Stanford 20/20 for 20 November 3, 2008

England have learned 'very expensive lesson' - Moores

Cricinfo staff
  shares 42


Peter Moores: "Is it for England? Is it for money? You've got to be very clear as a team and as an individual, and I think we weren't as clear as we could have been." © Getty Images
 
As England lick their wounds and cut back on their Christmas spending after being humiliated in Saturday's Stanford 20/20 for 20, coach Peter Moores said that his players had "learned a very expensive lesson".

"The players were trying to get in their heads what the game was all about," he said after the match. "I think that until the game had actually been played, the guys didn't get into their heads exactly what the tournament has been about. I don't know if we were absolutely as clear as we could have been".

The players, Moores said, were in doubt over the purpose of the match. "Is it for England? Is it for money? In international top-flight sport you can't afford to have any grey areas. You've got to be very clear as a team and as an individual, and I think we weren't as clear as we could have been.

"Was it okay to say the match was about money or not about money? Every time you play for England it is about playing for England, but those questions were in people's minds during the week. They had to square it off in their heads. All credit to the lads for that, what they wanted to do was keep their integrity. They didn't want to be portrayed as not playing for their country but for the cash."

He was also concerned about how the result might affect England's assignments during winter. "We were playing against a very hungry, disciplined side. And we got nailed. That's what hurts, we got nailed in an international match. What we didn't want to compromise at all was our preparation for the winter. It's been a bit of both, because we're going to India for a massive series and we've been concentrating on getting right for that as well."

However, Moores was optimistic about the chances next time around at the Stanford Super Series. " I think we will be stronger and wiser for it. Yeah, honestly I think we will. I think we will know what this is about."

But he acknowledged there would be a rethink about whether it would be an England team that took the field for the next Stanford outing or, as mooted, and ECB XI. "It's going to be reviewed," he said. "If a change helps people get their heads around why we're here, fine."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • BC_LARA on November 4, 2008, 16:07 GMT

    u play for ur country and earn extra bucks...how hard is it to comprehend..??wats sooo confusing that u cant digest..?? Is it so tough that it should hamper the performance so badly that u couldnt score 100 of 20 overs against a team that had only six weeks of quality training for the very first time in their life...

  • CricketCrazy19 on November 4, 2008, 12:05 GMT

    Mr Moores should rethink what he's talking about, he's ridiculing himself in this article. And, what's all this fuss about, why such hue and cry; it was just another game, though a huge one. English team would have gained much, had any one of them played to his best, but they got nothing significant to lose. Twenty20 cricket is mostly about individual performances and mindset, and on 1st November, none of that clicked for England. So, let the bygones be bygones for now, and KP should get his best shoes on for the next nail-biting(hopefully??) series, and I'm sure Dhoni/India won't make it any easier..

  • Daniel_Smith on November 4, 2008, 10:57 GMT

    Having just read this article and my comments, I might have been a bit harsh. If Peter Moores' team talks are all as evasive and insubstantial as his comments above, no wonder the English players weren't clear about what was required.

  • Hoppers on November 4, 2008, 9:45 GMT

    At least from the Packer era onwards, cricketers have been playing for a reasonable living and in recent years, many have become very wealthy. Moores should join a political party and stand as an MP - his mumbo jumbo might confuse enough people to get him elected. "What we didn't want to compromise at all was our preparation for the winter." What did the team and management do then? England had better brace themselves for a tonking in India.

  • Daniel_Smith on November 4, 2008, 8:56 GMT

    This is a nonsense. If you can't raise your game to win £1 million dollars you've either got too much money already or you're not right in the head. Regardless of whether you agree or not with the Stanford series, the English players signed contracts and must be prepared to honour them.

