Kerry Packer all over again

[silentstriker]

Just having 3 or 4 teams, too, lose calibre would undermine the credibility of international cricket, too. TV deals would collapse en-masse; sponsors would drift away within years if that; basically, the game everywhere would be a shambles.

And they'd be forced to do something, oh I don't know, useful for cricketers to try to lure them back and actually invest in the game than in their own beaurocracy...

 

[silentstriker]

Sachin Tendulkar is likely close to retirement..would be quite awesome if he joined. That would pull massive stuff away from India. Kumble has always been unsung, and same for him being close to retirement. If one or two of them left, it would be such a massive boost to ICL (not that they actually will, mind you).

Someone like Dhoni would be ideal (I don't rate him but the crows like him), but he loses out on too much by leaving.

 

[Richard]

And they'd be forced to do something, oh I don't know, useful for cricketers to try to lure them back and actually invest in the game than in their own beaurocracy...

Believe it or not, they already do - hugely.

Even The ACB's non-doing-so in Packer's day is hugely exaggerated. People get too righteous about men in suits in cricket admin and putting them down. They're not all bad - in fact, the good eggs are far more common than the bad ones.

 

[silentstriker]

Believe it or not, they already do - hugely.

Talking about the BCCI.

 

[Richard]

FFS, this is going around in circles. The BCCI are increasingly looking like they're not the only ones who are going to be affected by this. Some boards have no power to lure players back from the ICL, Zee can offer more money than they can afford.

It is this that's in danger of ruining real, proper international cricket. I don't give a flying, as I've said many times, about some monkey-business meaningless nonsense organised by a TV-company, I care about real, proper Test and ODI cricket, organised by (even if a few on the face may make it appear otherwise) people who mostly have a feel for and care hugely about maintaining the integrity and tradition of a century and more.

 

[chaminda_00]

Can some ask ICL to sign Prassana Jayawardene? I'll be willing to help out with a bit of extra cash.

 

[Richard]

Some promising reserve wicketkeepers in SL are there?

Or are you just a fan of Sangakkara having the gloves?

 

[chaminda_00]

Some promising reserve wicketkeepers in SL are there?

Or are you just a fan of Sangakkara having the gloves?

I think my avatar answers that one...

 

[Richard]

Don't even know who that is your avatar, TBH, mate.

(It's not Prasanna is it? )

 

[chaminda_00]

Kashul Silva, Sri Lanka A and SSC keeper batsmen. Averages 10 > then Prassana with the bat in FC

 

[silentstriker]

FFS, this is going around in circles. The BCCI are increasingly looking like they're not the only ones who are going to be affected by this. Some boards have no power to lure players back from the ICL, Zee can offer more money than they can afford.

True, its sad that players from boards who actually care about cricket are being lured, but it's not exactly an exodus, nor will it ever be one.

It is this that's in danger of ruining real, proper international cricket. I don't give a flying, as I've said many times, about some monkey-business meaningless nonsense organised by a TV-company,

As opposed to monkey business organized by money hungry ICC/boards?

I care about real, proper Test and ODI cricket, organised by (even if a few on the face may make it appear otherwise) people who mostly have a feel for and care hugely about maintaining the integrity and tradition of a century and more.

If you think the ICC or the BCCI care at all (let alone hugely) about maintaining tradition and integrity of a century and more...I've got some nice beach front property in Denver I'd like to sell to you.

 

[archie mac]

Don't agree. Packer wasn't "needed" either, and while some good may come of it if the same thing happens all over again the negatives - as last time - will most likely outweigh the positives.

I think you may be the only one left who still thinks Packer was not good for cricket in the long run. Even Henry Blofeld who wrote a book on the subject now thinks it was a good thing fo the game.

What were the negatives?

It stopped players in Aust anyway from retiring at 30 or even younger because they could not afford to keep playing the game

People say Packer did not do it for the cricketers but only to make money, I say who cares why he did it. In the end it was good for cricket

 

[Richard]

True, its sad that players from boards who actually care about cricket are being lured, but it's not exactly an exodus, nor will it ever be one.

As I say, it doesn't need to be to cause serious damage to the game.

As opposed to monkey business organized by money hungry ICC/boards?

Many people at I$C$C and most national boards are not solely concerned with such things, though.

If you think the ICC or the BCCI care at all (let alone hugely) about maintaining tradition and integrity of a century and more...I've got some nice beach front property in Denver I'd like to sell to you.

As I've said above, not everyone at said organisations is beyond care about the important matters.

I$C$C, meanwhile, are categorically not all hopeless, nor have even those at the head been. There are plenty of lower-down executives who do fine jobs.

 

[Richard]

I think you may be the only one left who still thinks Packer was not good for cricket in the long run. Even Henry Blofeld who wrote a book on the subject now thinks it was a good thing fo the game.

No, there are a great many who, while they acknowledge that good came of it, realise that if it had not happened cricket would have been better off.

What were the negatives?

It stopped players in Aust anyway from retiring at 30 or even younger because they could not afford to keep playing the game

It ruined Test-cricket for over 2 years - 2 years that could have been some of the best in history. Instead, those who should have been playing were plying their trade in some meaningless game which had no purpose other than to fill air-time.

What's more, it was the thing which really kicked-off the money-hungry ways alluded to by Gideon Haigh in his excellent piece: "introducing money into a sporting ecosystem cannot help but strain the bond between spectator and spectacle". Had that evolved more gradually, maybe (though only maybe) the relationship between money and the sporting ecosystem might have been better formed than it's turned-out. Cricket being an entirely-professional entity is both inevitable and quite right. But, as today's problems with over-obsession with finance demonstrate, there are many potential pitfalls with that. WSC IMO contributed largely to the formation of these problems.

