The man who revolutionised cricket

[jashan83]

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]

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.

 

[smash84]

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]

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.