The pitch at Coolidge is a slow track with comparatively low bounce, so it takes a certain amount of talent (whether aerial or threading the field) to get the ball off the square and across the boundary...

We can be pretty sure that this slow and patient scoring isn't what the Stanford people wanted, so the groundsman has some pertinent questions to answer from the money men. The slow/low surface (on which all matches will be played) particularly suits one type of bowling: Spin.
 
Middlesex have Udal and Kartik to exploit this (hence England's low score), the Stanford Superstars have the always-economic Chris Gayle (who missed the opening match) and Sulieman Benn, Trinidad have one of the West Indies' two most effective spinners, Amit Jaggernauth (who, amazingly, didn't play the first match) together with the lesser forces of Guillen and Bachan, then there's the contrast of England with a full pace attack and only Graeme Swann in the squad bowling spin.
 
England won their first match by just 12 runs because their pace bowling was still good enough to do the job, even on a surface which doesn't assist. Some selector in England must have thought all West Indies pitches had black-clay bounce, but this isn't a West Indies Cricket Association ground, this is a private one with a new pitch and it looks like England didn't do their homework on it.

If these matches were played at Sabina or the Kensington Oval Bridgetown or even St.Johns in Antigua rather than on the Stanford ground, these effective spin bowlers would suddenly find themselves targeted. Harmison, Bravo and Flintoff would be recording the dots and getting the wickets, but here, at Coolidge, the quicks are at a disadvantage. I think, if anything, yesterday's bowling spell, despite the conditions, proves just what an asset Flintoff is to the English team.
 
Less of an asset on first appearance was the captain, Kevin Pietersen. He plays well against pace and bounce, he's strong in seaming conditions, but he looked a bit surprised by these. Theoretically, he should be fine. He should get to the pitch of the ball with that big stride of his and get on with some of his solid straight hitting. He didn't do much of that in his first ten balls and then it was all too late. I anticipate he'll be fine against pace, so should enjoy facing the Stanford Superstars' attack more than that of Middlesex.
 
After learning from the first two matches, every team will now aim to include their best spin bowler. The difference between these sides on a low-scoring ground is very, very slim. Dropping a catch can make the difference and, in the floodlights, these sides are spilling plenty. Therefore, it might come down to the economy rate and bowlers like Shaun Udal are gold dust in that regard. Middlesex could beat anyone.

Trinidad could also spring a surprise. The Stanford XI have had more practice in these conditions than any and they've certainly got a few powerful straight-hitters (Gayle could win a match on his own). England are expected to win because, given flat tracks with even bounce, they've got the most combined talent. England should win. They've favourites. However, we must acknowledge that they have picked 'bowling to consistently perform anywhere' rather than 'bowling specifically customised/suited to this track'. In that respect, Middlesex have an advantage.
 
I would expect Middlesex to beat Trinidad without too much bother, so that's your tip if there are reasonable odds to be had. The Middlesex batsmen just need to get it right, keep the scoreboard ticking and find a way to glance those yorkers into spaces rather than just stub them out. I would expect the Stanford Superstars to be much stronger in the next match and be led with a firmer hand in the presence of their outstanding player, Chris Gayle.
 
Yes, okay, England should win the final match, but it's a real pity Trinidad and Middlesex aren't allowed to progress to the final (no matter who they beat) because it's the big teams that look out of form to me. As with any full West Indies side (official or unofficial) the Stanford team could be brilliant or they could collapse. Since their world-beating consistency of the 1980s, none of their sides have given much confidence to the punter. Apart from the 'out of season rustyness', I'm also half-expecting an embarrassment for England because, although they have a series of potentially explosive batsmen, they're spending their 120 ball allocation just tapping singles like choirboys. Sod that. They should open with Luke Wright and Matt Prior, hitting straight high and hard from the first over, then follow with Pietersen and Flintoff at three and four. If all those got out cheaply, England still have the batting to see out the remaining overs at a run a ball or better. Why the hesitation? That's what Chris Gayle's going to do because he's spent his youth watching heavy-metal openers like Clayton Lambert and Philo Wallace. Use your feet, go for nine or ten an over at the start and assess the situation after eight overs. If just two batsmen succeeded, England would look like winners - and that they certainly don't look unbeatable now.
 
This is Twenty20, so who dares wins. At the moment, only the small teams are riding their luck and taking their chances. From a Stanford Inc standpoint, this tournament should be about risk and explosive hitting. If they don't get it, if they can't sell it to the US market as 'exciting' (as opposed to 'thinking'), they'll surely pull the plug. Still, their first objective has already been achieved because Stanford are now a household name when we'd never heard of them before.

Whether Middlesex CCC can snatch a victory or whether the England side can stop mentally considering how they're going to spend their money, before they've even won it, remains to be seen. The Stanford XI could win this tournament, they really can beat England. The probability is that England will be able to hang on, but it could be by the skin of their teeth and that doesn't inspire much betting confidence. The psychological pressure of money also messes up people's thinking and changes the way they play. That's a random factor we can't evaluate and when there's increasing chaos and unpredictability, you should, as a rule, be very wary of backing the favourites unless the odds are very good.
 
Adam Corres