  • Wiffy on November 4, 2008, 8:29 GMT

    Earlier in the year when the ECB signed the contract with Stanford - where were these naysayers? There was only a big hoopla about the prize money. England have been concentrating on this since then. The fact that even the domestic leagues were talking about it and scrambling for the chance to play was testimony to this. Does anyone remember Harmison reversing his retirement to play? Can we forget all the talk during the South African tour about the Stanford match? So why can't Moores come up with a more plausible excuse for his team's dismal performance. Everyone knew this was a 20/20 game for 20 million - simple. Ain't rocket science.

    PottedLamb, England have really come off looking like cream puff. Losing graciously would be to admit that you were hammered by the better team not whine and whimper to all who would listen!

  • Cricdish on November 4, 2008, 6:17 GMT

    Wait. I don't understand why it is important to know whether the players were playing for England or for money. Why wasn't the aim to win? Why should the context matter? Isn't winning the primary goal of a sportsperson?

  • krik8crazy on November 4, 2008, 4:08 GMT

    England failed miserably. There's no other way to describe their pathetic display. They were playing a cricket match and their one and only purpose should have been to win. Had they won, they could have donated the money to charity if they didn't feel good about winning it.

  • pietrojackson on November 4, 2008, 2:49 GMT

    I hope [but doubt very much] that the whole English Cricket establishment is crawling with shame after reading/listening to Moores's comments.

    How could he be allowed to trot out such absolute drivel ? Moores and Players couldn't work out 'what the tournament was about' .... 'the purpose of the match'.

    Maybe they should have asked any intelligent 10 year old for clarification.

    Is he trying to say that they hadn't worked out 20/20 ? Or that they were playing for money ? or they were playing for England ? How complex is this ?

    As a professional you play to win; does it matter if you get 1x or 10x your normal rate ?

    If you play for your country you play to win - if its 20/20, 50 over test - if its against Bangladesh or Australia.

  • bd_ind on November 4, 2008, 0:32 GMT

    I kind of understand what he means. But on the other hand they had over 6 months to decide what this is all about. As a professional player, it should not be an excuse. And truth of the matter is England were always far behind in the shorter version of the game. Stop making excuses and try to improve. If they cant beat a WI side, considering their current situation, how can they compete with India or SA let alone aussies.

  • BC_LARA on November 4, 2008, 16:07 GMT

    u play for ur country and earn extra bucks...how hard is it to comprehend..??wats sooo confusing that u cant digest..?? Is it so tough that it should hamper the performance so badly that u couldnt score 100 of 20 overs against a team that had only six weeks of quality training for the very first time in their life...

  • CricketCrazy19 on November 4, 2008, 12:05 GMT

    Mr Moores should rethink what he's talking about, he's ridiculing himself in this article. And, what's all this fuss about, why such hue and cry; it was just another game, though a huge one. English team would have gained much, had any one of them played to his best, but they got nothing significant to lose. Twenty20 cricket is mostly about individual performances and mindset, and on 1st November, none of that clicked for England. So, let the bygones be bygones for now, and KP should get his best shoes on for the next nail-biting(hopefully??) series, and I'm sure Dhoni/India won't make it any easier..

  • Daniel_Smith on November 4, 2008, 10:57 GMT

    Having just read this article and my comments, I might have been a bit harsh. If Peter Moores' team talks are all as evasive and insubstantial as his comments above, no wonder the English players weren't clear about what was required.

  • Hoppers on November 4, 2008, 9:45 GMT

    At least from the Packer era onwards, cricketers have been playing for a reasonable living and in recent years, many have become very wealthy. Moores should join a political party and stand as an MP - his mumbo jumbo might confuse enough people to get him elected. "What we didn't want to compromise at all was our preparation for the winter." What did the team and management do then? England had better brace themselves for a tonking in India.

  • Daniel_Smith on November 4, 2008, 8:56 GMT

    This is a nonsense. If you can't raise your game to win £1 million dollars you've either got too much money already or you're not right in the head. Regardless of whether you agree or not with the Stanford series, the English players signed contracts and must be prepared to honour them.

