What do you think of the possible decision by Warne, McGrath, Lara et al to sign for the new 20/20 league being planned in India?

Sure I know it's about $$$, Warne's reputedly been offered $2 million, but it seems like a bookmaking scandal waiting to happen.

These guys could stain great careers if they get caught up in this.

20/20 is an aberration of the game anyway.

What do you think of the possible decision by Warne, McGrath, Lara et al to sign for the new 20/20 league being planned in India?

Sure I know it's about $$$, Warne's reputedly been offered $2 million, but it seems like a bookmaking scandal waiting to happen.

These guys could stain great careers if they get caught up in this.

20/20 is an aberration of the game anyway.

Mixed feelings about this. I suppose you can't blame any recently retired player from wanting to top up his superannuation with a lazy couple of million.

This comp is being organised by billionaire Indian businessmen, who probably have links to the bookies, so any fool who wants to risk his money betting on outcomes should know what he's getting in to.

Reputation vs $Millions at the end of a career? I know Warne won't give a rats.

---

20/20 is an aberration of the game anyway.

---

In my opinion even the one day, limited over, is an aberration - at best. The 20/20 - which I have never had the misfortune to watch - is the reductio ad absurdum of what has been done over the last 20 years to what was a noble and beautiful game.

However, given what the current version has become, the players amy as well make what they can out of it and behave as any soccer professional player would.

---

20/20 is an aberration of the game anyway.

---

In my opinion even the one day, limited over, is an aberration - at best. The 20/20 - which I have never had the misfortune to watch - is the reductio ad absurdum of what has been done over the last 20 years to what was a noble and beautiful game.

However, given what the current version has become, the players amy as well make what they can out of it and behave as any soccer professional player would.

I too have never been a fan of one day cricket, I believe it ruins young players for the real purpose of the game and 20/20 will have a far worse affect. A rule should be passed that no player under 30 be allowed to play it!!

My concerns with the Indian syndicate weren't about cricket purism, let them make money, but the taint by association with the sub continent bookmaking scene which has already ruined a few reputations.

I too have never been a fan of one day cricket, I believe it ruins young players for the real purpose of the game and 20/20 will have a far worse affect. A rule should be passed that no player under 30 be allowed to play it!!

My concerns with the Indian syndicate weren't about cricket purism, let them make money, but the taint by association with the sub continent bookmaking scene which has already ruined a few reputations.

Glad you agree about the degradation of cricket. I expected to be dismissed as anachronistic fuddy duddy - and I'm sure most people do think that. My objection is the way the one day game has changed cricket into just another case of winning or losing - and nothing else mattering. In cricket it was the other things which made the game engrossing, subtle, strategic, skillful, beautiful....no point in going on when the game itself is gone. In my time to say something was not cricket was to say it was not fair, sporting, honest. In today's 'cricket' the most hideous or flukey swipe is applauded so long as it furthers the cause of your side - and cheating or verbal abuse is almost obligatory if it helps your team to win. Again, I won't go on....

As to bookmaking and game fixing, that is the ultimate depth to which cricket has sunk. But criminality is not far from any game where lots of money can be made. (Just now a big case is in the american news where a basketball referee is looking to make a plea bargain with the FBI to help the latter bring down the major role of organized crime in american basketball.) When there wasn't so much money - or any - involved the game was free of crime. And can anyone say the players were less good? It was a much better game - and a game for all that. Today it's like many other 'sports', a form of war - to win is joy, to lose misery. I think to some extent only international rugby has retained some of the old balance between supporting your side and having some regard for the game itself as well as the opponents' skills.

I too have never been a fan of one day cricket, I believe it ruins young players for the real purpose of the game and 20/20 will have a far worse affect. A rule should be passed that no player under 30 be allowed to play it!!

My concerns with the Indian syndicate weren't about cricket purism, let them make money, but the taint by association with the sub continent bookmaking scene which has already ruined a few reputations.

Glad you agree about the degradation of cricket. I expected to be dismissed as anachronistic fuddy duddy - and I'm sure most people do think that. My objection is the way the one day game has changed cricket into just another case of winning or losing - and nothing else mattering. In cricket it was the other things which made the game engrossing, subtle, strategic, skillful, beautiful....no point in going on when the game itself is gone. In my time to say something was not cricket was to say it was not fair, sporting, honest. In today's 'cricket' the most hideous or flukey swipe is applauded so long as it furthers the cause of your side - and cheating or verbal abuse is almost obligatory if it helps your team to win. Again, I won't go on....

As to bookmaking and game fixing, that is the ultimate depth to which cricket has sunk. But criminality is not far from any game where lots of money can be made. (Just now a big case is in the american news where a basketball referee is looking to make a plea bargain with the FBI to help the latter bring down the major role of organized crime in american basketball.) When there wasn't so much money - or any - involved the game was free of crime. And can anyone say the players were less good? It was a much better game - and a game for all that. Today it's like many other 'sports', a form of war - to win is joy, to lose misery. I think to some extent only international rugby has retained some of the old balance between supporting your side and having some regard for the game itself as well as the opponents' skills.

Good Post.