The man who revolutionised cricket

[SJS]

Originally Posted by social

It's a shame that he's been recognised alongside 2 of the most corrupt officials in the history of sports.

Its probably most appropriate ...in a way

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by social

What did Dalmiya achieve?

"A master of realpolitik and a genius with money, Jagmohan Dalmiya is the man most responsible for turning the gentleman’s game into a global sport of big money and a reach well beyond its traditional bastions.............At 20 he took over his father’s construction business, but it was in the business of cricket that he would make his name. He joined the BCCI in 1979, and was one of the young turks – Inderjit Singh Bindra was another – who helped win the right to stage the World Cup in India in 1987. That brought big money into the subcontinent, and Dalmiya and Bindra led the commercialisation of the game through the early ’90s, making the BCCI the richest cricket board on the planet.........was elected chairman of the International Cricket Council in 1997. His commercial skills and flair for striking deals turned round the cash-strapped ICC’s fortunes. But the Establishment hated Dalmiya’s unconventional ways, and he was jettisoned after a TV-rights controversy in 2000. He left ICC a bitter man, but was back in action soon enough, getting himself elected president of the BCCI in 2001. When Mike Denness high-handedly doled out punishments to five Indian players in November that year, Dalmiya courted controversy by belligerently taking on ICC on their behalf. He might not be popular in England or Australia, but Dalmiya holds the reins as cricket’s power-base shifts to Asia. "

From Cricinfo.

Couple of World Cups In Asia.

No, organising world cup in pretty much every part of the cricket playing nation and not only that but equal profit sharing among all the participating nations including the ICC.

Wake up. The rest of the world embraced globalisation.

Well, someone had to start Globalisation before that and Packer didn't do it, Dalmiya did it. It is only because of Dalmiya that cricket matches are held in Singapore, Nairobi, Morocco, Dhaka etc.

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

How did Packer showed him the way ??

Packer introduced professionalism to cricket.Dalmiya followed through.

Err..Packer manages WSC for 2 years and then dissappears forever, Cricket goes back to the same old days, Cricketers all over the world do not get a cent out of this whole drama and you say Packer introduced professionalism ?

[Jono]

What a random bump.

[Xuhaib]

the thread starter was a legend in his stay over here.

[Debris]

Originally Posted by zaheer_lcc

475060] Especially in case of Shoib Akhtar, when Australian and English were afraid of him and were trying to ban him, Dalmiya played a very positive role.

What a ridiculous statement and complete paranoia. If England and/or Australia were trying to ban bowlers they were afraid of, the WI quicks would have been a much better target. Considering his record against Australia, I imagine Australians were quite looking forward to facing him. He was no demon against England either

I imagine they were actually trying to ban him because he was taking steroids and judging by his effect on the rest of the Pakistan team (Mohammad Sami in particular) it is something of a shame they did not succeed. This is not to Dalmiya's credit.

[srkven]

Kerry Packer most likely

[jashan83]

Nice post. It was behind the scenes effort of Mr Dalmiya that brough a step change in Cricket, The Packer series came and went by. Cricket was there is Eng, Aus. It might have had effect there. But to call it globalization is similar to how ICC had International in it name but the decisions were confined to veto of Eng and Australia.

It was after the efforts of Mr Dalmia various other teams came up. Cricket explored at many other places like Singapore, Morocco and so on. Many new nations joined after that not after Kerry Packer.

In the end I will not say that Kerry Packer had some effect, but it simply cannot be compared to Mr Dalmia's effort. It is rather people have to get out of the limited sphere and look beyond and then they can understand

[weldone]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Cricket in India and Pakistan was still the No. 1 sport.

Don't know about Pakistan, but in India cricket was clearly the no. 2 sport before 1983 World Cup, behind hockey.

[Debris]

Originally Posted by weldone

Don't know about Pakistan, but in India cricket was clearly the no. 2 sport before 1983 World Cup, behind hockey.

