'I only commentate on cricket': Michael Holding on not doing commentary in IPL

OMB

First Class Captain
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Runs
4,288
Michael Holding: ‘All people of colour who hit out at racism, their careers ended in no time’
Part of the fearsome West Indies quartet from the 70s and 80s, Holding is still rated as the smoothest and sharpest pacer the game has seen. Now a commentator, Holding rarely pulls his punches, whether on T20 or bad umpiring.


Inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement, Michael Holding’s new book, 'Why We Kneel, How We Rise', traces the history of racism and talks about the institutional and systemic discrimination against Blacks.

Legendary West Indies fast bowler Michael Holding talks about “institutionalised and systemic” racism in sports, insists T20 is “not even cricket”, says the Indian team has vastly improved its fitness levels and explains how Virat Kohli is similar to Viv Richards. The session was moderated by Deputy Associate Editor Sriram Veera.


SRIRAM VEERA: The book is an enlightening, heart-wrenching, occasionally emotionally difficult read when you delve into the history of racism. You hadn’t spoken out a lot on this issue before last year. Why was that?

Because I don’t live it. I had taken a selfish view that this is a thing I experience just for a few months when I am away from home. When I go back home, I don’t live that experience. So I just go back home, I am happy and I am content to be where I am. If you look at history, it will show you that… in the long run, it was a wise thing to do. Because if you look at all the Black people and the people of colour that have hit out against racism and made a stand, their careers ended in no time at all. Look at (American footballer) Colin Kaepernick. He is a man who in recent times took that stand. His career came to an end immediately. That shows you when Black people and the people of colour decide that they are being victimised and they want to talk about it, they want to complain about it, they want to protest about it, the system, the institutionalised racism that is evident around the world, locks you out. And you basically are dispelled from society. Perhaps that would have happened to me if I said anything earlier.

Mihir Vasavada: Do you think the sports ecosystem is largely white — not the players but the administration, lawmakers, coaches, broadcasters, journalists. Everyone is white and white male at that.

Racism is institutionalised and systemic. That’s what we are trying to get rid of. Thierry Henry talks about how many Black players have never been able to become football coaches. We must get rid of institutionalised racism to achieve that.


TUSHAR BHADURI: Did some people think that bowling fast and the brand of cricket that your West Indies team played at that time wasn’t cerebral enough. Was there some subtle racism?

You could say there might have been some racist slant. But again, I would say those people were in a minority. Certain journalists who had certain amount of power and wrote for certain powerful newspapers would try to decry and degrade some of what we were doing. And of course people who were not really thinking for themselves and also want to find a reason to say that we were not as good will follow those journalists. But at the same time, we didn’t care. We went there to win. There is no way anyone could say we were playing outside of the laws of the game or outside of the spirit of the game. We played cricket to win and we wanted to beat everyone.

And later on, other teams tried to adapt the same tactic which we adopted. When we started off with four fast bowlers, one of the first cries was, ‘oh it is not a balanced team’. We were winning, we were not interested in ‘balance’, we were interested in winning Test matches. In 2005, when England selected four fast bowlers and won the Ashes, they didn’t say they didn’t have a ‘balanced team’. When (Steve) Harmison hit Ricky Ponting on his face at Lord’s and brought blood, people in the stands were cheering. When we did it, it was boos and we were criminals. But when they do it, it is fine.

SANDEEP DWIVEDI: The West Indies team of that era was so intimidating that other cricketers wouldn’t have dared, forget racism, to even casually sledge you guys. Somebody once used the word grovel (Tony Greig) and the world knows what happened after that. How does this dynamic work? Especially for the Asian teams of that era that have complained of racism.

I have heard some members of my team say that they had racist remarks passed at them or passed around them. You know, I can’t say yes or no if that actually happened. During my entire career as a cricketer playing for the West Indies, no one on the cricket field passed a racist remark towards me. People will say because you bowled fast, they were afraid. But I don’t think that was the case. We in that team never said anything to anyone, we never abused anyone on the cricket field. Perhaps that is the reason why people didn’t really say anything to us. Because all that we did was go about our business and play as well as we possibly could. As for the Asian teams, perhaps they would have had remarks being passed at them, I don’t know, I can’t testify about something I am not aware of. But if that is the case, it is understandable because if it takes place off the field, it can take place on the field.

SRIRAM VEERA: In your book, (former South African cricketer) Makhaya Ntini talks about why he didn’t get into the team bus but would run to the ground from the hotel.

Yeah, he didn’t feel comfortable with the team. And he related a story that he would go for breakfast [first] and sit at a table. Other team members would come in and sit at another table. None of them would come and join him. Because of course, he was the first Black African to play for South Africa. But he was all alone at his table.

You know, it is not shocking to me. When you have a country with that sort of history [of apartheid], it takes a long time for people to accept that we are all human beings. The apartheid regime doesn’t just get washed away and everything goes back to normal. It will take time for people to understand, people to accept and for people to come together.

NIHAL KOSHIE: What’s your take on South African cricket’s transformation policy: six players of colour, including two Black players, are requirements. The criticism is that merit is not always rewarded.

In my book, both Makhaya Ntini and I agree that a quota system is never going to be the solution. We can understand why it has taken place as people are desperate for change – and as rapidly as possible. But the best solution is to make opportunities available for everyone. I had this argument with Dr Ali Bacher from 2003 that instead of going out and picking special talent and putting them in special schools, make sure all facilities all around the country are accessible to everyone. Don’t attempt to just pick the next Makhaya Ntini. As the chapter narrates, Ntini goes to the school and gets lost. He doesn’t even know the [English] language. He doesn’t know what’s happening. Don’t take him out of his community. Go to his community and improve the infrastructure so that they can develop themselves. It’s a lot easier on them that way because you are putting pressure on them when you take them out of their community. And of course, you will identify more talents; instead of picking one, you might get 3-4. Ntini might bring along a kid from his community who is good. That is the best way to get to where you want to be – getting the best to be selected.

The quota system just shows that you are in a hurry to be where you want to be. In my opinion, that should not last. You can’t keep on having a quota system forever and forever. Ntini talks about it – he is in the South African team and is being looked at as a quota player instead of being justified of his place. He was mentally strong and able to get over it. Not everyone is going to be like that, though. It can destroy your mind.

SANDEEP DWIVEDI: What do you think about the West Indies of today? We hear youth’s love for basketball and then they win a T20 tournament and again talks of cricket revival begin. But it doesn’t last long. Why?