  • Wiffy on November 4, 2008, 8:29 GMT

    Earlier in the year when the ECB signed the contract with Stanford - where were these naysayers? There was only a big hoopla about the prize money. England have been concentrating on this since then. The fact that even the domestic leagues were talking about it and scrambling for the chance to play was testimony to this. Does anyone remember Harmison reversing his retirement to play? Can we forget all the talk during the South African tour about the Stanford match? So why can't Moores come up with a more plausible excuse for his team's dismal performance. Everyone knew this was a 20/20 game for 20 million - simple. Ain't rocket science.

    PottedLamb, England have really come off looking like cream puff. Losing graciously would be to admit that you were hammered by the better team not whine and whimper to all who would listen!

  • Cricdish on November 4, 2008, 6:17 GMT

    Wait. I don't understand why it is important to know whether the players were playing for England or for money. Why wasn't the aim to win? Why should the context matter? Isn't winning the primary goal of a sportsperson?

  • krik8crazy on November 4, 2008, 4:08 GMT

    England failed miserably. There's no other way to describe their pathetic display. They were playing a cricket match and their one and only purpose should have been to win. Had they won, they could have donated the money to charity if they didn't feel good about winning it.

  • pietrojackson on November 4, 2008, 2:49 GMT

    I hope [but doubt very much] that the whole English Cricket establishment is crawling with shame after reading/listening to Moores's comments.

    How could he be allowed to trot out such absolute drivel ? Moores and Players couldn't work out 'what the tournament was about' .... 'the purpose of the match'.

    Maybe they should have asked any intelligent 10 year old for clarification.

    Is he trying to say that they hadn't worked out 20/20 ? Or that they were playing for money ? or they were playing for England ? How complex is this ?

    As a professional you play to win; does it matter if you get 1x or 10x your normal rate ?

    If you play for your country you play to win - if its 20/20, 50 over test - if its against Bangladesh or Australia.

  • bd_ind on November 4, 2008, 0:32 GMT

    I kind of understand what he means. But on the other hand they had over 6 months to decide what this is all about. As a professional player, it should not be an excuse. And truth of the matter is England were always far behind in the shorter version of the game. Stop making excuses and try to improve. If they cant beat a WI side, considering their current situation, how can they compete with India or SA let alone aussies.

  • laggan on November 3, 2008, 23:32 GMT

    Do we hear 'Sour Grapes'!. Now Settle for the Sri Lankan A team. Don't be worried about getting beaten again. They WILL give you a good game.

  • PottedLambShanks on November 3, 2008, 21:11 GMT

    England have actually come out of this whole escapade very well. One team had to lose and it was important that that team did so with good grace. I think it was admirable that KP and the boys were so keen to congratulate the West Indians. Perhaps this sort of gracious losing is frowned upon outside of England, but I'm very proud of the England team.

  • SummerofGeorge on November 3, 2008, 19:28 GMT

    I have to say, after reading this site for over a year, the sheer volume of misinformed tiresome crypto racism and xenephobia that passes for "user comments", beggars belief. The slightest remark and it's open season about how "so and so country" thinks this because of this.

    It's largely pathetic. As an England fan, i am pleased the better team hammered us in a game of Beach Slap and they deserve their Payday.

    Now we can perhaps move onto some proper Cricket.

  • whoster on November 3, 2008, 19:23 GMT

    As has been said countless times by cricket lovers, this whole Stanford thing is a vulgar farce; and Peter Moores is in a difficult position trying to explain the whole thing. It's the people at the helm of the ECB who should be accountable to explain this stupid and wholly inappropriate event.

  • JTheVR on November 3, 2008, 18:53 GMT

    Superstars lap it up, and English up the lap.

    The best part of the Stanford series probably came from England. Not because the crowd lapped it up or some one upped on the lap, not because of great performance, but because of the feeble, poor and lame excuse yet again from the English.

    They werent clear .... "Is it for England? Is it for money? .. they wondered. Isnt it simple Mr. Moores, you play to Win. Play for England and win, and by the way pocket the money. Where is the lack of clarity on what they were playing for? Maybe next time they should simply be coached to win.

