Well weigh up what you see on TV and what I see when I am at the grounds.

As for not getting full houses anymore, you keep proving my point.

What's changed in WI cricket?

Answer: They are not as good as they used to be and so crowds go down.

England are better than they used to be and so their crowds (and interest) are going up.

The central issue is the fortune and quality of the side.

Well, in my case, I don't think I've ever mentioned that it will fail or not last at all.

I'm just saying that before I jump for joy and get myself full of optimism, I'd actually wait and see what the bigger picture is.

Once again, I can only speak for myself and say I've also not said 20/20 is useless.

I've said a 20/20 competition isn't exactly the thing that WI cricket needs the most right now.

You stated in your first post, " Hopefully some serious investment will halt the decline that has saddened so many Crikcet fans. Just as long as someone sorts out the current board and gets the likes of Lara, Gayke and Sarwan back in the team then things may have a chance of getting better in the short term."

And my point to that is this whole 20/20 thing is, at present, independent of the board and Stanford is looking to make profit for himself.

The board, who are responsible for the WI you see in ODIs and Tests, may not get any money out of this.

I'd love for TEN billionaires to make TEN competitions in the WI of even stick cricket, but if they are doing it to ingratiate themselves instead of building the game, then one should be concerned.

Add in to that, I know of things about Stanford, (he is no saint but then which billionaire is ) and so I will reserve judgement not because I want it to fail ( I don't) or for any other reason than numerous men of money have entered the Caribbean with lofty dreams only to leave with an inflated bank account and a few people left behind having had their palms greased.

The biggest sponsorship deal in WI cricket history was Digicel's $4M a year or so.

That has been followed by corruption, incompetence and the dropping of players from a side on the sponsors say so more or less.

Now when you bring in close to $30 million!! I see vultures, my friend.

Which proves you are still stuck on attendance levels and the redundant idea that WI problem is people don't watch or don't follow the game.

Cricket is a professional sport and it must deliver a product.

In the WI case, the product is poor with only intermittent flashes of decency.

Thus attendances drop and more drastically in an area where disposable income is far far less.

If this current 2005 side fell over, hit their heads and started playing like even the 1965 side let alone the 1985 side and performances picked up, attendances would rise dramatically.

Then everyone would say "People are back in love with cricket in the WI" when in fact, they always liked it just they voted with their feet to stay away whilst some players carried on with foolishness.

WI attendance levels at Tests and ODIs dropped because WI quality of cricket in Tests and ODIs dropped.

NOT vice versa.

You want attendance levels up??

Improve the cricket quality.

Stanford's millions look most welcome and, most likely, much financial benefit will be had from them.

But until the WI puts in place a system that adequately nurtures its pplayers and looks after their physical, mental and financial needs, then they'll always be occupying this lower rung.

....now what's the score in the Super Series ODI??