When you win a T20 tournament, that is not revival; it’s not even cricket! It’s going to be very difficult for the West Indies to get on top in Test cricket because of this T20. The T20 tournaments around the world are the bane of the game. When you are a poor country and can’t afford to pay as much as England, Australia, and India, the players will go on to play T20. That’s where West Indies and others are getting hit. Unless you can pay as much as the rest of the big countries, this will happen. Many West Indies players are not interested in playing for West Indies. I don’t want to call out names. When you are earning 600,000 or 800,000 dollars for six weeks, what are you going to do? I don’t blame the cricketers. I blame the administrators. They give a lot of lip service to Test cricket but all they are interested in is bringing in money into their cupboards… West Indies will win T20 tournaments which aren’t cricket; they won’t be a force in Test cricket.

SANDEEP DWIVEDI: You haven’t found commentating in IPL interesting?

Holding : I only commentate on cricket.


SHIVANI NAIK: When your team bowled bouncers, the administrators changed rules. Now things have changed with the episodes of concussions and their long-term effects. Would you say cricket should relook that part of the game or continue with it?

What I’ll tell you is that I’m glad I’m on the way out. Because they are slowly but surely destroying the game. I wouldn’t even try to honour that with a proper response. You want to cut out bouncers from the game? Okay, well, stop footballers from heading the ball because that gives them concussion as well. And that is a study that has proven to be correct. You try and protect people as much as you can, yes, that is why people are wearing helmets and improving helmets now. That is why they do so much to try and protect them because people’s lives are important. But don’t turn it into a softball competition. Cricket also is a test of your strength of character. What you have got ticking inside your chest. That is why they call it Test cricket. If you’re afraid of the ball, why should you be able to excel when you’re afraid? So if you’re a coward, find another way to make a living.

SANDIP G: Do you think batsmen are reluctant to play the hook shot these days? More batsmen seem to be getting hit these days.

If you can’t hook, you don’t hook. You have too many people who cannot hook but are trying to hook because they have a false impression that their helmet will protect them. Years gone by, before the helmets came along, people who could not hook didn’t try to hook because they knew if they made a mistake, it could be a dangerous mistake. If you’re playing on a normal, plain surface and getting hit, it obviously means – 1) You’re not capable of playing the game that you’re trying to play or 2) You’re playing shots that you’re not capable of playing. Look at the history of the game. How many people got hit before helmets came along?

SANDEEP DWIVEDI: This whole shrinking of cricket that is happening… Looking at the bigger picture of Zimbabwe, even Sri Lanka, South Africa. There was a point when there wasn’t so much money but cricket was active in so many countries.

Michael Atherton wrote an article about it many years ago. He thought Test cricket would die and I said, ‘No, Test cricket won’t die in my lifetime but it will become more and more insignificant.’ England, they say, is the mother of cricket where the game started before all the colonialists took it around the world. The best months in England are supposed to be the summer months, right? Is yearly Test cricket being played? They play in May and early June. The next Test match is on August 4. This has been going on for two-three summers in England. So, it’s obvious that they are putting other forms of cricket over Test cricket. The shortest form of the game is attracting more and more people and companies to broadcast them. Test cricket just gets lip service.


SRIRAM VEERA: India, England and Australia have got power in cricket. You think they are using their power well? Some in India say the white guys used to run it and now it’s our chance. Even if we do something bad, let it be because they used to do it for so long, so let’s show them who is boss now.

The great Nelson Mandela was in jail for 27 years and when he became president of South Africa, if he had adopted that same attitude of ‘Okay. It’s my time in power. I will do to you what you did to me,’ South Africa would have been in a bloodbath. Great people don’t think that way.

Think of cricket as a universal game. Not something owned by India. We saw the big three of England, Australia and India trying to take over the game and they did for a period of time. They are still doing it but doing so undercover. It’s obvious that they are only interested in themselves. The same attitude that you talk of… ‘Oh we have the power. We will do as we like,’ it pervades the game.

Read- People won’t understand how it feels to face racism throughout your life: Michael Holding

SANDEEP DWIVEDI: Is there a significant difference in the way India plays cricket now and in the past?

Well, it’s a totally different era when it comes to Indian cricket. When I played against India, probably two of the players were fit. Now everybody on the field is fit. You see how athletic they are, how dynamic they are. The skill level hasn’t really changed that much but when you have fitness, and change of attitude along with skill level, obviously the cricket will also change. What has also helped Indian cricket is that a lot of pitches in India, for domestic cricket and cricket in general, have improved. The ball bounces a lot more and since it carries, batsmen are able to cope on overseas pitches. In my time, once India left India, that was it. The pitches that they played in India were slow and low and it became dusty. When I did a series in India in 2014-15, when West Indies came and the tour was abandoned, each time I would do a pitch report with Sunny Gavaskar, I would joke and say, ‘Sunny, how come the pitches weren’t like this when we used to play here?’ Good pitches create good cricketers.

SRIRAM VEERA: What are your thoughts on Virat Kohli, his approach and his captaincy?

Virat Kohli is someone who wears his heart on his sleeve. He’s someone who will let you know exactly how he feels. I think he gets a bit carried away at times, but that is Virat Kohli, that is the man. He’s similar to Viv (Richards) in that regard. Viv, sometimes on the field, was over-expressive. But those are the personalities of those two gentlemen. They can tone down a little bit as well, but then, if you are a Mustang, it’s hard to tell a Mustang to trot. He’s going to gallop.

As far as his captaincy, I’ve only seen India when they were touring England and I saw them in South Africa. The only thing I’d say about Virat is that he tone down a bit so his team can relax because a lot of them, I think, are on tenterhooks.

SHAHID JUDGE: What do you think about social media-related problems players face?

When people talk about social media putting them under stress, all they need to do is to come out of social media. Social media is now being monetised. More people are following you on social media, people are telling me, the more advertisers you get, more money goes to your pocket. I was never interested in what the newspapers were writing or what the journalists were saying. And up till now, I have never joined a social media platform. I am not interested in that.

DEVENDRA PANDEY: These days commentators are under pressure since their fate is being decided by cricketers and cricketing boards. How do you maintain your honesty and self-respect as a commentator?

You know what the situation is going to be when you are working in India and for the ICC — what you can and cannot say. I accused some umpires of bad umpiring during the World Cup, that was the first time I worked for an ICC tournament for something like 10 years because they don’t want people to express the opinion they don’t like. Because that is the way they want to control the narrative of what is going on. They want people who will say what they want. I am not into that. I am here to give an honest opinion of what is taking place on the field because I have my integrity to live up to and that’s the only thing that I can take to my grave. I can’t take money or love or anything else to my grave but name.

SHAMIK CHAKRABARTY: How hopeful are you that things will change with regard to racism?

This is not going to be an easy read for anyone. My sister called to say that some chapters are difficult to read. It had to be a hard read because unless you recognise why you are sick, you can’t cure yourself. It was both cathartic and emotional and at times difficult to write. Because there was a lot in the book that I didn’t know… I had to go and research. I saw some pictures from the 40s and 50s about what they did to people. They did really degrading things to Black people.

