The man who revolutionised cricket

[social]

Most of you are obviously too young to understand the impact Packer's actions had on cricket as we know it today.

The game was dying under the ICC at the time.

His foresight, determination and, yes, money set the platform for where it is today.

Without him, it probably still would have happened but the who is to say that it would have reached the heights it is at today in most countries.

BTW, can someone please explain to me why, if Dalmiya's actions have benefitted the game in India most, crowds for test matches are almost non-existent.

[Deja moo]

Originally Posted by social

BTW, can someone please explain to me why, if Dalmiya's actions have benefitted the game in India most, crowds for test matches are almost non-existent.

Because they're all at home catching it on the telly. It is preferable to have them in the stadia, but given the climate in India and the comfort of watching it at home, it is kind of understandable.

[GermanShepherd]

[QUOTE=social

BTW, can someone please explain to me why, if Dalmiya's actions have benefitted the game in India most, crowds for test matches are almost non-existent.[/QUOTE]

Test match crowd in India are generally pretty healthy - certainly far from non-existent.
Calcutta, Bangalore, Chennai and Mohali have all seen huge crowds in recent times for some of India's more prominent tests.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by social

The game was dying under the ICC at the time.

I think this statement a little extreme.

The Test series in Aust in the mid 70s attracted huge crowds.
The WC had started in England in 1975, I am sure it would have grown without Packer.
Cricket in India and Pakistan was still the No. 1 sport.
The Windies were showing signs of being the No. 1 team in the world.

You must remember why Packer wanted the 'rights" because the game was popular. Apart from that though I agree Packer was good for the game.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Dasa

"selected three men in sports who had shaped and evolved their game over the 25 years of their (IJHS) existence"

The majority of the Packer years were before this time period.

Sorry, didn't notice that, but my point still stands for the (in that case) misleading thread title.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by C_C

Wrong.
Packer had very little impact as far as salaries of players go and the commercial success of cricket.

Hmm, Tony Greig pre-packer - £1,050 a year
Tony Greig in Packer - £12,000 a year.

No, that's no impact at all is it?

[C_C]

Hmm, Tony Greig pre-packer - £1,050 a year
Tony Greig in Packer - £12,000 a year.

No, that's no impact at all is it?

And what was Tony Greig's salary post-Packer ?
Somewhere closer to 1 grand than 12 grand. In terms of global popularity of cricket and player salaries, he had no lasting impact, because essentially the packer years were a spike in interest, sponsorship and money. Post Packer, cricket slid back to its half-arsed nature(business-wise).
Sponsorship declined and so did popularity.
Dalmiya on the other hand had a lasting impact- the player salaries and ICC's coffers have sustained the astronomical wealth, if not undergoing a general upwards trend that was missing pre-mid-90s.
Cricket's popularity also increased during Dalmiya's tenure and it has been sustained/incremented since.

[C_C]

a. dragged a supposedly gentleman's sport kicking and screaming into the the era of professionalism by ensuring players, for the first time, could play cricket full-time without having to rely on a job for additional support;

Incorrect over exgaggeration.
Pre-packer, cricket was not an amatuer sport. There wasn't the astronomical weath associated with the Tendulkars or McGraths of the world but cricket earned a player the lifestyle of an upper-middle class worker.
Cricketers in general havn't had to rely on secondary jobs since the mid/late 50s.

b. popularised the most lucrative form of cricket, ODI's;

Again, it is an exgaggeration.
ODI cricket immediately met with popularity follwing the women's world cup ( which preceeded the men's surprisingly) and the introduction of 60 overs games in the English country circuit.
Neither the number of matches played, nor the average attendance rates were affected much post Packer era, when compared with pre-Packer era.
'

c. introduced the most lucrative form of ODIs, day-night cricket, by paying for the installation of lights at the SCG;

in my opinion, this is Packer's crowning glory and deserves the kudos for it all.

d. introduced the concept of commercialising the sale of television rights to the game (which, after all, is the foundation of both the ICC's and BCCI's wealth today);

Incorrect over-exgaggeration. ECB ( or MCC) had sold BBC the telivision rights for the Ashes in 1961. So clearly, it was not a case of introducing the concept. What Packer did was make a relatively lucrative contract with the telivision - but that is understandable, given the star-studded field he attracted.

e. provided a stage on which the greats of SA cricket could play for the first time since sporting sanctions were introduced against that country's reprehensible regime (this for a time promoted the separation of politics and sport); and

While that is accurate, it is worth noting that RSA wern't completely blackballed pre-packer era. Their players were allowed to play county cricket. So while he did provide them a world-stage, he wasn't the first to present an option of playing outside RSA to the RSA players.

f. via his network, implemented the majority of television coverage innovations that we take for granted today (views from both ends, stump microphones, coloured clothing, etc).