    "All credit to the lads for that, what they wanted to do was keep their integrity." ha ha guffaw! Why dont you win for england, win the money and donate it to keep your integrity? and Why does keeping a prize money raise questions on integrity?

  • bbrian on November 3, 2008, 16:40 GMT

    Is Peter Moores the coach? I am not too sure and until i square it off in my mind I wont comment further.

  • PatrickStriker on November 3, 2008, 16:17 GMT

    Will the english plaese stop bleating and complaining. They had already prepared a long list of excuses before the match commenced. Whether playing for country, cash or both, players should always give 100%, which was Englands players was simply nowhere near good enough.

  • topeleven on November 3, 2008, 16:13 GMT

    After an uninspired performance by England,no words can bring relief to the fans. England had five months to decide whether to play for the cash or team.To me they should have thought both. England always lacks the killer instinct. Hope they come out of this soon and give us some relief in the future before the Ashes by winning some matches.

  • shrimati_bradman on November 3, 2008, 15:25 GMT

    Bwahaha... playing for cash is not a bad thing Mr Moores.

    Seems like England is the only remaining team to take a stance of "Englishmen have always been rich. We don't need -gasp- West Indian money to feed our families!"

    The Aussies stopped looking at the colour of the banknotes after BCCI and IPL came along.

  • Davesh_cricket_analyst on November 3, 2008, 15:19 GMT

    Well Peter may say whatever he wants to but the fact is for anyone who has followed cricket in the last 2 decades, the result was a foregone conclusion. England team has never won anything worth (baring Ashes 2005) since i have been watching cricket (since 1985). Unfortunately Peterson is also following the footprints of his predecessors, who would talk for 2 years about Ashes & would loose the series 5-0 in 2 months. Which other team has got a 0-5 bashing in a test series in the last 20-25 years like England got in the last Ashes?? For all the talks of a 10,000 test run man, Peterson still has to prove himself on subcontinent pitches. Same is the case for Flintoff, Harminson & many other English players. They would be defeated in India in the coming test series and will blame it on stomach bugs, harsh weather and what not. Still they will not shy away from calling themselves a great team, which is hilarious.

  • Daine on November 3, 2008, 15:15 GMT

    The event in itself was a farce! US$20 million for 3 hours of cricket is ridiculous! When Brazil wins the Football World Cup or Australia wins the cricket World Cup (and many other team sports can be named) - each team has to earn it - over several weeks; against the very best. Not a one-off game between two teams ranked out of the top three in the world!!!

    This will do nothing to aid West Indies cricket and it's incredible to believe that we have 4 more years of this to endure! Hats off to the Superstars but whoa, whoa and thrice whoa to England. Good luck against India! As the Aussies are finding out, they'll need plenty of it!

  • philters on November 3, 2008, 15:14 GMT

    I dont quite understand Mr. Moores point. Is he saying that the team decided to play for England and therefore dutifully lost!!!

  • Nivalink on November 3, 2008, 13:54 GMT

    The thing about England is that their team in last 20 years (after 1986-87 ashes win) has been let down by their thinking. They have made bradman out out Hicks and Bothams out of Flintoffs. So much gets spoken and talked that they themselves get confused in it and eventually forgetting basics. Pattinson's selection this summer, this stanford series and the debate around it, everything revolves around lack of clarity about the bottomline in cricket that to get anything matches have to be won.

  • Cric_monk on November 3, 2008, 13:46 GMT

    I think England team should have been made of county players who performed well during the domestic 20-20..People like Napier and Henderson deserved it more and would have certainly provided stiffer competition..And Peter Moores now giving statements like they are sad because they lost another international game and all...This was all about the money for England for Pietersen,Harmison and co and they blew off their chance bigtime..

