Dear Editor,
Sammy and Holder, by any standards, two of the finest young men in the game of cricket, both captains of West Indies cricket teams, play professional twenty over cricket in different parts of the world.
Cricket is a game. There are two short versions and one long version of it. The long was the original international version, that only an infinitesimal percentage of people have had the privilege of playing. Mainly because most people want an entertainment event to be relatively short, three hours in most cases, and a day in fewer cases, the shorter versions of the game have become more popular. Organizers make more money from them, especially from the shortest version, than from the longest version, and accordingly the players, the key ingredient in any sport, can make much more money from participating in them.
Are these simple facts so difficult for cricket people to understand? Since there are still a substantial number of people around who prefer the longest version, which is a unique type of sport, why can`t cricket people think strategically, accept all versions as good for the game, and utilize part of the larger profits made from the shorter versions to help finance the longer version, rather than spend time and energy finding ways to punish those who play the shorter version.
Let us make a resolution to introduce more rationality in cricket beginning in 2016.
Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt
