• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Natwest Challenge

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
It was dying a death with little money.

Packer revolutionised it.
Swervy said:
the game was dying ....crowds were down and players werent being treated right.

It made the mainstream cricketing authorities take notice, ie gave them a kick up the ****.
If you think this hasn't happened before or since then you're both seriously delusional.
The game has always survived, it didn't need WSC to keep it going.
It wouldnt have destroyed the game, the game is much bigger than that.

And the standard of play was much higher than the lashings thing,,,,,by a long long way
I don't think the players are any better than Lashings' players, but presumably they took it a bit more seriously.
Anyway, I said the status, not the standard of play, was comparable to a Lashings match - lots of high-calibre players, but playing under the aegis of one mhogle, not the real stuff.
If you ask me had it not been such a dismal failure from an Australian POV, and had it continued for much longer, it would have destroyed real cricket. We already know what damage it did to real cricket in the late 70s, emphasised most by the 1979\80 Ashes.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
If you think this hasn't happened before or since then you're both seriously delusional.
The game has always survived, it didn't need WSC to keep it going.

I don't think the players are any better than Lashings' players, but presumably they took it a bit more seriously.
Anyway, I said the status, not the standard of play, was comparable to a Lashings match - lots of high-calibre players, but playing under the aegis of one mhogle, not the real stuff.
If you ask me had it not been such a dismal failure from an Australian POV, and had it continued for much longer, it would have destroyed real cricket. We already know what damage it did to real cricket in the late 70s, emphasised most by the 1979\80 Ashes.
the standard of play was higher than most test cricket being played at the time...and the players took it deadly serious, the cricket played was hard.

it wasnt a failure either....sure the crowd were low, but they were in tests as well..however Packer got what he wanted (the TV rights), the players got what they want(better treatment..better pay),and the population at large got what they wanted as well (a game which took into account what the 'customer' wanted,and also players who could now afford to play on tours etc, as opposed to opting out etc)

as Hot Chocolate once said: Every 1's A winner babe, thats the truth....(I wont say anything about the making love bit of the song :D )
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
If you think this hasn't happened before or since then you're both seriously delusional.

Oh yes because no crowds and no money in the game really spells a healthy successful long term game doesn't it?
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Craig said:
Tell me is there anything about America that isn't evil and how is it evil? Or is it because he has made so much money that none of us on here would even see in 39 lifetimes?
1) Murdoch's an Australian
2) He owns most of the media in the UK
3) The Sun
4) People believe the Sun
5) Yes, of course there are non-evil Americans 8-)
 

Craig

World Traveller
Actually Murdoch is actually an American citizen IIRC despite being born in Australia. By your logic, Patrick Vieira, Marcel Desailly, Claude Makelele, Djirbil Cisse are not French?
 

Craig

World Traveller
Richard said:
As to WSC's influence on Lillee's career, I have no idea.
Lillee was around 30 then, and facing heafty medical bills for his knees, back etc. and given that he described the money they were on as "Fish and Chip money", the temptation would have been to call quits on his career despite that he had several more years left in him, to go and get a regular job to pay his bills and support his family.

So you can see why he couldn't sign up quick enough.
 

Andre

International Regular
Erm, it's called dual nationality. Murdoch is Australia, his children are Australian, by he also holds on American passport through residency.

Like a lot of people around the world, funnily enough.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Oh yes because no crowds and no money in the game really spells a healthy successful long term game doesn't it?
Same way it did on the several other occasions that crowds fell?
The relevant Cricket Boards have always managed to come-up with some sort of solution (for example, the current problem in the subcontinent is very obvious to everyone, has been for years, and I applaud The BCCI fully for attempting to deal with it in the way they appear to be doing).
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Without the volume of ODI Cricket, Test Cricket would be long dead.

