I’d be curious to see how the big names go because I believe that this tournament is the opportunity for the little known, and less expensive, cricketers to shine. I believe every team should have discovered a new star by game six or seven and it will be fascinating to try and predict who those players will be. If there is any lesson at all from the ICL (apart from the fact that the cricket should be on a channel that is in people's houses), it is that you underestimate any player at your own peril. These young men are audacious and love the big stage. And so when the lights come on, I expect some of them to slip into the front row.

And therefore return on investment will become an interesting way of judging players. How different will the star who costs 900,000 dollars be from the modest 50k man? And by the end, as the league matures and as learnings become apparent, people will start calculating whether it is better to have three players at 200,000 each rather than one at 800,000? Would the Arsene Wenger approach at Arsenal, where you are forced to look at value for money, become popular or will the free-spending Chelsea style still survive?

Indeed would young boys and girls start talking about supporting Mumbai Indians and Deccan Chargers instead of Liverpool or Man U? I would like nothing better than that. But there is no doubt that returns on investment is a far better way of judging players than their price. A Shahrukh might be expensive but he delivers profits.

... contd.