Smash hit

The ground was full with 10,000 — perhaps 2,000 of them England supporters — and there wasn’t a moment when music wasn’t being played somewhere in the ground. There was genuine colour and noise, the way West Indian crowds like to watch their cricket, before the ICC got hold of things and took all the fun out of the World Cup. That entrepreneurs are flourishing in cricket reflects the ineptness of the authorities to organise events people want to watch.

There were naturally fears about how the pitch would play. England’s hope was that the uneven bounce would be exploited by Flintoff and Harmison and that the slow turn would justify the inclusion of two spinners, but in the event it (unlike England) played truer than expected. As the week has gone on, the pitches have improved and this one was probably as highly polished as Sir Allen’s dinner table.

Had England batted properly, the fact that they won the toss might have been significant, as recent results here consistently suggest it is easier to defend than chase. Pietersen had no hesitation in opting to bat first and Gayle conceded he would have done the same. The more relaxed approach of the Stanford Superstars was apparent in their decision to name their final XI 30 minutes before the start.

England thus go home empty-handed save for a small tour fee from the ECB and there will now certainly be a lengthy debate within English cricket as to the wisdom of this whole enterprise. An event that was supposed to provide solutions simply created more problems, one of which was whether it was right to take a man’s money if you disapprove of his behaviour.

The good news for England is that the top West Indies players are now less likely to want to go off to the Indian Premier League next May, something that might have jeopardised their tour of England.

All week, England’s behaviour had betrayed their discomfort and confusion at playing for so much money. But then such a purse was designed to take them out of their comfort zone. And uncomfortable is plainly what they were. Basically, they couldn’t handle it. Typically English, they got uptight about the subject of money.

Far better Gayle’s insouciant response to what he intended to do should he win: “Spend it.”

Before leaving home, Pietersen said England’s selection might be dependent upon one or two players showing signs of nerves in the build-up and in the event it was James Anderson who displayed the tell-tale signs. During his one warm-up match he faltered a couple of times in his run-up, as though struggling for focus. It was to cost him his place in the XI for last night’s match.

The ECB face many criticisms but the most costly was not being better prepared to manage the public relations side of a trip that was always going to arouse intense passions. To most people, $1m is an obscene amount of money for three hours’ work and the team were always going to need protecting from the backlash.

If they come back next year, England are likely to take the field as an England All Stars team and therefore be spared the normal demands of playing for the badge. It will be a game for themselves alone. Sean Morris, of the PCA, believes it is the best solution. “Playing under a different banner would work much better. The game should be a carnival. That is the spirit of Twenty20. It seems to have worked well for the Stanford Superstars.”

England’s request that next time they should receive a base appearance fee, perhaps $100,000 a man, has apparently received a sympathetic hearing from Stanford’s management team.

The players are unhappy at the way this match was planned and executed and they have made their feelings known to the board. Yesterday morning, Giles Clarke and David Collier gave a press conference at the players’ hotel to defend the Stanford deal (much-needed investment in West Indies cricket, exploration of the US market). With them, for the first time at such an occasion, was Morris. It was designed to show that ECB and players remained united. But this was the shabbiest of window-dressing.