  • Radomir on November 3, 2008, 13:00 GMT

    What rubbish. Moores I hope what you said to the press is not what you truly beleive. How could anyone make excuses for such an abysmal performance? As if they were playing for England, the whole cricketing world new it was about money from the beggining. All the hype about what the players were going to do with the money.. This has almost no effect on the training leading up to India and I imagine if England won Peter wouldn't be saying anything about the fact that it would interfere with the preperation. He was just annoyed the boys couldn't win him some cash. A whinging XI of confused cricketers will be beaten 100% of the time. That is why England have no hope, untill they get their act together and make consistently good performances.

  • CaughtAndBowled on November 3, 2008, 12:57 GMT

    Peter, for god sake it is bloody cricket. It doesn't matter whether you play for country or money. Just bowl, bat and take catches. Job done.

  • GlobalCricketLover on November 3, 2008, 12:52 GMT

    I am still wondering why such a professional coach is talking so silly. Someone pleeeeees help me understand what he is trying to say!! Come on, we are all grown up!! Is it so difficult to be honest about a defeat? wonder!

  • Percy_Fender on November 3, 2008, 12:52 GMT

    It is nothing short of poetic justice that England were humiliated on and off the field in the Stanford farce. There is no doubt that the English players had gone over only to make ammends for their not having played in the lucrative IPL. It is sad that cricket, a game that is a metaphor of English tradition and correctness has been reduced to such an abysmal level by the active participation of the Englishmen themselves. It was disgusting to see that even the players wives had to humour Sir Allen to achieve for their husbands the green bucks they were looking for. The IPL may have been an extravaganza when viewed against the background of Test cricket with colourful and hitherto unseen marketing gimmicks. But the cricketers were treated with the respect they deserve. To hear a normally sensible man like Nasser Hussain say that for the money coming in, the odd 'cuddle ' was acceptable, was the ultimate insult to those who have read Cardus and James and heard Arlot for decades.

  • uffafox3 on November 3, 2008, 12:41 GMT

    What? I cant believe what I am reading here.

    IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE MONEY. The money just promotes the standard of the game attracting the very best of the best athletes to perform at their highest levels.

    Even the most capitalist American football players when interviewed after "the big show" (the Superbowl where they tout themselves as World Champions[!?]) declare that it is for the absolute love of the game and the gelling of a team under the most extreme pressure.

    This is unbelievable. For the English sportsman who has a reputation as always putting the spirit of competition before the ruthlessness of winning at all costs I would have thought it should have been a no brainer to know what they were playing for.

    I applaud Stanford, not for creating this thoroughly pleasurable event but for instilling the true spirit in (and rewarding) the players whom deserve it.

  • Ellis on November 3, 2008, 12:32 GMT

    Quit the b/s, Moores. It was a game for money played in an England shirt. How difficult was it to come to that conclusion?

  • criclvrprash on November 3, 2008, 12:31 GMT

    Remember ABBA's famous song "The winner takes it all"..

    "The winner takes it all The loser standing small Beside the victory That's her destiny"

    Its perhaps destiny that made the English join hands with Allen Stanford and ended up looking stupid...

  • paritosh_sabria on November 3, 2008, 12:21 GMT

    Dont worry Mr.Peter allow your players to play IPL and ICL they will make good money!!!!!!!!!!!! But the chris Gayle led team deserves to be millionare after that 40overs

  • fredquimby on November 3, 2008, 12:17 GMT

    Right on Punjab1 - this must be the most lame reason I have ever heard.

    You would think that to professional sportsmen competition is all, which is why we allow them to behave like egotistical schoolboys as they provide a decent spectable.

    Additionally how about the opportunity to get on over on WI before they arrive in Eng next year in place of the Sri Lankan sub-section of the BCCI?

  • muertomungi on November 3, 2008, 12:04 GMT

    Peter Moores is saying that the reasons for the humiliating defeat were:- his team were insufficiently prepared; the opposition were a "[more] hungry, disciplined side". Since both these aspects indicate a failure by the coaching staff to do their job, perhaps they (the coaching staff) should resign!