Again, his effects largely were temporary.
Stump mics didn't catch on till Dalmiya pressured the ICC to use it for the first time in official matches in the late 80s/early 90s.
Same goes with commentary.

Dalmiya "might" have been the most influential figure in world cricket lately but to say that he has been more influential than Packer in the development of the game is utter, utter nonsense.

Dalmiya "supposedly" influenced the location of a couple of tournaments.

Packer took control of the game away from the traditional rulers, changed it for the better, and only agreed to hand control back once they had agreed to the demands of a new era.

This is factual nonsense.
Packer had very little lasting effect on the game.
Most of his innovations were of 'he came, he conquered and he buzzed off' nature.

Cricket's popularity spiked during the packer series but then again, that is largely to do with the star-studded lineup. You make 4 or 5 'super teams' involving the creme de la creme and you will create a buzz allright.
Post packer, cricket's popularity was consistent with the miniscule growth or stagnation it had lived in pre-Packer.

Same goes with the traditional control of cricket- once Packer went off, control reverted back to the 'original two', ie, MCC/ECB and CA.

And like i said, same is the case with stump mics and 'one commentator from each side' concept.

Besides, its bulldust that Packer refused to give up control of cricket until ICC relented, simply because facts prove that things went back to the 'same ol, same ol' philosophy after Packer was done with.
The biggest reason for Packer cricket comming to an end was the players themselves.
The autobiography of Imran Khan, Denis Lillee etc. shed some light on that.
In essence, players lost motivation. To most, it was rather meaningless cricket akin to first class cricket as the added honour and motivation of representing your country was gone.
Near the end days of Packer cricket, many players were mixed in their responses - the money was lucrative but many would rather represent their country for lower wages than engage in a 'high quality' county championship.

Packer set the wheels rolling, but he had little lasting impact on cricket. Most of his innovations and developments were done away with. The fan appeal and entrepreneurial angles were largely unaffected when compared with pre-Packer era.
That is the key area where Dalmiya trumps Packer.
He has made a lasting difference to cricket. It wasn't some spike in popularity and a new fad that fell outta fashion( or blackballed) like Packer cricket was.
His contribution to the entrepreneurial angle of cricket has been huge- cricket was in serious jeopardy when Dalmiya started poking his nose into it. He not only increased the popularity of cricket massively, he increased ICC's influence in the game as well as giving it the monetary clout to bring about the match refferees and elite umpires we see today.
He made cricket players much much richer and did a service to the game of cricket that all nations benifit from and sustain/grow in.
And the key is that he has made a lasting difference which has led to the revival of cricket.
No doubt that Packer was one of the pioneers in cricket but his contributions pale away in the face of Dalmiya's contributions.
He pretty much did everything packer did on a bigger and better scale, while having the crucial advantage of making it a lasting difference.

[C_C]

BTW, can someone please explain to me why, if Dalmiya's actions have benefitted the game in India most, crowds for test matches are almost non-existent.

Simply put, the overwhelming majority of cricket fans in India are largely oblivious to the status associated with Test cricket. Plus the fast paced nature of ODI cricket serves more entertainment and a 'bigger bang for one's buck' than Test cricket. That is universal really.
You will find only cricket aficionados intensely watching test cricket and ODIs invariably draw a larger crowd. The modernisation of India has also cut in on the 'idle time' many have and in that sense, it is somewhat like North American sporting scene.
But rest assured, the crowd attendance in Test cricket in India has gone up from the mid/late 80s level considerably.

In my opinion, the biggest drawback to Test cricket attendance in India is the lack of 'mounds' you see in Australia, England, South Africa, New Zealand and the West Indies.
Actually this is a subcontinen-wide problem and not just India.
I think that there would be considerable more test-cricket following in India if the scheduling were more climate-conductive than the 'rotation policy'.
Based on the rotation policy, you will see a city getting a test match smack in the middle of low 40s C summer peak temperature, as essentially it is a turn-based system.
Plus the presence of mounds in a ground that is hosting a match during temperate climate condition would give the people an added incentive, as people can either 'chillax' on the mound or go over there for a few hours from their seats in the stands.
Weather condition and monetary gain is the biggest reason for the absence of mounds in the subcontinent.
This is because inorder to facilitate mounds, one would have to decimate one or two stands in the ground. The attendance of mounds can never compare to the 'canned tuna' nature of the stands. And since those stands are largely full anyways for ODI cricket, turning them into mounds would reduce revenue from the game.
I know that sucks but that is what the thinking is.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by C_C

ODI cricket immediately met with popularity follwing the women's world cup ( which preceeded the men's surprisingly) and the introduction of 60 overs games in the English country circuit.

Even though the players couldn't stand it when it started?