I have hope that people are waking up. A few days ago, I was on Good Morning Britain (GMB) and I spoke up about all this. And this gentleman and his wife, a white English couple, slipped a note under my door. I will read it to you: “Dear Michael, just saw your interview on GMB. So very passionate and empowered, very eloquent. It has opened our eyes. Thank you very much.” I know there is a chance of things getting better. We have a chance.

https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/michael-holding-west-indies-cricket-racism-t20-7378608/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Although I consider him a Grade A hypocrite, I'll agree with him on his views regarding T20 cricket. I have hated the format since it's inception.
 
I agree with Holding that T20 format is not cricket.
 
I don't compare it to the greatness of Test or even ODI but nevertheless I enjoy it as it as a different form of cricket.
Although I don't understand why commentating in T20 be so objectionable to a commentator.
 
I agree with him although I value the WT20 as it’s an international tournie and of the highest calibre which does test ones ability to handle the pressure
 
T20 saved cricket. Test cricket is boring unless it’s played in England where the pitches have something for both batsmen and fast bowlers. How many people would go to a test match between SL and WI compared to T20 game between the two?

T20 games have given me more pleasure and excitement than ANY test match. No one wants to watch a bowler bowl a 10 over spell and the batsman leaving 95% of the deliveries.

If Michael Holding was playing today, he’d retire from Test cricket to play in the IPL and other T20 leagues.
 
T20 saved cricket. Test cricket is boring unless it’s played in England where the pitches have something for both batsmen and fast bowlers. How many people would go to a test match between SL and WI compared to T20 game between the two?

its a sad thing to say, but i pbly wouldnt make any specific effort to watch either, unless its a close test match, like the chase west indies pulled off against bangladesh.

but i think its more an indictment of the two tier test structure where the teams outside the big 3 (and NZ) are struggling to produce test cricketers.

back in the day west indies, sri lanka would have been a quality fixture, lara against murali was always fun.

t20 is light entertainment, thats what it should be taken for.
 
its a sad thing to say, but i pbly wouldnt make any specific effort to watch either, unless its a close test match, like the chase west indies pulled off against bangladesh.

but i think its more an indictment of the two tier test structure where the teams outside the big 3 (and NZ) are struggling to produce test cricketers.

back in the day west indies, sri lanka would have been a quality fixture, lara against murali was always fun.

t20 is light entertainment, thats what it should be taken for.

There’s so many ways to make test cricket more entertaining, but the icc chooses to ignore them.

Personally, I think there shouldn’t be a coin toss for test matches, let the away team decide whether they’d like to bat/bowl first.

Also, if there’s a rain delay that occurs before lunch or tea, then the umpires should call lunch/tea earlier so players aren’t going off for rain, coming back on then going back off after an hour for lunch/tea.

Bring back the readers cricket ball.

Bring in power plays for tests.

Bottom line is, the ICC needs to do more than just a WTC.
 
T20 cricket is a joke and it always will be. Its good for fun and entertainment but it can't be taken seriously.

Don't care how popular T20 cricket gets or how unpopular test cricket gets; I will always look down on T20 cricket. Because succeeding at T20 cricket is not nearly the same as succeeding at Test cricket.

I can appreciate it for its mainstream appeal and the entertainment it brings to people. But the buck stops there.
 
A few years ago, I asked Mikey if he was going to commentate on a T20 series in England - the response is something that I can't write on here :)

The guy absolutely hates T20 cricket.
 
I agree with his sentiments regarding T20 cricket but Holding himself is no saint. He latches to any opportunity to make money. He is just bitter IPL doesn't give him any quarters.
 
Test cricket is the real cricket.People lost interest in test cricket due to dead pitches.England and South Africa have the best pitches for test cricket.Test matches in England are rarely boring.T20 is not cricket,it is just for fun and a bit of entertainment.In future T10 may replace T20.
 
I agree with his sentiments regarding T20 cricket but Holding himself is no saint. He latches to any opportunity to make money. He is just bitter IPL doesn't give him any quarters.

And you know this because you are his accountant?
 
A few years ago, I asked Mikey if he was going to commentate on a T20 series in England - the response is something that I can't write on here :)

The guy absolutely hates T20 cricket.

I agree with his sentiments regarding T20 cricket but Holding himself is no saint. He latches to any opportunity to make money. He is just bitter IPL doesn't give him any quarters.

You are quite delusional lol. Read the above post by Saj.

Not everyone has to like T20 cricket or league cricket. I personally don't like pyjama leagues but have no problem with International T20 cricket. :inti
 
Test cricket is the real cricket.People lost interest in test cricket due to dead pitches.England and South Africa have the best pitches for test cricket.Test matches in England are rarely boring.T20 is not cricket,it is just for fun and a bit of entertainment.In future T10 may replace T20.

The pathetic pitches of UAE and the doctored ones of India are also to blame.

A good contest between bat/ball is the only way to keep test cricket flourishing.

Well said, respect to England for keeping it real. Doesn't matter who visits them, the games in England are always a treat to watch.
 
Are you sure about that because this is the only format where Hardik Pandya is somewhat relevant that too with his bowling? :inti

A fully fit Pandya is good enough for all three formats but in test cricket, after his injury, he isn't good enough for a place in XI.

In ODIs, he won player of series by his batting performance alone in Australia so your statement is wrong here. He is a good enough ODI player. Even without him bowling, the likes of Vijay Shankar and Shivam Dube can't take his slot in ODIs.

Lastly, he is not my cup of tea so I am not too bothered with his presence or absence because he doesn't have the mentality to become a truly elite test cricketer. However, he has enough skills to achieve a career like Afridi or Razzaq.
 
Agree with Mike Holding - these T20 cricket leagues are for mediocre part-time cricketers who don’t have the dedication to cricket to focus on developing proper technique and skills with bat and ball which can only come from the longer and more competitive version of the sport with years of practice to master a skillset.

And T20 is also primarily for fans who don’t have the patience or limited understanding of the game to appreciate proper cricket and contest between bat and ball, but they appreciate the big slogs for sixes.

It’s like comparing snooker and pool players, one requires a lot more skill and mental focus then the other.

It’s like comparing a three course meal at a fine restaurant , versus having a burger and fries from a third rate fast food place.

Call me a cricket snob, but I know what I prefer.
 
Michael Holding definitely entitled to his opinion but dont think IPL will lose sleep over him not commentating. T20s are the future and IPL is the biggest T20 league in the world. Its the reality which Holding is unfortunately not able to come to terms.

Its like saying I wont watch any movies in Netflix/Amazon Prime and only go to the theatres to watch them. I like test cricket the most but wise enough to acknowledge that T20s are the future. Holding is stuck in time and unable to mingle himself with modern day needs.
 
