Play it again, Allen

In 1735, an advert proclaimed that a London XI, selected by the Prince of Wales, would meet one from Kent, chosen by the Earl of Middlesex, for a prize of £1000. In 1751, Eton Past & Present challenged the Gentlemen of England for the even princelier sum of £1500. We have almost come full circle.

The Stanford Series has attracted scorn ever since Sir Allen helicoptered to Lord’s carrying a briefcase stuffed with more dollars than Elvis Presley’s estate earns in, ooh, a month. With the credit crunch biting and recession dawning, that scorn has been augmented by distaste, hence Kevin Pietersen’s insistence that he will not tolerate any excessively jubilant celebrations should England beat the Stanford Superstars in next Saturday’s $20m winner-takes-all finale. Oh, that John Terry were so sensitive towards his fellow man every time he haggles over whether he should be paid £135,000 a week or £140,000.

Then there is the sheer fear Twenty20 tournaments of this ilk incite: for the future of Test cricket, yes, but also for the unity of the game. The ECB and the BCCI may at least be on speaking terms but to describe their relationship as warm would be akin to characterising Paris Hilton as a demure young lady. Sure, the Antigua showpiece is the ECB’s way of compensating KP and company for their misfortune in playing for a country whose season clashes with the IPL, but it is also a broadside aimed at what it perceives as the BCCI’s temerity in using its vast revenues to take over the game. Accepting that the boot has swapped feet never comes easy.

The decision to empower the umpires to refer any decision they wish to the greater wisdom of technology has drawn plenty of opprobrium too, not least from Duncan Fletcher, whose advocacy of a referral system has finally found wide support. “[This] essentially means they become the guys who hold the bowler’s hat,” he lamented in today’s Guardian. “It will be very hard to judge whether or not they are actually good umpires.” But is that the point, Duncan? Surely what matters is that we get the best, most accurate decisions, not that we fret about egos?

These are all familiar arguments, and will undoubtedly continue to rage long and loud. And yes, as Fletcher asserts, there are “a few too many questions for comfort”. But being at the crossroads, as the game unquestionably is, is never a comfortable place to be. And if the answers to those questions culminate in a window for a merged IPL/ICL, a revamped Future Tours Programme and a reconstituted ruling body uninfluenced by national interests, all the better. In the meantime, let’s pause and reflect on the one indubitably good thing that could come out of this. Sir Allen Stanford wants to regenerate Caribbean cricket, and ventures such as this cannot hurt.

In the short term, there is every possibility that victory for his Superstars over England, and the unimaginable sums it will bring to Chris Gayle and Co, will accentuate the divide between the leading players and their principal employers, emphasising that talent can flourish and prosper without having to deal with a clutch of inadequate administrators. Which would be no tragedy whatsoever.

In the long term, this could be the latest step on the road to winning back the love of these disunited islands for a game that once defined them and, much more important, united them.