Strange definition of immediate.

[C_C]

I understand your point, but really it was more of a case of putting the wheels in motion. You can't conjure up massive salaries for the players from nowhere, getting money into the game is a gradual process. The game has to be producing revenues before the salaries come in. Packer started this, he ran World Series Cricket with the view of making a profit, a large one at that. Which is now the main focus of cricket bodies worldwide (see Cricket Australia's recent media deal, allowing Melb and Syd TV to go live against the gate), and Dalmiya has a lot to be proud of in progressing that body of thought, taking these ideals and furthering them throughout the game.

Most of that i've answered in my previous post directed to social.
But i sorta disagree that conjuring up massive salaries is a gradual process.
North American sporting history is a proof of that. Right from the beginning, there was massive money being shelled out for Babe Ruth, Maurice Richard, Joe DiMaggio, Gordie Howe, etc. Sure, they wern't making 10-20 million per season as you see today but back in the 20s and 30s, 1-2 million was practically the same as 10-20 million, once you adjust the inflation factor.

And i agree that Packer introduced some excellent concepts that could've helped cricket.
The only problem is, he didn't have a lasting effect and his 'revolution' was largely a temporary one.

[C_C]

Even though the players couldn't stand it when it started?

Strange definition of immediate.

I am talking about fan-popularity.
As per 'players couldnt stand it' factor, that didnt change essentially till the late 80s. Right up until then, ODI cricket was essentially 'whatever...its the stroll in the park after the intense workout' kinda deal.

So talking about players's acceptance of ODI cricket, Packer had little or no impact.

[social]

Originally Posted by C_C

Incorrect over exgaggeration.
Pre-packer, cricket was not an amatuer sport. There wasn't the astronomical weath associated with the Tendulkars or McGraths of the world but cricket earned a player the lifestyle of an upper-middle class worker.
Cricketers in general havn't had to rely on secondary jobs since the mid/late 50s.

The average test player earnt ordinary money. I played first-class cricket during this era and know exactly how hard it was to get by.

Again, it is an exgaggeration.
ODI cricket immediately met with popularity follwing the women's world cup ( which preceeded the men's surprisingly) and the introduction of 60 overs games in the English country circuit.
Neither the number of matches played, nor the average attendance rates were affected much post Packer era, when compared with pre-Packer era.
'
Packer intoduced commercialim to the game, pure and simple.

in my opinion, this is Packer's crowning glory and deserves the kudos for it all.

Agreed.

Incorrect over-exgaggeration. ECB ( or MCC) had sold BBC the telivision rights for the Ashes in 1961. So clearly, it was not a case of introducing the concept. What Packer did was make a relatively lucrative contract with the telivision - but that is understandable, given the star-studded field he attracted.

No-one had taken it to this level previously. He showed the "entire" (administrators, Players, etc) cricket communtiy how the game could be run for profit'

While that is accurate, it is worth noting that RSA wern't completely blackballed pre-packer era. Their players were allowed to play county cricket. So while he did provide them a world-stage, he wasn't the first to present an option of playing outside RSA to the RSA players.

County vs WSC - come on!

Again, his effects largely were temporary.
Stump mics didn't catch on till Dalmiya pressured the ICC to use it for the first time in official matches in the late 80s/early 90s.
Same goes with commentary.

Get real! It has been a staple diet for cricket watchers since WSC!

Aus, for all its' faults has been at the world forefront of cricket, golf, motor-sports, etc coverage for decades. Dalmiya had NO INFLUENCE in this area.

This is factual nonsense.
Packer had very little lasting effect on the game.
Most of his innovations were of 'he came, he conquered and he buzzed off' nature.

Nonsense, he "popularised" the game.

Packer is a "hero" to players because he was at the forefront of their earnings explosion.

Cricket's popularity spiked during the packer series but then again, that is largely to do with the star-studded lineup. You make 4 or 5 'super teams' involving the creme de la creme and you will create a buzz allright.

Post packer, cricket's popularity was consistent with the miniscule growth or stagnation it had lived in pre-Packer.


He took it from the doldrums to the forefront of popular consciousness overnight!

If he had not been involved, everything would have started from a much lower base.


Same goes with the traditional control of cricket- once Packer went off, control reverted back to the 'original two', ie, MCC/ECB and CA.

Answered.

And like i said, same is the case with stump mics and 'one commentator from each side' concept.

Answered

Besides, its bulldust that Packer refused to give up control of cricket until ICC relented, simply because facts prove that things went back to the 'same ol, same ol' philosophy after Packer was done with.
The biggest reason for Packer cricket comming to an end was the players themselves.
The autobiography of Imran Khan, Denis Lillee etc. shed some light on that.
In essence, players lost motivation. To most, it was rather meaningless cricket akin to first class cricket as the added honour and motivation of representing your country was gone.
Near the end days of Packer cricket, many players were mixed in their responses - the money was lucrative but many would rather represent their country for lower wages than engage in a 'high quality' county championship.