Michael Holding definitely entitled to his opinion but dont think IPL will lose sleep over him not commentating. T20s are the future and IPL is the biggest T20 league in the world. Its the reality which Holding is unfortunately not able to come to terms.

Its like saying I wont watch any movies in Netflix/Amazon Prime and only go to the theatres to watch them. I like test cricket the most but wise enough to acknowledge that T20s are the future. Holding is stuck in time and unable to mingle himself with modern day needs.

His commentary style won't fit T20 cricket either. He's a perfect test match commentator.

I can understand where he's coming from, but then again, regardless of how much he despises T20 cricket, it is still a form of cricket.
 
If Test cricket is real cricket than real cricket is on a decline. Without Twenty20 cricket its hard to see cricket still being a popular sport.
 
Every format matters, test format is the best format but that doesn't mean ODI and T20 cricket are joke.

Michael Holding is bitter old man.
 
Last edited:
If T20 cricket is a joke format, why are so many great Test cricketers rubbish at it?

I would understand the condescending attitude if T20 cricket would have been a piece of cake for every quality Test cricketer and they could turn up half-asleep and dominate the format.

However, the reality is completely different. Most of the great Test cricketers do not possess the talent and the skill to succeed in T20 cricket, so this condescending attitude is laughable.

T20 cricket is also cricket. It simply requires a different skill-set, and the truly great players in contemporary cricket are the ones who possess both the Test cricket skills and the T20 skills, which illustrates their versatility as a cricketer.

Test cricket is not harder and T20I cricket is not easier - it is a factually incorrect statement with no logic. If it was true, every great Test cricketer would have been able to dominate T20I cricket but that is not remotely true.

Nevertheless, when you talk about prestige, Test cricket holds significantly greater value because of its history and tradition. However, this is a subjective construct and is shaped/influenced by the players and the fans.

30-40 years down the line, Test cricket will no longer be considered the premier format because the players and the fans will not hold the format in the same regard as today’s generation.

Those who are born in the T20I era and will grow up today are unlikely to view Test cricket in the same lens as the previous generation.

Cricket fans are the most insecure bunch of fans in the world who are scared of change. Unfortunately, change is the only constant and we must embrace it because we cannot stop it.

T20 cricket is not a joke - it is the most popular format of cricket today and it demands a skill-set and high-octane cricket that makes a lot of great Test cricketers wet their underpants because they do not have the talent and the skill to keep up with the pace of the game.
 
Whether we like it or not, test cricket is slowly losing popularity and traction.

ODI games are also losing relevance apart from WC games, which are always popular.

T20s are the most popular games for a variety of reasons, primarily because people can afford to take 2-3 hours out of their days to watch a full T20 game, but they can't take 7 hours out of their day to watch an ODI as it isn't convenient.

One thing I will say is that ODI cricket should be the foundation of cricket, but it will only gain relevance again when the ICC removes this pathetic two new ball rule and shows more leniency towards finger-spinners.
 
T20 is the only format which can make cricket a global sport .
Most people who claim to be test cricket fans, won't sit through watching 10 overs of a SL vs WI game .
 
If T20 cricket is a joke format, why are so many great Test cricketers rubbish at it?

I would understand the condescending attitude if T20 cricket would have been a piece of cake for every quality Test cricketer and they could turn up half-asleep and dominate the format.

However, the reality is completely different. Most of the great Test cricketers do not possess the talent and the skill to succeed in T20 cricket, so this condescending attitude is laughable.

T20 cricket is also cricket. It simply requires a different skill-set, and the truly great players in contemporary cricket are the ones who possess both the Test cricket skills and the T20 skills, which illustrates their versatility as a cricketer.

Test cricket is not harder and T20I cricket is not easier - it is a factually incorrect statement with no logic. If it was true, every great Test cricketer would have been able to dominate T20I cricket but that is not remotely true.

Nevertheless, when you talk about prestige, Test cricket holds significantly greater value because of its history and tradition. However, this is a subjective construct and is shaped/influenced by the players and the fans.

30-40 years down the line, Test cricket will no longer be considered the premier format because the players and the fans will not hold the format in the same regard as today’s generation.

Those who are born in the T20I era and will grow up today are unlikely to view Test cricket in the same lens as the previous generation.

Cricket fans are the most insecure bunch of fans in the world who are scared of change. Unfortunately, change is the only constant and we must embrace it because we cannot stop it.

T20 cricket is not a joke - it is the most popular format of cricket today and it demands a skill-set and high-octane cricket that makes a lot of great Test cricketers wet their underpants because they do not have the talent and the skill to keep up with the pace of the game.

Anyone who loves the game can appreciate the skill to play out a 5th day to draw a test match as well as the skill to smack a 40 ball 100.
 
Anyone who loves the game can appreciate the skill to play out a 5th day to draw a test match as well as the skill to smack a 40 ball 100.

Exactly. Not sure why people are obsessed with picking sides. A good cricket match is a good cricket match regardless of the format.

You can have awful Test matches and awful T20Is matches. Would anyone seriously bother to watch a Test between Pakistan and Sri Lanka rather than a T20I between India and England? I certainly won’t.
 
If T20 cricket is a joke format, why are so many great Test cricketers rubbish at it?

I would understand the condescending attitude if T20 cricket would have been a piece of cake for every quality Test cricketer and they could turn up half-asleep and dominate the format.

However, the reality is completely different. Most of the great Test cricketers do not possess the talent and the skill to succeed in T20 cricket, so this condescending attitude is laughable.

T20 cricket is also cricket. It simply requires a different skill-set, and the truly great players in contemporary cricket are the ones who possess both the Test cricket skills and the T20 skills, which illustrates their versatility as a cricketer.

Test cricket is not harder and T20I cricket is not easier - it is a factually incorrect statement with no logic. If it was true, every great Test cricketer would have been able to dominate T20I cricket but that is not remotely true.

Nevertheless, when you talk about prestige, Test cricket holds significantly greater value because of its history and tradition. However, this is a subjective construct and is shaped/influenced by the players and the fans.

30-40 years down the line, Test cricket will no longer be considered the premier format because the players and the fans will not hold the format in the same regard as today’s generation.

Those who are born in the T20I era and will grow up today are unlikely to view Test cricket in the same lens as the previous generation.

Cricket fans are the most insecure bunch of fans in the world who are scared of change. Unfortunately, change is the only constant and we must embrace it because we cannot stop it.

T20 cricket is not a joke - it is the most popular format of cricket today and it demands a skill-set and high-octane cricket that makes a lot of great Test cricketers wet their underpants because they do not have the talent and the skill to keep up with the pace of the game.

There is a slight difference though. The skill sets are different for Test Cricket and T20 cricket but becoming a world class test cricketer is much harder than a world class T20 cricketer.