  • ecps on November 3, 2008, 11:34 GMT

    Let's face it - it was about the money; even though the 'spin' said that it was about playing for England. It was not so many months ago that top players were saying that they needed to rest and that their schedule was too busy. I didn't hear anyone opting out of the Stanford series (or IPL/ICL come to that) because they needed time for refreshment. Why? Because it is about the money. The problem is that they were playing as an England team and those of us who support England find ourselves in a dilemma. On the grounds that they Stanford players normally earn nothing like the England players I was a delighted that the underdogs won so emphatically. As an England supporter it was extremely disappointing.

  • stress1 on November 3, 2008, 11:29 GMT

    I would think it is quite simple really, Give your absolute best for your country and if all 11 players do that, you will surely win the million. Easy!!!

    If they are confused now, then they should rather cancel there trip to India cause they will just be causing even more embarrassment to the UK. Sad bunch of excuse seekers led by an even bigger excuse....KP!!!

  • Aniketos on November 3, 2008, 11:07 GMT

    Any team that plays against the cash-strapped West Indies is going to be in the position where they are in the morally difficult situation of knowing that the other team needs the money more than they do. This is why the Stanford team were all open in their excitement about the prospect of a big pay-day, while with the England team it was all about "don't mention the money". I agree with Moores that rebranding the England team next time would be a darned good idea - then they can be in no doubt that they really are playing for the money. Also, as an aside, I was heartened to read of Chris Gayle's plan to use his winnings on getting his father and brother well again - perhaps a more worthwhile use for the cash than Graeme Swann's plan to buy a pink Ferrari.

  • nafees1962 on November 3, 2008, 11:06 GMT

    Ha Ha Ha! That's probably the lamest kind of excuse I've ever heard from a losing coach in the last thirty years of cricket! Is Peter Moores sure he understands what he is saying? Even after what Stanford did with the English WAGs in the stands during a practice match, the English cricketers didn't get to understand that this was all about money??? Hard to believe that! The players were playing in English colors, indeed for a hugely extraordinary sum of booty. But this was a 20/20 game, and it needed to be won for their country.

  • robheinen on November 3, 2008, 10:55 GMT

    What pseudo intellectual rubbish on this page! Is it ok to loose a match if you play for your country instead of for the money? It is indeed ok, but you end up with a lot of egg on your face if you do so. It is trying to get a positive out of this huge defeat that is not ok. The team blew it! The individuals blew it! The England team will henceforth be known as 'The Stanford Super Chokers'

  • RandomTalk on November 3, 2008, 10:54 GMT

    Peter, you and the English team had five months to think about what you were playing for, whether money, or England. It's not exactly that you had a hundred possibilities to toss up, and then decide. Some of the team were dreaming about how they would spend the money for weeks, rather than focusing on the task at hand.

    Just admit it, England just did not turn up, and were summarily thrashed by a side which had much more hunger.

  • Punjabi1 on November 3, 2008, 9:56 GMT

    The defeat was humilating yes, but these are very lame excuses. What is more strange is that everyone knew it was all about money and its hard to believe that players were not clear about it.

  • popcorn on November 3, 2008, 9:42 GMT

    I can't figure out whether Peter Moores HIMSELF knows what it is all about.

    Actually it is really very simple.It is a Twenty20 Match played by Englishmen in England colours,a game which they themselves stupidly invented.

    Prize money varies from match to match, whether it is an ODI or a Test match or a Twenty20. Likewise for this one. The Victor wins the Prize,whatever it may be,the vanquished gets the spoils. Clear,Peter?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • popcorn on November 3, 2008, 9:42 GMT

    I can't figure out whether Peter Moores HIMSELF knows what it is all about.

    Actually it is really very simple.It is a Twenty20 Match played by Englishmen in England colours,a game which they themselves stupidly invented.