Hockey being the number one sport is just sad. Stupid sport discriminates against left-handers.

[jashan83]

Originally Posted by weldone

Don't know about Pakistan, but in India cricket was clearly the no. 2 sport before 1983 World Cup, behind hockey.

Yes but why cricket becoming no 1 there are the following reasons
1. India won the Cricket WC in 83.
2. India just during that time, 81 Asian games got colour TV (But the state doordarshan was the only channel)
3. Then India had the Cricket World Cup 87 on the country

Kerry Packer, cable TV etc were not even present in India. It was wen cable TV was introduced then Mr Dalmia came with his actions

[jashan83]

Originally Posted by Debris

Hockey being the number one sport is just sad. Stupid sport discriminates against left-handers.

I totally agree with you on that aspect. Due to this fact looses 4% of the world population who has 3 times more chance of being in a sports team than right handlers. In short 12% good sportsmen

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by weldone

Don't know about Pakistan, but in India cricket was clearly the no. 2 sport before 1983 World Cup, behind hockey.

no. that is not true. india regularly won olympic golds in hocky way back before partition and less frequently afterwards until 1980 moscow games. but that doesnt change the fact that cricket was the public's preferred sport in india right from days of the british raj . no hockey star was as popular as ck nayudu, vinoo mankad or sunil gavaskar in their respective eras - and all of them peaked in popularity well before 1983. gupte, chandra, vishy, merchant and umrigar performed so many times - in 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s - in front of full houses - not just in tests but in ranji and duleep trophy games as well. cricket club membership used to be the biggest symbol of one's status in the metros. hockey was probably respected and the govt named it as the national sport to honor the hockey team's ability to win at the international level; but it was not as popular as cricket anywhere in india

post 1983, the gap between the games widened, yes. but hockey was never ahead of cricket in terms of popularity even before that. talk to old timers in bombay and madras; they will tell you stories about roberts bowling to vishy and about benaud and hall and harvey and weekes. very rarely you will hear from them about moments from india's hockey games, if at all.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by bagapath

no. that is not true. india regularly won olympic golds in hocky way back before partition and less frequently afterwards until 1980 moscow games. but that doesnt change the fact that cricket was the public's preferred sport in india right from days of the british raj . no hockey star was as popular as ck nayudu, vinoo mankad or sunil gavaskar in their respective eras - and all of them peaked in popularity well before 1983. gupte, chandra, vishy, merchant and umrigar performed so many times - in 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s - in front of full houses - not just in tests but in ranji and duleep trophy games as well. cricket club membership used to be the biggest symbol of one's status in the metros. hockey was probably respected and the govt named it as the national sport to honor the hockey team's ability to win at the international level; but it was not as popular as cricket anywhere in india

post 1983, the gap between the games widened, yes. but hockey was never ahead of cricket in terms of popularity even before that. talk to old timers in bombay and madras; they will tell you stories about roberts bowling to vishy and about benaud and hall and harvey and weekes. very rarely you will hear from them about moments from india's hockey games, if at all.

I think even in Pakistan cricket used to be quite popular (at least neck and neck with hockey if not more). Then came Imran Khan's era and for the 80s, as Kamran Abbasi (a columnist at cricinfo), he was the king of Pakistan. There was no turning back. He gave cricket in Pakistan a lot of glamor and cricket hasn't looked back since.

[kunalnanda]

Originally Posted by Deja moo

I'd say Packer was a shrewd businessman who had moolah, used it to make some more for himself, and left the scene.

Dalmiya played within the rules, made some serious money for the ICC, not himself, globalised and tremendously increased the world profile of cricket. IMO the single biggest benefit has been that developing cricket nations actually recieve grants from the ICC to develop the game there.

Yes rightly put. Packer used cricket for himself. Dalmiya promoted cricket for everyone else. And that is the real difference between the two. Though, both have had lasting impacts on the sport.