As example, if someone picks cricket as profession at age of 15, it will take him years and years of hardwork to succeed in test cricket and become world class there. But in T20s, you just need to learn better hitting ability or for bowlers, become a yorker specialist which can be done by just practice and more practice like Natrajan and you just have to bowl 4 overs. The ability to perform in pressure is also important but that is the case in test cricket too.

Players like KL Rahul, Shikhar Dhawan, Jonny Bairstow, Jos Buttler have mastered LOIs in modern era but still struggle to master test cricket. All these guys have game to succeed in tests but Test cricket is ultimately a hard job for a reason. They want to succeed in test cricket too but they haven't been able too.

Someone like Gill, if he wants, can master T20 cricket but that will be on cost of Test Cricket. Hence, he will continue to focus on Tests but I am sure if he just focuses on T20s and forgets Test cricket, he can easily master that format too. Same for Smith, Williamson and Root.
 
Last edited:
There is a slight difference though. The skill sets are different for Test Cricket and T20 cricket but becoming a world class test cricketer is much harder than a world class T20 cricketer.

As example, if someone picks cricket as profession at age of 15, it will take him years and years of hardwork to succeed in test cricket and become world class there. But in T20s, you just need to learn better hitting ability or for bowlers, become a yorker specialist which can be done by just practice and more practice like Natrajan and you just have to bowl 4 overs. The ability to perform in pressure is also important but that is the case in test cricket too.

Players like KL Rahul, Shikhar Dhawan, Jonny Bairstow, Jos Buttler have mastered LOIs in modern era but still struggle to master test cricket. All these guys have game to succeed in tests but Test cricket is ultimately a hard job for a reason. They want to succeed in test cricket too but they haven't been able too.

Someone like Gill, if he wants, can master T20 cricket but that will be on cost of Test Cricket. Hence, he will continue to focus on Tests but I am sure if he just focuses on T20s and forgets Test cricket, he can easily master that format too. Same for Smith, Williamson and Root.

If becoming a world class Test cricketer is much harder than becoming a world class white ball cricketer, shouldn’t the world class Test cricketer find it easy to become world class at white ball cricket after becoming world class at Test cricket?

People think that there are levels to cricket but there are not. There are different formats who test different skills and attributes.

No format is harder/easier, it depends on the skill-set that you have.

Test cricket can be easy as well - playing a poor attack on a flat pitch is much easier than playing a top attack in a white ball game when the required run rate is rising.

Pujara or Azhar can bat all day long in Test cricket but if you ask them to score 50 in 25 balls, they will tell you how difficult it is.
 
If becoming a world class Test cricketer is much harder than becoming a world class white ball cricketer, shouldn’t the world class Test cricketer find it easy to become world class at white ball cricket after becoming world class at Test cricket?

People think that there are levels to cricket but there are not. There are different formats who test different skills and attributes.

No format is harder/easier, it depends on the skill-set that you have.

Test cricket can be easy as well - playing a poor attack on a flat pitch is much easier than playing a top attack in a white ball game when the required run rate is rising.

Pujara or Azhar can bat all day long in Test cricket but if you ask them to score 50 in 25 balls, they will tell you how difficult it is.

They are not the same sport , test cricket and T20 are different ball games - it is like comparing Pool v Snooker as I said earlier. Both test and T20 cricket have some things in common, yes they play with bat and ball - just like snooker and pool both have a cue, balls and a table.

The difference being to excel in test cricket requires a lot more dedication, years of practice to achieve required level of skills and mastery , eg with the bat that would include being able to play on different conditions (not always flat batting paradise like T20) and cope with different kinds of bowling. Test cricket also is a test of mental resilience, patience and being able to cope with pressure situations for extended periods of time. It’s a test of character.

The point is people can be born with great hand eye co-ordination and played amateur street cricket like Afridi or Sharjeel who can come and smack 50 off 25 balls — but to score a test century to save a test match by batting all day , that’s not something you can do just by hand eye coordination or having played amateur grade cricket - it takes years of practice and discipline to develop that skillset.

As for bowlers , well.. in T20 they are just there to make the numbers and do their ‘hard work’ of bowling 4 overs. You can’t compare that with the magnificent spells of fast bowling and spin bowling that we have witnessed over the years in test cricket, with bowlers single handledly winning matches.

I would go as far as saying if you found a few random top tier Baseball hitters with USA , they could probably come in and blast sixes in T20 cricket too.. but that’s not batting.
 
Last edited:
Mikey is a bit sensationalist but I do like his straightforward manner. Plus this is his opinion and that is fair enough.
 
The debate between the skill requisite for T20 cricket and Test cricket is interesting. For a player, let's say a batsman, to excel in cricket, he needs competency in a variety of factors - defence, offense, technique, timing ability, shot power, endurance, etc. Firstly it's important to acknowledge that you need competency in all factors to be successful at the top level, you cannot become a top T20 batsman if you have zero defense and similarly you cannot become a top Test batsman if you have no scoring shots. That said, different factors assume greater importance according to different formats. In Test cricket for example, defence, technique, timing ability and endurance are important while in T20 cricket, offense, shot power, agility on the field, timing ability are important. In short, Test cricket tests the nuances of your technique and endurance/mental toughness more. As the name implies, it's a complete "test" of your ability as a batsman to score the most runs while not losing your wicket at the same time. T20 cricket places more importance on the raw physical ability and explosiveness as a player which is why someone like Pujara who fails in these facets of the game struggles in the shortest format. Test cricket is definitely a more mental game but T20 cricket is more of a see ball, hit ball game.

You can compare it to football. Like cricket, there are many core abilities that are very important in football too - ball control, dribbling, balance, tight possession, finishing ability, shot power, speed, acceleration, stamina, etc. Now you have only one internationally recognised format for football that's played over 90 minutes (Futsal, beach football, etc., are different sports played on different surfaces). Now imagine you keep the size of the football field the same, length of a football match the same, but introduce a brand new format in football that has 5 vs 5 players instead of the 11 vs 11. Now what it would do is it would render the technical abilities of the game like ball control, balance, tight possession, dribbling less important while the physical attributes like shot power, speed, acceleration, stamina, etc., assume greater importance. This is because in a normal sized football field but with less opposition players to challenge you, you don't need to beat an opposition player much often and a very fast player like Bale or Aubameyang can easily beat the odd defender he comes across using sheer pace and acceleration, and since there are less defenders, you can score a lot of goals from outside the box provided you have enough shot power. Players like Iniesta or Xavi ​will never be successful in this format because they are more technical players but have less physical ability as compared to more physical box to box midfielders.

