Stanford 20/20 For $20m, but not for me

SkyBet instructed me, every two minutes when I watched the tennis last night, that sport, apparently “matters more when there’s money on it”.

That is the pillar on which the entire Stanford “ Twenty/20 for 20 ” farce is built upon. In a match bereft of any meaning, it’s hoped that injecting it with vast sums of cash will create some excitement. As Simon Barnes noted: this is not sport, this is a crass (un)reality show.

For most of the millions of people who were possessed by the Wimbledon final this year, or that series in 2005, money was never a factor. Perhaps those were heady days. Now, in this absurd era of $20m matches and credit crunches, maybe our perspective cannot go further than our wallets. But when King Kev launched his frantic, chancey and breathtaking counter-attack after lunch on day five at the Oval, I doubt many were enthralled by the potential financial benefits. Great sport has a value system that translates into no other.

This afternoon, the England selectors (for which read KP) announce the 15 people that are to be hired out to a Texan billionaire. For some of those this will be a life changing, bank breaking moment. For the rest of us, the ‘match’ couldn’t matter less.