a. dragged a supposedly gentleman's sport kicking and screaming into the the era of professionalism by ensuring players, for the first time, could play cricket full-time without having to rely on a job for additional support;
Incorrect over exgaggeration.
Pre-packer, cricket was not an amatuer sport. There wasn't the astronomical weath associated with the Tendulkars or McGraths of the world but cricket earned a player the lifestyle of an upper-middle class worker.
Cricketers in general havn't had to rely on secondary jobs since the mid/late 50s.
b. popularised the most lucrative form of cricket, ODI's;
Again, it is an exgaggeration.
ODI cricket immediately met with popularity follwing the women's world cup ( which preceeded the men's surprisingly) and the introduction of 60 overs games in the English country circuit.
Neither the number of matches played, nor the average attendance rates were affected much post Packer era, when compared with pre-Packer era.
'
c. introduced the most lucrative form of ODIs, day-night cricket, by paying for the installation of lights at the SCG;
in my opinion, this is Packer's crowning glory and deserves the kudos for it all.
d. introduced the concept of commercialising the sale of television rights to the game (which, after all, is the foundation of both the ICC's and BCCI's wealth today);
Incorrect over-exgaggeration. ECB ( or MCC) had sold BBC the telivision rights for the Ashes in 1961. So clearly, it was not a case of introducing the concept. What Packer did was make a relatively lucrative contract with the telivision - but that is understandable, given the star-studded field he attracted.
e. provided a stage on which the greats of SA cricket could play for the first time since sporting sanctions were introduced against that country's reprehensible regime (this for a time promoted the separation of politics and sport); and
While that is accurate, it is worth noting that RSA wern't completely blackballed pre-packer era. Their players were allowed to play county cricket. So while he did provide them a world-stage, he wasn't the first to present an option of playing outside RSA to the RSA players.
f. via his network, implemented the majority of television coverage innovations that we take for granted today (views from both ends, stump microphones, coloured clothing, etc).
Again, his effects largely were temporary.
Stump mics didn't catch on till Dalmiya pressured the ICC to use it for the first time in official matches in the late 80s/early 90s.
Same goes with commentary.
Dalmiya "might" have been the most influential figure in world cricket lately but to say that he has been more influential than Packer in the development of the game is utter, utter nonsense.
Dalmiya "supposedly" influenced the location of a couple of tournaments.
Packer took control of the game away from the traditional rulers, changed it for the better, and only agreed to hand control back once they had agreed to the demands of a new era.
This is factual nonsense.
Packer had very little
lasting effect on the game.
Most of his innovations were of 'he came, he conquered and he buzzed off' nature.
Cricket's popularity spiked during the packer series but then again, that is largely to do with the star-studded lineup. You make 4 or 5 'super teams' involving the creme de la creme and you will create a buzz allright.
Post packer, cricket's popularity was consistent with the miniscule growth or stagnation it had lived in pre-Packer.
Same goes with the traditional control of cricket- once Packer went off, control reverted back to the 'original two', ie, MCC/ECB and CA.
And like i said, same is the case with stump mics and 'one commentator from each side' concept.
Besides, its bulldust that Packer refused to give up control of cricket until ICC relented, simply because facts prove that things went back to the 'same ol, same ol' philosophy after Packer was done with.
The biggest reason for Packer cricket comming to an end was the players themselves.
The autobiography of Imran Khan, Denis Lillee etc. shed some light on that.
In essence, players lost motivation. To most, it was rather meaningless cricket akin to first class cricket as the added honour and motivation of representing your country was gone.
Near the end days of Packer cricket, many players were mixed in their responses - the money was lucrative but many would rather represent their country for lower wages than engage in a 'high quality' county championship.
Packer set the wheels rolling, but he had little lasting impact on cricket. Most of his innovations and developments were done away with. The fan appeal and entrepreneurial angles were largely unaffected when compared with pre-Packer era.
That is the key area where Dalmiya trumps Packer.
He has made a lasting difference to cricket. It wasn't some spike in popularity and a new fad that fell outta fashion( or blackballed) like Packer cricket was.
His contribution to the entrepreneurial angle of cricket has been huge- cricket was in serious jeopardy when Dalmiya started poking his nose into it. He not only increased the popularity of cricket massively, he increased ICC's influence in the game as well as giving it the monetary clout to bring about the match refferees and elite umpires we see today.
He made cricket players much much richer and did a service to the game of cricket that all nations benifit from and sustain/grow in.
And the key is that he has made a lasting difference which has led to the revival of cricket.
No doubt that Packer was one of the pioneers in cricket but his contributions pale away in the face of Dalmiya's contributions.
He pretty much did everything packer did on a bigger and better scale, while having the crucial advantage of making it a lasting difference.