    Prize money varies from match to match, whether it is an ODI or a Test match or a Twenty20. Likewise for this one. The Victor wins the Prize,whatever it may be,the vanquished gets the spoils. Clear,Peter?

  • Punjabi1 on November 3, 2008, 9:56 GMT

    The defeat was humilating yes, but these are very lame excuses. What is more strange is that everyone knew it was all about money and its hard to believe that players were not clear about it.

  • RandomTalk on November 3, 2008, 10:54 GMT

    Peter, you and the English team had five months to think about what you were playing for, whether money, or England. It's not exactly that you had a hundred possibilities to toss up, and then decide. Some of the team were dreaming about how they would spend the money for weeks, rather than focusing on the task at hand.

    Just admit it, England just did not turn up, and were summarily thrashed by a side which had much more hunger.

  • robheinen on November 3, 2008, 10:55 GMT

    What pseudo intellectual rubbish on this page! Is it ok to loose a match if you play for your country instead of for the money? It is indeed ok, but you end up with a lot of egg on your face if you do so. It is trying to get a positive out of this huge defeat that is not ok. The team blew it! The individuals blew it! The England team will henceforth be known as 'The Stanford Super Chokers'

  • nafees1962 on November 3, 2008, 11:06 GMT

    Ha Ha Ha! That's probably the lamest kind of excuse I've ever heard from a losing coach in the last thirty years of cricket! Is Peter Moores sure he understands what he is saying? Even after what Stanford did with the English WAGs in the stands during a practice match, the English cricketers didn't get to understand that this was all about money??? Hard to believe that! The players were playing in English colors, indeed for a hugely extraordinary sum of booty. But this was a 20/20 game, and it needed to be won for their country.

  • Aniketos on November 3, 2008, 11:07 GMT

    Any team that plays against the cash-strapped West Indies is going to be in the position where they are in the morally difficult situation of knowing that the other team needs the money more than they do. This is why the Stanford team were all open in their excitement about the prospect of a big pay-day, while with the England team it was all about "don't mention the money". I agree with Moores that rebranding the England team next time would be a darned good idea - then they can be in no doubt that they really are playing for the money. Also, as an aside, I was heartened to read of Chris Gayle's plan to use his winnings on getting his father and brother well again - perhaps a more worthwhile use for the cash than Graeme Swann's plan to buy a pink Ferrari.

  • stress1 on November 3, 2008, 11:29 GMT

    I would think it is quite simple really, Give your absolute best for your country and if all 11 players do that, you will surely win the million. Easy!!!

    If they are confused now, then they should rather cancel there trip to India cause they will just be causing even more embarrassment to the UK. Sad bunch of excuse seekers led by an even bigger excuse....KP!!!

  • ecps on November 3, 2008, 11:34 GMT

    Let's face it - it was about the money; even though the 'spin' said that it was about playing for England. It was not so many months ago that top players were saying that they needed to rest and that their schedule was too busy. I didn't hear anyone opting out of the Stanford series (or IPL/ICL come to that) because they needed time for refreshment. Why? Because it is about the money. The problem is that they were playing as an England team and those of us who support England find ourselves in a dilemma. On the grounds that they Stanford players normally earn nothing like the England players I was a delighted that the underdogs won so emphatically. As an England supporter it was extremely disappointing.

  • muertomungi on November 3, 2008, 12:04 GMT

    Peter Moores is saying that the reasons for the humiliating defeat were:- his team were insufficiently prepared; the opposition were a "[more] hungry, disciplined side". Since both these aspects indicate a failure by the coaching staff to do their job, perhaps they (the coaching staff) should resign!

  • fredquimby on November 3, 2008, 12:17 GMT

    Right on Punjab1 - this must be the most lame reason I have ever heard.

    You would think that to professional sportsmen competition is all, which is why we allow them to behave like egotistical schoolboys as they provide a decent spectable.

    Additionally how about the opportunity to get on over on WI before they arrive in Eng next year in place of the Sri Lankan sub-section of the BCCI?