However this is not the same case with 11 opposition players on the pitch and this is where the technical aspects like ball control, body balance, ability to keep the ball while under pressure from 2-3 opposition players assume prime importance. Now theoretically, in the hypothetical format I created, players like Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, Ozil, etc., would become obsolete while players with more explosive running ability and raw physical prowess like many in the English premier league would become overnight superstars. This is the essence of difference between Test cricket and T20 cricket. Test cricket tests the perfection of your technique in the game more while T20 more your ability to score as much as possible. While it's not a hard and fast rule, technicians tend to succeed more in Test cricket while players with brute power and timing tend to succeed more in T20 cricket.

T20 fans are right in saying that each format tests a different ability and is not inferior in any way, but I tend to appreciate a sport which emphasises importance on having a great technique in the game rather than raw physical power because players as diminutive in stature like Maradona and Messi or an almost nerdish guy like Xavi can dream of becoming the greatest using their impeccable skills like body balance, dribbling ability, ball control, finishing ability, etc., in the game whereas they could still succeed in the other format using the same abilities, but the difference in the quality between a Messi and a Bale or a Xavi and a Gerrard would become very less and I don't like such a format as good a players Bale and Gerrard were. But this is just my personal opinion though and I fully understand others can have different preferences and prefer a more physical sport.
 
Last edited:
Just because you fail to evolve with time doesnt mean that it isnt cricket.

Yes, in fact great men like him would have happily played T20 cricket if it were existing back then.
Didn't stop him from playing in the World Series Cricket. which was a true rebel league.
 
Wondering if Holding is enjoying the ongoing "INTERNATIONAL" series going on between Eng and SL.
 
The debate between the skill requisite for T20 cricket and Test cricket is interesting. For a player, let's say a batsman, to excel in cricket, he needs competency in a variety of factors - defence, offense, technique, timing ability, shot power, endurance, etc. Firstly it's important to acknowledge that you need competency in all factors to be successful at the top level, you cannot become a top T20 batsman if you have zero defense and similarly you cannot become a top Test batsman if you have no scoring shots. That said, different factors assume greater importance according to different formats. In Test cricket for example, defence, technique, timing ability and endurance are important while in T20 cricket, offense, shot power, agility on the field, timing ability are important. In short, Test cricket tests the nuances of your technique and endurance/mental toughness more. As the name implies, it's a complete "test" of your ability as a batsman to score the most runs while not losing your wicket at the same time. T20 cricket places more importance on the raw physical ability and explosiveness as a player which is why someone like Pujara who fails in these facets of the game struggles in the shortest format. Test cricket is definitely a more mental game but T20 cricket is more of a see ball, hit ball game.

You can compare it to football. Like cricket, there are many core abilities that are very important in football too - ball control, dribbling, balance, tight possession, finishing ability, shot power, speed, acceleration, stamina, etc. Now you have only one internationally recognised format for football that's played over 90 minutes (Futsal, beach football, etc., are different sports played on different surfaces). Now imagine you keep the size of the football field the same, length of a football match the same, but introduce a brand new format in football that has 5 vs 5 players instead of the 11 vs 11. Now what it would do is it would render the technical abilities of the game like ball control, balance, tight possession, dribbling less important while the physical attributes like shot power, speed, acceleration, stamina, etc., assume greater importance. This is because in a normal sized football field but with less opposition players to challenge you, you don't need to beat an opposition player much often and a very fast player like Bale or Aubameyang can easily beat the odd defender he comes across using sheer pace and acceleration, and since there are less defenders, you can score a lot of goals from outside the box provided you have enough shot power. Players like Iniesta or Xavi ​will never be successful in this format because they are more technical players but have less physical ability as compared to more physical box to box midfielders.

However this is not the same case with 11 opposition players on the pitch and this is where the technical aspects like ball control, body balance, ability to keep the ball while under pressure from 2-3 opposition players assume prime importance. Now theoretically, in the hypothetical format I created, players like Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, Ozil, etc., would become obsolete while players with more explosive running ability and raw physical prowess like many in the English premier league would become overnight superstars. This is the essence of difference between Test cricket and T20 cricket. Test cricket tests the perfection of your technique in the game more while T20 more your ability to score as much as possible. While it's not a hard and fast rule, technicians tend to succeed more in Test cricket while players with brute power and timing tend to succeed more in T20 cricket.

T20 fans are right in saying that each format tests a different ability and is not inferior in any way, but I tend to appreciate a sport which emphasises importance on having a great technique in the game rather than raw physical power because players as diminutive in stature like Maradona and Messi or an almost nerdish guy like Xavi can dream of becoming the greatest using their impeccable skills like body balance, dribbling ability, ball control, finishing ability, etc., in the game whereas they could still succeed in the other format using the same abilities, but the difference in the quality between a Messi and a Bale or a Xavi and a Gerrard would become very less and I don't like such a format as good a players Bale and Gerrard were. But this is just my personal opinion though and I fully understand others can have different preferences and prefer a more physical sport.

You do waffle a bit don't you?

You cannot compare Cricket to Football. Every game of Football, every tournament, every league game, is still a game of 2 halves.

Cricket has 3 totally different formats, and each format with a different set of rules and skill requirement, and time allocation too.
 
T20 fans are right in saying that each format tests a different ability and is not inferior in any way, but I tend to appreciate a sport which emphasises importance on having a great technique in the game rather than raw physical power because players as diminutive in stature like Maradona and Messi or an almost nerdish guy like Xavi can dream of becoming the greatest using their impeccable skills like body balance, dribbling ability, ball control, finishing ability, etc., in the game whereas they could still succeed in the other format using the same abilities, but the difference in the quality between a Messi and a Bale or a Xavi and a Gerrard would become very less and I don't like such a format as good a players Bale and Gerrard were. But this is just my personal opinion though and I fully understand others can have different preferences and prefer a more physical sport.

Thats the biggest flaw of T-20, but i think they can improve that by regulating bat sizes, letting bowlers bowl more than 4 overs, increasing distance to the boundary, and eliminating fielding restrictions. This should hopefully create more balance between bat and ball. It kind of cheapens the 6 when so many happen in one match.
 
You do waffle a bit don't you?

You cannot compare Cricket to Football. Every game of Football, every tournament, every league game, is still a game of 2 halves.

Cricket has 3 totally different formats, and each format with a different set of rules and skill requirement, and time allocation too.

I did not compare football to all 3 formats of cricket. I only said football in its current form is comparable to Test cricket.

T20 cricket can be compared to a new football format with lesser defenders where the balance is heavily tilted towards getting more goals (as it is with sixes and boundaries in T20 cricket). You will get more goals, more long range stunners, and more atheltic skills in that hypothetical new football format than you would in a normal game of football and the final scorelines would read something like 20-15 than 3-2 or 2-1 that is normal.

If such a football format is created tomorrow, the present generation including you might hate it but it is likely that the generations a decade or two afterwards might want more instant gratification than the present generation and might favour that novel format to the conventional football we know and love. And you would be left to arguing with them how you think the older football format is better than the "modern" version of football the future generations love like how we argue test cricket is a superior game to T20 cricket.
 