Packer set the wheels rolling, but he had little lasting impact on cricket. Most of his innovations and developments were done away with. The fan appeal and entrepreneurial angles were largely unaffected when compared with pre-Packer era.
That is the key area where Dalmiya trumps Packer.

Name one area where Dalmiya has done anything other than build upon Packer's legacy.

He has made a lasting difference to cricket. It wasn't some spike in popularity and a new fad that fell outta fashion( or blackballed) like Packer cricket was.
His contribution to the entrepreneurial angle of cricket has been huge- cricket was in serious jeopardy when Dalmiya started poking his nose into it. He not only increased the popularity of cricket massively, he increased ICC's influence in the game as well as giving it the monetary clout to bring about the match refferees and elite umpires we see today.
He made cricket players much much richer and did a service to the game of cricket that all nations benifit from and sustain/grow in.
And the key is that he has made a lasting difference which has led to the revival of cricket.
No doubt that Packer was one of the pioneers in cricket but his contributions pale away in the face of Dalmiya's contributions.
He pretty much did everything packer did on a bigger and better scale, while having the crucial advantage of making it a lasting difference.

What did Dalmiya achieve?

Couple of World Cups In Asia.

Wake up. The rest of the world embraced globalisation.

Television rights?

Packer showed him the way and history has proven that Dalmiya sold out too cheap.

Packer introduced professionalism to cricket.

Dalmiya followed through.

[C_C]

The average test player earnt ordinary money. I played first-class cricket during this era and know exactly how hard it was to get by.

Well i wasn't talking FC cricket- i was talking Test cricket. In anycase, you should be very well aware then that player salaries didnt start to go up in County/FC cricket until the mid/late 80s. Almost a decade after Packer ended. So i fail to see why Packer deserves kudos for this, since his stuff had zilch lasting effect.

Packer intoduced commercialim to the game, pure and simple.

And it didnt benifit cricket one iota. Simply because right after Packer years, thing slid back to 'same ol same ol'. So he didnt introduce anything. I fail to see how it is an 'introduction and revolution' if the principles do not stick.

Get real! It has been a staple diet for cricket watchers since WSC!

That is inaccurate. Like i said, stump mics wern't introduced in Test/ODI cricket till mid/late 1980s.

Aus, for all its' faults has been at the world forefront of cricket, golf, motor-sports, etc coverage for decades. Dalmiya had NO INFLUENCE in this area.

Your borad is negotiating a multi-milliondollar deal with the tv rights and player salaries have increased astronomically since the early 90s. Much higher than the average inflation-driven price increase. Thank Dalmiya for that, not Packer. Simply because nobody followed Packer in this area but Dalmiya is able to make changes.

Name one area where Dalmiya has done anything other than build upon Packer's legacy.

He made them permanent and actually created a permanent legacy, instead of a temporary whirlwind of Packer mania.
That is the decisive break right there. And mostly, from the economic angle, Dalmiya instituted what packer showed at a bigger and broader scale.

What did Dalmiya achieve?

Couple of World Cups In Asia.

Wake up. The rest of the world embraced globalisation.

Television rights?

Packer showed him the way and history has proven that Dalmiya sold out too cheap.

Packer introduced professionalism to cricket.

Dalmiya followed through.

If Dalmiya sold it cheap, then i fear Packer for all his business sense literally gave it away for free.
And you need to get your facts straight. The rest of the world might've embraced globalisation. But cricket still hadn't and Dalmiya changed that. Not Packer. Dalmiya.
Dalmiya had a direct influence in the rise of player salaries. Packer had negligible impact there.
I think you should check your facts and then re-read the article i posted.

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think the difference between the two is simply that Packer was a businessman who worked for his own goals and did so very much in the public spotlight, while Dalmiya was a behind-the-scenes administrator who worked in a clearly defined way to bring his ideas to fruition in cricket. Obviously they went about things in different ways and have different legacies.

I think they are obviously both important, but Packet in effect appeared on the scene from nowhere from outside of the cricketing world and had a HUGE impact straight away. In the space of a few years through some moves that would have been almost unthinkable before him he changed the face of cricket and the effects of his changes can still be seen today. Dalmiya's impact, while perhaps equally significant in the long term, was much more gradual and less of a shock to the system, in a sense. The Packer days will always be notorious for cricket fans as a period of huge change in a short space of time spurred on by one man who wasn't even involved with cricket beforehand. Dalmiya will perhaps be remembered as an innovative and important administrator, but not in that "I was there" sort of way that people talk about the WSC revolution today.