People say Packer did not do it for the cricketers but only to make money, I say who cares why he did it. In the end it was good for cricket

I say people need to realise the truths of the matter. Many people speak as if Packer was trying to revolutionise the game and had it's best interests at heart, both of which are complete rubbish.

 

[archie mac]

No, there are a great many who, while they acknowledge that good came of it, realise that if it had not happened cricket would have been better off..

Name some of them please?

It ruined Test-cricket for over 2 years - 2 years that could have been some of the best in history. Instead, those who should have been playing were plying their trade in some meaningless game which had no purpose other than to fill air-time..

Not meaningless, some of the best cricket ever played, all of the players involved agree on that point

They were playing because the ICC would not pay them enough money, some like Ian Chappell would have retired but for WSC

What's more, it was the thing which really kicked-off the money-hungry ways alluded to by Gideon Haigh in his excellent piece: "introducing money into a sporting ecosystem cannot help but strain the bond between spectator and spectacle". Had that evolved more gradually, maybe (though only maybe) the relationship between money and the sporting ecosystem might have been better formed than it's turned-out. Cricket being an entirely-professional entity is both inevitable and quite right. But, as today's problems with over-obsession with finance demonstrate, there are many potential pitfalls with that. WSC IMO contributed largely to the formation of these problems.

Imo it made no difference at all except maybe speeded it up, it would have happened anyway. Besides if it was not for Packer sooner or later someone else would have done the business

 

[social]

Just how is this going to ruin test cricket?

Not one current player from any test playing nation has signed.

 

[social]

No, there are a great many who, while they acknowledge that good came of it, realise that if it had not happened cricket would have been better off.

It ruined Test-cricket for over 2 years - 2 years that could have been some of the best in history. Instead, those who should have been playing were plying their trade in some meaningless game which had no purpose other than to fill air-time.

What's more, it was the thing which really kicked-off the money-hungry ways alluded to by Gideon Haigh in his excellent piece: "introducing money into a sporting ecosystem cannot help but strain the bond between spectator and spectacle". Had that evolved more gradually, maybe (though only maybe) the relationship between money and the sporting ecosystem might have been better formed than it's turned-out. Cricket being an entirely-professional entity is both inevitable and quite right. But, as today's problems with over-obsession with finance demonstrate, there are many potential pitfalls with that. WSC IMO contributed largely to the formation of these problems.

I say people need to realise the truths of the matter. Many people speak as if Packer was trying to revolutionise the game and had it's best interests at heart, both of which are complete rubbish.

Geez, what a revisionist version of history.

Packer, or someone else if not him, was FORCED onto the game because guys like Bradman refused to believe that the game had moved on from the 40s. They simply refused to accept that by paying players $1800 for a five-month tour of England (as happened in '75) that players were being forced into early retirement and those that stayed were in near poverty

Get your head out of the sand, Richard. Whatever his motives, Packer was good for the game and unquestionably good for the players

BTW, had a massive laugh the other day when it was announced that Lords was introducing lights - Oooooh what a friggin' brilliant innovation

 

[Richard]

Name some of them please?

Gideon Haigh and Victor Marks for two. Would have to re-read some other stuff to find some more, though, and that'd involve digging through my loft that I really don't have the time to do.

Not meaningless, some of the best cricket ever played, all of the players involved agree on that point

I don't care whether the players think it was some of the best cricket ever, the fact is there was nothing at stake except Kerry Packer's teams. None of which had any tradition the way long-standing competitions (be it Tests, the Shield or the Championship) had. The standard of play is not the issue.

They were playing because the ICC would not pay them enough money, some like Ian Chappell would have retired but for WSC

Chappell retired long before WSC was even conceived, indeed.

Imo it made no difference at all except maybe speeded it up, it would have happened anyway. Besides if it was not for Packer sooner or later someone else would have done the business

It didn't speed it up, though, it made it happen completely differently to how it might have had it been done more gradually.

 

[Richard]

Geez, what a revisionist version of history.

Packer, or someone else if not him, was FORCED onto the game because guys like Bradman refused to believe that the game had moved on from the 40s. They simply refused to accept that by paying players $1800 for a five-month tour of England (as happened in '75) that players were being forced into early retirement and those that stayed were in near poverty

No-one was forced onto the game, Packer had no interest in paying players a decent wage-packet (though like any good spin-doctor he pretended he had when he realised that was what he'd done) and cared only about cricket for his station. Had he not done this, wages would have eventually improved when the situation became untenable. Instead of revolution, then, you would have had evolution.

Get your head out of the sand, Richard. Whatever his motives, Packer was good for the game and unquestionably good for the players

Unquestionably good for the players, yes, but that doesn't automatically mean good for the game.

BTW, had a massive laugh the other day when it was announced that Lords was introducing lights - Oooooh what a friggin' brilliant innovation

WTF has that to do with anything?

 

[social]

WTF has that to do with anything?

The whole basis of your argument is based upon the "inevitability" of evolution

Unfortunately, you're too young to remember that, at the time, the MCC categorically stated that coloured clothing, lights, etc would never be seen on the grounds of England.

Why? Because they were Packer's idea.

Now the geniuses at Lords have caught on to the fact that people like day/night matches

It's only taken them 30 odd years to wake up

You call that evolution but in a sporting sense, it's a lifetime and they've been forced into it because domestic cricket is basically dean and buried

What makes you think that the traditional masters of the game would've acted any differently on wages had they been left to their own devices?