Thats the biggest flaw of T-20, but i think they can improve that by regulating bat sizes, letting bowlers bowl more than 4 overs, increasing distance to the boundary, and eliminating fielding restrictions. This should hopefully create more balance between bat and ball. It kind of cheapens the 6 when so many happen in one match.

If they do that, that would kill the golden goose of T20 cricket, i.e., more sixes and fours.

You think people love the PSL in the UAE or Pakistan more? Or the IPL in UAE or India more? They love T20 leagues in India and Pakistan because there are more sixes and fours and more 200 plays 200 games than the 150-160 par games in the UAE
 
If they do that, that would kill the golden goose of T20 cricket, i.e., more sixes and fours.

You think people love the PSL in the UAE or Pakistan more? Or the IPL in UAE or India more? They love T20 leagues in India and Pakistan because there are more sixes and fours and more 200 plays 200 games than the 150-160 par games in the UAE

The biggest reason for the love of T-20 is the time. People dont have time to watch an 8 hour ODI, or a 5 day test match. Even the 150-160 games will have sixes. I personally think having more bat ball balance is better.

And i would say the biggest reason they love IPL/PSL more in India and Pakistan is because its being played in front of home crowds. Not necessarily because of the score.
 
I did not compare football to all 3 formats of cricket. I only said football in its current form is comparable to Test cricket.

T20 cricket can be compared to a new football format with lesser defenders where the balance is heavily tilted towards getting more goals (as it is with sixes and boundaries in T20 cricket). You will get more goals, more long range stunners, and more atheltic skills in that hypothetical new football format than you would in a normal game of football and the final scorelines would read something like 20-15 than 3-2 or 2-1 that is normal.

If such a football format is created tomorrow, the present generation including you might hate it but it is likely that the generations a decade or two afterwards might want more instant gratification than the present generation and might favour that novel format to the conventional football we know and love. And you would be left to arguing with them how you think the older football format is better than the "modern" version of football the future generations love like how we argue test cricket is a superior game to T20 cricket.

Football cannot be compared to even Test cricket!

In football you still have to play out the allocated time, in Test cricket, a match has 5 days allocated but can be completed in less time.

A football's captain has different responsibilities to a Test cricket captain.

Moreover, on the field, football is 11 vs 11, whereas in cricket its 11 vs 2.

Did I mention how condition/weather can influence a Test match?

There is no older football format, football has been and always be a game of 2 halves.

You are free to argue with your word salad.
 
Football cannot be compared to even Test cricket!

In football you still have to play out the allocated time, in Test cricket, a match has 5 days allocated but can be completed in less time.

A football's captain has different responsibilities to a Test cricket captain.

Moreover, on the field, football is 11 vs 11, whereas in cricket its 11 vs 2.

Did I mention how condition/weather can influence a Test match?

There is no older football format, football has been and always be a game of 2 halves.

You are free to argue with your word salad.

Thanks for enlightening me with some mind blowing facts about football which I had no idea before. Won't make the mistake again.
 
Wondering if Holding is enjoying the ongoing "INTERNATIONAL" series going on between Eng and SL.
Why can't Holding enjoy that? What happened? Did the series stop due to World War 3? Or did someone breach the bio bubble? Or are they going to play the remaining match in UAE in September? :inti
 
Michael Holding could have made a lot of money from commentating in T20 leagues and competitions over the years, but he has refused to jump on the bandwagon or change his views. For that I respect him.
 
Michael Holding could have made a lot of money from commentating in T20 leagues and competitions over the years, but he has refused to jump on the bandwagon or change his views. For that I respect him.

That's right.

No everyone has to like every format and that doesn't make one format better than the other...

For me, I'm looking for forward to Pakistan playing three T20's against England but boy I would have really been excited if it were three test matches instead of T20's..
 
Didn't Holding plays ODI's, then how he's different from today's t20 cricketers?
 
Didn't Holding plays ODI's, then how he's different from today's t20 cricketers?

Worse, he rebelled against the West Indies to play the Kerry Packer games.
 
Worse, he rebelled against the West Indies to play the Kerry Packer games.

That's not the same as saying T20 isn't cricket.

Players rebelled to play in the Packer games, which was the same format back in those days (for those who were alive), ODI.
 
My question is, was Holding ever offered a commentary gig in IPL? If he was offered and he rejected it bcoz he dont considers it as cricket, then its fine. Else its just sour grapes. Even Bumble was anti IPL before...then when BCCI threw some dollars, he came running :))
 
They are not the same sport , test cricket and T20 are different ball games - it is like comparing Pool v Snooker as I said earlier. Both test and T20 cricket have some things in common, yes they play with bat and ball - just like snooker and pool both have a cue, balls and a table.

The difference being to excel in test cricket requires a lot more dedication, years of practice to achieve required level of skills and mastery , eg with the bat that would include being able to play on different conditions (not always flat batting paradise like T20) and cope with different kinds of bowling. Test cricket also is a test of mental resilience, patience and being able to cope with pressure situations for extended periods of time. It’s a test of character.

The point is people can be born with great hand eye co-ordination and played amateur street cricket like Afridi or Sharjeel who can come and smack 50 off 25 balls — but to score a test century to save a test match by batting all day , that’s not something you can do just by hand eye coordination or having played amateur grade cricket - it takes years of practice and discipline to develop that skillset.

As for bowlers , well.. in T20 they are just there to make the numbers and do their ‘hard work’ of bowling 4 overs. You can’t compare that with the magnificent spells of fast bowling and spin bowling that we have witnessed over the years in test cricket, with bowlers single handledly winning matches.

I would go as far as saying if you found a few random top tier Baseball hitters with USA , they could probably come in and blast sixes in T20 cricket too.. but that’s not batting.
Yes random top tier baseball hitters can blast sixes in T20 cricket when the two best batsmen of the world, Kohli & Smith struggle at it.
 
Michael Holding is a bitter old man who believes that cricket was real only when he played. He has been moaning about crickets falling standards from the 90s onwards. He moaned about poor bowling quality even when bowlers like Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Mcgrath, Gillespie, Pollock, Ambrose, Walsh, Warne, Murali Saqlain, Kumble were playing.
As per him, Sachin, Lara, Mcgrath, Akram, Warne, Gilchrist, Waugh, ambrose all were inferior to the guys he played with. Michael Holding is himself one of the most overrated cricketers of all time who chickened out of cricket as soon as bouncer rules & helmets came to the fore.
 
Michael Holding is a bitter old man who believes that cricket was real only when he played. He has been moaning about crickets falling standards from the 90s onwards. He moaned about poor bowling quality even when bowlers like Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Mcgrath, Gillespie, Pollock, Ambrose, Walsh, Warne, Murali Saqlain, Kumble were playing.
As per him, Sachin, Lara, Mcgrath, Akram, Warne, Gilchrist, Waugh, ambrose all were inferior to the guys he played with. Michael Holding is himself one of the most overrated cricketers of all time who chickened out of cricket as soon as bouncer rules & helmets came to the fore.