ODI Cricket became public friendly because of Packer, so more people went to watch, thus saving the game.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
the standard of play was higher than most test cricket being played at the time...and the players took it deadly serious, the cricket played was hard.
Oh, yes, I know, I said, I don't doubt that, my point was it had no status, just because some mhogle decided to lay it on it doesn't mean it deserves any official recognition, and fortunately once the obstinate fools who believe it should be recognised as not just First-Class but Test cricket just because of the standard of play are no longer preaching their treachery it'll be forgotten as a gimmick like many others.
it wasnt a failure either....sure the crowd were low, but they were in tests as well..however Packer got what he wanted (the TV rights), the players got what they want(better treatment..better pay),and the population at large got what they wanted as well (a game which took into account what the 'customer' wanted,and also players who could now afford to play on tours etc, as opposed to opting out etc)
I know, I said that too - everything worked-out fine in the end, Cricket Boards, players, public and TV-company owner all got a good deal.
But it could so easily have been different, and equally I fully believe it would have happened anyway.
as Hot Chocolate once said: Every 1's A winner babe, thats the truth....(I wont say anything about the making love bit of the song :D )
As to that... :p :p :p :p :p :p
Rubbish song anyway. :huh:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Craig said:
Lillee was around 30 then, and facing heafty medical bills for his knees, back etc. and given that he described the money they were on as "Fish and Chip money", the temptation would have been to call quits on his career despite that he had several more years left in him, to go and get a regular job to pay his bills and support his family.

So you can see why he couldn't sign up quick enough.
Yeah, I can understand that.
But I didn't know half that stuff until you told me.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Without the volume of ODI Cricket, Test Cricket would be long dead.
Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of that - but we currently have far more ODIs than we need, plenty of IMO wholly pointless tournaments (this Videocon Cup being an example). Test-cricket is as a result compromised. New Zealand, South Africa and Australia generally strike a good balance.
ODI Cricket became public friendly because of Packer, so more people went to watch, thus saving the game.
And IMO that would have happened anyway.
Which countries don't have any problems with Test attendances? Funnily enough, the only three countries where ODIs are merely on an even keel with Tests are the three who were principally involved with Packer.
The subcontinental ODI insatiable desire is traced, by almost everyone, back to 1983, 1992 and 1996 - when the respective teams won the World Cups.
In South Africa, I've no idea where it comes from.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of that - but we currently have far more ODIs than we need, plenty of IMO wholly pointless tournaments (this Videocon Cup being an example). Test-cricket is as a result compromised. New Zealand, South Africa and Australia generally strike a good balance.
got to agree on this...these tournaments are a joke (This Natwest Challenge thing just isnt needed in my opinion.nor this Holland thing either..they are the ODI equivalent of a touring team playing vs some WA Country XI for warm up for the test series..th eresults dont mean anything and so I have to question why they are considered full blown ODI's) I would much prefer to see each country warming up vs the county teams.

maybe I am just being a bit stuck in the mud though :D
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Swervy said:
got to agree on this...these tournaments are a joke (This Natwest Challenge thing just isnt needed in my opinion.nor this Holland thing either..they are the ODI equivalent of a touring team playing vs some WA Country XI for warm up for the test series..th eresults dont mean anything and so I have to question why they are considered full blown ODI's) I would much prefer to see each country warming up vs the county teams.
These tournaments help earn money and quick cash is never unwelcome by any one. Who cares if poor cricket is played in these tournaments.

A ground in Holland will still be full to watch and Indo-Pak game.

People who like meaningless limited overs matches are not true cricket fans IMO.
 
Last edited:

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
marc71178 said:
But then again, outside of the WC and CT, what ODI's do?
Which is why I am not a fan of one dayers. Cricket means test cricket. No matter how much Dean Jones says that one day cricket is the tougher game.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
The Indians should field more new players in such events, and think of the 2007 World Cup. There's no way they will win a World Cup playing this team, in this mode. They should try new players and new strategies. There's nothing to lose- this is not a World Cup!
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
^for once, I agree. With inconsequential matches such as these, they should tinker around with the team a bit.
 

Top