The Stanford Super Series - your questions answered.
What is “Twenty:20 for 20”? It's the all new,
cricket-flavoured, Saturday-night television game show that the whole nation
is talking about and which reaches its huge climax tonight, with the jackpot
having risen to a sensational, credit-crunching $20million (about £12.4
million).
How does the show work? Teams representing England and an
American billionaire compete on the buzzer to answer questions worth an
escalating amount of money in a number of categories, including History,
Theology, Industrial Archaeology and Stars of the Soaps. Meanwhile, the
players' wives are locked in a soundproof booth at the back of the set with
Allen Stanford. The player who least objects to his wife jiggling around on
the American billionaire's lap has five minutes to plait dough and/or fold a
paper napkin into the shape of a carthorse, as previously demonstrated by a
special guest expert. He then climbs into the all-important, see-through
“Cube of Cash”, where he must grab as much money as he can in three hours
with assistance from Sir Ian Botham and the lovely Debbie McGee, looking, as
ever, like a million dollars. The losers are shown the Fiat Punto and the
set of reproduction mahogany library steps that they could have won. The
winner feels a little bit sheepish, but definitely richer. The camera then
draws back and everyone stands in the middle of the stage, waving.
Any tactical or strategic advice for someone looking to go home a winner?
The definitive tip remains: “Stay out of the black and into the red -
nothing in this game for two in a bed.” Also, “Ask the Audience” is without
doubt the most valuable of the three available lifelines and should be
protected accordingly. The audience, after all, is almost never wrong. And
remember - keep thinking all the time.
It all sounds fantastically exciting. And yet we hear that some of the
England players grew “uncomfortable about a number of things” this week and
requested a meeting with the chief executive of the Professional Cricketers'
Association to express their concerns. Indeed they did, but you can
bet it was just a touch of cold feet in the run-up to the big night - and
perfectly understandable, given the size of the prize on the table and the
prospect of meeting Chris Tarrant under the lights.
But wasn't the central plank of their complaint that Stanford had been
in the England dressing-room, a place they regard as sacrosanct? Again,
just nerves, surely. If Noel Edmonds popped down to say hello and wish you
all the best before the show, you would think nothing of it.
But wasn't the suggestion also that the set-up in Antigua has exposed
the players to ridicule? Hey - you've got to be in it to win it.
Did the alleged uneasiness of the players extend as far as suggesting
that they may withdraw from the contest? Are you kidding? With this
much money up for grabs? And with Dale Winton all rehearsed-up and ready to
go?
If England win tonight, will there be a bus-top tour through London?
It's certainly something they may consider. More likely, though, there will
just be the usual photo opportunities involving champagne bottles and
outsized cardboard cheques, accompanied by interviews in which everyone
maintains that “it won't change me” and quaintly vows to carry on doing the
same job.
Referring to the adverse publicity that has hit this week's warm-up
events, Stanford said: “I was a hero in June and now I'm a skunk in
October.” But that's an exaggeration, isn't it? Without doubt.
Let's get some perspective here: no one remembers thinking Stanford was a
hero in June. Apart from a few important people at the England and Wales
Cricket Board, obviously.
New balls, please
Can't wait to get my first look at the new Nike Total 90 Omni Hi-Vis ball at
the football this afternoon. Evidently, this scientifically researched,
winter-friendly sphere update, with its carefully calibrated
yellow-and-purple design motif, should function particularly well under
floodlights, ensuring that I am better able to contrast the ball with the
green of the pitch, meaning that I see it just that little bit earlier,
potentially increasing my reaction times by that critical fraction of a
second.
Apparently, it's quite good for the players, too. And just in time for
Christmas.
Of course, there will always be scoffers who point out that, in football, the
ball is generally pretty visible in any case. It's one of the advantages
football has as a spectator sport over, say, ice hockey. And, for that
matter, rugby. At the same time, if the technology is there, you would be a
fool not to take advantage of it and you've got to be in favour of anything
that helps teams to gain that additional revenue flow. Sorry, “critical
extra split-second advantage”.
Still, if ultimate visibility is the goal, might the ball perhaps have
contained a flashing light, as on the roof of a police car? And might it not
be an advantage if players could hear the ball as well as see it? Maybe it
could have a radio or MP3 player inside it, or include an alarm and a
recorded warning, in the manner of reversing lorries. “Attention, ball
coming. Attention, ball coming.”
In fact, perhaps we should be taking a holistic approach and bring a player's
sense of smell into the equation, too. Who knows what improvements we would
see in reaction times if the ball really stank of something. It would lend a
whole new sense to the notion of “sniffing out an opportunity”.
For now, though, bring on the Hi-Vis. But only in the Premier League. This is
an exclusive deal for the sport's elite and players in the lower leagues can
just fumble around in the darkness as usual. This high-tech vision and
science stuff is too good for the likes of them. Why, down there they should
be grateful to have any kind of ball at all.
Simple remedy for surface tension at Wembley
Even though the New Orleans Saints beat the San Diego Chargers in the NFL
game at Wembley Stadium last week, Sean Payton, the Saints coach, didn't end
up happy. Speaking back in the United States he said: “It'd be hard for me
to say it's a great experience.” Packing his team off to another country in
the middle of the regular season had been “hard logistically”, he explained,
and the pitch hadn't helped. “I thought the field conditions were poor, real
poor,” he said.
Now, naturally one bridles to hear an outsider dismiss Wembley's “hallowed
turf” in this way. At the same time, Payton has a point. When the Saints and
the Chargers finished wrestling with each other on Sunday, the traumatised
grass resembled chocolate-flavoured Angel Delight.
We think we can get to the bottom of the problem, though. Essentially, the
Wembley surface is fine and perfectly adequate for its purposes most of the
time. But then, every year, these thudding American football teams turn up
in cleats and the next thing you know it's as if someone had been scrambling
dirt bikes all over it.
There has to be a simple solution. But what could it be?