Tbh the way he ravaged and tortured a 45 year old Brian Close with 6 bouncers an over in his prime was disgraceful. Even then he could not get Close out
 
Batting with more time on your hands is a lot easier than batting with little time on your hands. Test cricket is like you are going in the nets to practice your batting. Where as Twenty20 is when you play a real match to use what you learned in the nets.
 
My question is, was Holding ever offered a commentary gig in IPL? If he was offered and he rejected it bcoz he dont considers it as cricket, then its fine. Else its just sour grapes. Even Bumble was anti IPL before...then when BCCI threw some dollars, he came running :))
It's not about IPL he just doesn't like the t20 format,
 
It's not about IPL he just doesn't like the t20 format,

Funny he had no problem with Kerry Packer series which was dubbed circus during his time. He had no problem in neglecting national duty with a lot of his team mates, but now has a problem with players opting for IPL ahead of international cricket. That's what you call a hypocrite.
 
Funny he had no problem with Kerry Packer series which was dubbed circus during his time. He had no problem in neglecting national duty with a lot of his team mates, but now has a problem with players opting for IPL ahead of international cricket. That's what you call a hypocrite.

Whilst I don't always agree with Holding it should be pointed out that prior to Packer players were completely amateur and would have other jobs to sustain them. The top ones would get a county stint but often would have to supplement their income.

Packer changed all that
 
He's after money. The fact that he commentates in England is enough proof of that.
That's just shameless and exposes his character for what it is. He's jealous of the current Windies generations million dollar exploits and resents the IPL for providing them with that moolah.
 
That's just shameless and exposes his character for what it is. He's jealous of the current Windies generations million dollar exploits and resents the IPL for providing them with that moolah.

If he was born today, he'd be no different. Since he was happy to dump the West Indies for Packer back in the day, safe to assume that Mr. Screaming Life would be bowling 4 over bursts in the IPL as long as the rupees kept flowing.
 
I thought Mikey lived in the Cayman islands.

Sunny Florida.

I asked him about T20 commentary offers. He said that most people know he won't commentate in those tournaments, but some have put feelers out in the past to see if he was interested and he turned them down.
 
I agree with mickey I love cricket but can’t stand t-20 cricket and no one can argue that that t-20 cricket has massively effected cricket as a whole and made it a lot more weaker
 
A few years ago, I asked Mikey if he was going to commentate on a T20 series in England - the response is something that I can't write on here :)

The guy absolutely hates T20 cricket.

Caribbean Premier League will give good platform to young West Indies players: Michael Holding.

Former West Indies fast bowler Michael Holding believes the Caribbean Premier League (CPL) represents an excellent opportunity for the development of professional cricket in the region.

The advent of the CPL means West Indian youngsters can now think to themselves 'hey, I can make a reasonably good living from playing cricket.’

Now there is something here in the Caribbean they can play in, they can make a reasonable living and they can go on and play cricket again."

https://www.cricketcountry.com/news...ung-west-indies-players-michael-holding-26107

West Indies fast bowling legend Michael has agreed to be the Ambassador for the CPL Development Programme.

https://supersport.com/cricket/more-cricket/news/130506/michael_holding_joins_the_cpl

He might hate T20 cricket, but he loves money more and is also a grade A hypocrite.

CPL is the only T20 league that offered him good money and that is why he decided to become their ambassador.

If an IPL franchise throws some money his way, watch him take a U-turn and rationalize his involvement in IPL.

Not to mention he turned his back on West Indies cricket for Packer’s dollars.

One of the greatest bowlers of all time and a living legend, but an equally bitter and and sore loser who loyalties are always up for sale.
 
If an IPL franchise throws some money his way, watch him take a U-turn and rationalize his involvement in IPL.

At this point, the only way the IPL will throw money at him is for the explicit intention of making him look a fool like his partners in the Sky box - like David Lloyd or Michael Vaughan. But pretty sure they can't be bothered or it would have happened already.

One of the greatest bowlers of all time and a living legend, but an equally bitter and and sore loser who loyalties are always up for sale.

He is labelled a "great" only because he was bowling with the cheat codes on in the 1980s. Today he would be nothing more than a Mark Wood type.

Contemporary bowlers like McGrath, Steyn, Anderson and even a Mitchell Johnson are light years ahead of him.
 
https://www.cricketcountry.com/news...ung-west-indies-players-michael-holding-26107



https://supersport.com/cricket/more-cricket/news/130506/michael_holding_joins_the_cpl

He might hate T20 cricket, but he loves money more and is also a grade A hypocrite.

CPL is the only T20 league that offered him good money and that is why he decided to become their ambassador.

If an IPL franchise throws some money his way, watch him take a U-turn and rationalize his involvement in IPL.

Not to mention he turned his back on West Indies cricket for Packer’s dollars.

One of the greatest bowlers of all time and a living legend, but an equally bitter and and sore loser who loyalties are always up for sale.

Wow! If this is true, then he is an absolute and total hypocrite. How do you bad mouth T20 and then turn around and accept money from a T20 league at the same time saying its an excellent opportunity for cricket development.
 
Wow! If this is true, then he is an absolute and total hypocrite. How do you bad mouth T20 and then turn around and accept money from a T20 league at the same time saying its an excellent opportunity for cricket development.

Is true. Read somewhere that rebel series money bought him a new Japanese car. I really admired his cricket but not so much his comments.
 
Wow! If this is true, then he is an absolute and total hypocrite. How do you bad mouth T20 and then turn around and accept money from a T20 league at the same time saying its an excellent opportunity for cricket development.

I wont call him a hypocrite but a case of sour grapes. IPL has never offered any commentary stint to him in 1st place. Had he been aproached and had he rejected the offer bcoz he dont considers T20s as cricket, then his stance would have stood. But he was never offered anything...so its a sour grape from him. The fact that he accepted money from CPL, its anyones guess what he would have done with an IPL offer $$$ :srini
 
I think t20 cricket is great , true test cricket is real cricket and odi is great as well my only issue with t20 is the boundary size. If the boundaries can be bigger and t20 would be taken more seriously
 
I wont call him a hypocrite but a case of sour grapes. IPL has never offered any commentary stint to him in 1st place. Had he been aproached and had he rejected the offer bcoz he dont considers T20s as cricket, then his stance would have stood. But he was never offered anything...so its a sour grape from him. The fact that he accepted money from CPL, its anyones guess what he would have done with an IPL offer $$$ :srini

There is no concrete evidence that he has never been offered an IPL commentary stint.
 
Back
Top