to the winning side which comprised the 17 members. It did not do any justice to the collective that was held up in camp for six strenuous weeks. Think of the psychological hurt those six players must have felt!
The story of Dave Mohammed highlights this unacceptable shortcoming. What did Mohamed do to earn a million American bucks? My suggestion is that this huge flaw be removed for future tournaments.
A better formula is to spread the money evenly among the 17 players, but in the final match assign a considerable amount of cash to superlative performances.
A more enlightened approach is to give financial incentives to high scorers and wicket-takers. It means then that bowlers and batsmen would seek to excel. So, if a bowler utilises his four overs but takes no wickets and gets lashed for forty runs, then he gets nothing. If, on the other hand, a player collects three wickets in his allotment and only concedes twenty runs, then he is justly rewarded.
If a batsman is dismissed for nought, he gets nothing except part of the prize money. On the other hand, a Gayle-like performance as we saw in the finals should bring big dollars.
This seems to me to be a more logical plan than the one Sir Allen has invented. I cannot see the wisdom of giving a million dollars to the final eleven. It is wrong, and the press should press Sir Allen and the Board of Legends to change it.
Equally wrong is the winner-take-all characteristic of the game. This is nonsense. International sports should not be played like this. There must be a winner’s purse and a loser’s prize. Again, one wonders if Stanford had his way, or the arrangement came from the Board of Legends.
All, without exaggeration, all Caribbean people, including those without interest in cricket, were overcome with emotions because eleven poor Caribbean youths in a volatile endeavour like sports will now have a sound platform from which to launch a future without a career in sports.
As Fletcher, the wicket-keeper, put it, he will invest his cash. But there would have been a river of tears from every border in the Caribbean if the television cameras had shown the empty faces of West Indian losers.
There is no question, to my mind, that the empty stares would have brought tears to the eyes of countless Caribbean fans.
Sir Allen Stanford, his Board of Legends and the English Cricket Board must bring a stop to this nonsense. The losers must be part of the prize money.
I urge the press in both areas – the UK and here in the region — to start commenting on this flaw. The fault has worked for us in the Caribbean because we won. But our cricketers should not go to England next year and play their hearts out and, if they lose, come back empty-handed.
This was the first tournament, and like every plan, there are teething problems. The analysts and strategists from both parties should study the weaknesses. From a Caribbean perspective, the wrong area is that the prize money is not properly distributed. Have eleven players with replacements for injuries.
But if you are selecting 17, then they must be part of the final pay-out. In terms of the tournament, there must be a handsome loser prize. Why should people work without pay? That is what happened at the climax. Change your plan, Sir Allen!
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.