Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51

Thread: Kerry Packer all over again

  1. #31
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  2. #32
    International Coach archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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
    You know it makes sense.

  3. #33
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    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.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  4. #34
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    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.


  5. #35
    International Coach archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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

  6. #36
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,799
    Just how is this going to ruin test cricket?

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

  7. #37
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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
    Last edited by social; 04-08-2007 at 03:34 AM.

  8. #38
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    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?

  10. #40
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post

    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?

  11. #41
    International Coach archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.

    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.

    Chappell retired long before WSC was even conceived, indeed.

    It didn't speed it up, though, it made it happen completely differently to how it might have had it been done more gradually.
    Have you read the cricket war? I heard Haigh interviewed on the radio the other night, and he seemed quite happy with the whole Packer thing.

    Chappell retired because lack of money as did Redpath, Mallett, Edwards etc etc etc

    Mate they were moving so slowly it would have taken who knows how long, and who knows how many other great Aussie players would have been forced to retire before they were ready, simply because of money

  12. #42
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    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?
    Lights have been used in England for at least 13 years, the main reason they've never before now been used at Lord's is because local residents haven't allowed it.

    Day\night cricket has never been essential in international cricket in England. It's useful in domestic games, yes, and I've said so since I first saw the stuff in 1999.

    Domestic cricket is not "dead and buried" either, any more than it ever has been. Domestic cricket is not a spectator sport for the most part, and day\night games in themselves will only make a small difference.

    You're completely wrong about several issues at stake here, frankly, and are just interpreting bits of the truth to mean what you'd like it to mean.

  13. #43
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    Have you read the cricket war? I heard Haigh interviewed on the radio the other night, and he seemed quite happy with the whole Packer thing.

    Chappell retired because lack of money as did Redpath, Mallett, Edwards etc etc etc

    Mate they were moving so slowly it would have taken who knows how long, and who knows how many other great Aussie players would have been forced to retire before they were ready, simply because of money
    We don't know how long it would've taken - it could've been a year, it could have been a decade.

    We do know, however, that had CA (or the ACB as it was then) accepted Packer's initial offer to televise cricket on Nine, there would have been no breakaway. What could have been done about wages then? What about if ACB people realised that Australia's prospects were being damaged because players were retiring prematurely?

    As for Ross Edwards - his retirement hardly hurt Australia.

  14. #44
    International Coach archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post

    As for Ross Edwards - his retirement hardly hurt Australia.
    surprised you have heard of him, was a stylish batsman, and one of my favourites when I was young lad

  15. #45
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Lights have been used in England for at least 13 years, the main reason they've never before now been used at Lord's is because local residents haven't allowed it.

    Day\night cricket has never been essential in international cricket in England. It's useful in domestic games, yes, and I've said so since I first saw the stuff in 1999.

    Domestic cricket is not "dead and buried" either, any more than it ever has been. Domestic cricket is not a spectator sport for the most part, and day\night games in themselves will only make a small difference.

    You're completely wrong about several issues at stake here, frankly, and are just interpreting bits of the truth to mean what you'd like it to mean.
    Sorry Richard but county cricket has been a financial black hole for eons and hasnt even served its' primary purpose of producing capable players for almost as long e.g KP is the only world-class English batsmen in decades (and he's a saffie) whilst Flintoff learnt the game by playing test cricket

    Unfortunately, your attitude is consistent with the establishment, "always been done that way, so we wont change".

    As for lights, Lords finally (after 30 years) worked out how to afford the compensation - turn 'em on

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Packer looking to sell Channel 9
    By Matt79 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 22-10-2006, 06:14 AM
  2. Kerry Packer
    By Blaze in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 30-12-2005, 04:56 AM
  3. The Kerry Pecker face-lift.
    By Beleg in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 21-02-2004, 12:13 PM
  4. Tribute to Kerry O'Keefe
    By Slats4ever in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 13-11-2003, 07:32 AM
  5. packer vs non packer style
    By virajqw in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-11-2003, 01:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •