Dire straits for Windies cricket

[Swervy]

I wonder why.
Perhaps because it actually wasn't neccesary.

ask the players whether they thought it neccesary that they start getting paid their worth

 

[Swervy]

Almost certainly in exactly the same position.
You really think no-one else would have come-up with these ideas?

its almost like saying why should Einstein have come up with the theories of relativity or E=MC^2, coz someone was eventually going to do it anyway..he should have just sat around doing nowt.

 

[chris.hinton]

That is true yes

 

[wpdavid]

No, of course not as badly as Australia - but we lost Greig, Knott and Underwood, and that's only the ones I'm aware of. If that's not a sizable chunk of the side, what would have been?

Wow, that's interesting, a perspective I've never come across before. Almost everyone seems to insist that Packer did the game a real service. Personally I've just always said that IF he did, someone else could have done it without causing such damage in doing so.

We also lost Woolmer, to be fair. Amiss & Snow also signed up for Packer, but they weren't in the test team by then. So yes, we lost about a third of the side, although Taylor for Knott didn't weaken us too badly. The reason it didn't seem too bad was our results held up pretty well without these guys. That in turn was because players like Gower & Botham emerged just too late for Packer, and Willis was probably the best quick in world cricket once all the Packer guys had been removed. If you look at our results over the 2 years of WSC, the only series which is likely to have turned out better for us without the Packer absences was the draw in NZ. But by the time we'd wallopped Pakistan, NZ & Aus, no-one was missing the Packer guys at all. Obviously it was far worse for Aus facing the WI first XI with their reserves in 1977/78 and then going down 5-1 to us the following year.

As for the bigger picture, I can see that the increased pay for the players was crucial if the game was going to continue to attract enough of them. Beyond that, coloured clothing is purely cosmetic so I can't accept that as revolutionary and I struggle to see that it makes the game for appealing to anyone who isn't interested anyway. Day/night games fair enough, especially in Aus, where I can see how they'd attract people to the game. But over here they're generally horrible, so I'm not as enthusiastic as folks on the other side of the world.

 

[honestbharani]

I still don't see how it is SO difficult to resolve this contracts thing? Either the players have got to be big enough to give it up or the admins have got to be big enough to stand up for their players. And I cannot believe that we are being robbed of the genius of Lara for these stupid reasons.

 

[Richard]

its almost like saying why should Einstein have come up with the theories of relativity or E=MC^2, coz someone was eventually going to do it anyway..he should have just sat around doing nowt.

What harm did Einstein do when coming-up with it?
I'm not saying Packer shouldn't be credited, just that the damage he did should not be overlooked just because he provided something that someone else would have provided anyway.

 

[Richard]

ask the players whether they thought it neccesary that they start getting paid their worth

And of course, that wouldn't have happened, either, would it?
You clearly didn't watch that "Men Who Changed Football" doc on BBC2 3 years ago, either.

 

[Richard]

yes someone could have done it without the disruption etc..but no one did...why talk about IF's.

Sometimes things need a good kick up the ****

No, not at all - if you can do the good without the harm why the hell not do it?
There's no point in a kick up the ars for the sake of a kick up the ars.
Why talk about ifs? Because the Packer circus brought the game to schism. Any good that ended-up doing is lost in that as far as I'm concerned - and I'm now even more convinced than ever, having read Dave Lewis' take on the issue, that he certainly didn't save the game from extinction.

 

[Swervy]

And of course, that wouldn't have happened, either, would it?You clearly didn't watch that "Men Who Changed Football" doc on BBC2 3 years ago, either.

well if you can prove to me without a doubt that it would have happened within say 5 years of when it did, I will give you a gold star for effort and results (of course you cant, because it is completely futile trying to say If this happened etc, the fact is Packer did happen, and it happened when it did..if it hadnt happened when it did, who knows what state cricket would be in now..you dont know, I dont know..just accept the past as it happened)

 

[Swervy]

No, not at all - if you can do the good without the harm why the hell not do it?
There's no point in a kick up the ars for the sake of a kick up the ars.
Why talk about ifs? Because the Packer circus brought the game to schism. Any good that ended-up doing is lost in that as far as I'm concerned - and I'm now even more convinced than ever, having read Dave Lewis' take on the issue, that he certainly didn't save the game from extinction.

it didnt save the game from extinction, it just help bring the game more in line with what was happening in other high profile international sports ie.more power to the guys who actually play the game

What about the good it brought about. The harm was short term, the good was long term..does that not make it worth it.

 

[Richard]

well if you can prove to me without a doubt that it would have happened within say 5 years of when it did, I will give you a gold star for effort and results (of course you cant, because it is completely futile trying to say If this happened etc, the fact is Packer did happen, and it happened when it did..if it hadnt happened when it did, who knows what state cricket would be in now..you dont know, I dont know..just accept the past as it happened)

No, so don't credit Packer for revolutionising the game when he didn't do anything particularly extraordinary (except bring Test-cricket to the schism).

 

[Richard]

it didnt save the game from extinction, it just help bring the game more in line with what was happening in other high profile international sports ie.more power to the guys who actually play the game

What about the good it brought about. The harm was short term, the good was long term..does that not make it worth it.

Short-term, long-term - the damage was done.
And as I say, beyond all question the long-term good would have happened anyway - without the short-term damage.

 

[Swervy]

No, so don't credit Packer for revolutionising the game when he didn't do anything particularly extraordinary (except bring Test-cricket to the schism).

go read about it Richard, the whole time was one of the most extraordinary times for the game

 

[Swervy]

Short-term, long-term - the damage was done.
And as I say, beyond all question the long-term good would have happened anyway - without the short-term damage.

how do you know???? you got crystal balls dangling between your legs or something.

Jeeeeeezzz..

 

[chris.hinton]

West Indies Cricket needs a Huge Cash Boost

 

[garage flower]

West Indies Cricket needs a Huge Cash Boost

There's an idea. See if you can get in touch with the WICB - the idiots clearly haven't considered the obvious solution of simply getting a "Huge Cash Boost".

 

[Richard]

go read about it Richard, the whole time was one of the most extraordinary times for the game

I've read plenty and plenty about it - mostly the rubbish about "it was high standard so it should have been high status".
I've also read people who think the game would have died but for it. And looking at the history of sport I've always thought that was a totally ludicrous claim.
Yes, player-power is good to an extent but in most sports it's now gone too far.

 

[Richard]

how do you know???? you got crystal balls dangling between your legs or something.

Jeeeeeezzz..

No, I've just got the ability to do logical deduction, having looked at all sorts of sports.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

West Indies Cricket needs a Huge Cash Boost

Or rather a huge cash source? Here's an idea...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I still don't see how it is SO difficult to resolve this contracts thing? Either the players have got to be big enough to give it up or the admins have got to be big enough to stand up for their players. And I cannot believe that we are being robbed of the genius of Lara for these stupid reasons.

The players have every right not to give up their contracts. The contracts were signed before Digicel took over and the players should not be forced to give them up without financial compensation.

I must say though, it's becoming quite clear which of C&W and Digicel has West Indies cricket more at heart...