Packer Vs. Dalmiya

[Sanz]

...a Kerry Packer is hailed as a supposedly saviour of cricket while a man who did far far more for cricket than Packer ( Dalmiya) is/was generally hated...

C_C posted above in one of the 'Hair' threads, what do you think ?

 

[C_C]

C_C posted above in one of the 'Hair' threads, what do you think ?

There is nothing to think- its about facts.
The facts are pretty conclusive as to who made a bigger impact- since its easily measured, given that their impact were in the marketing and economics section of the game. Ie, an area easily quantified with numbers. And there it is indisputable- Dalmiya's contribution was orders of magnitude greater than that of Packer financially. However, sentiment, prevailing attitude and notions often override facts for most people.

 

[social]

Seriously, what did Dalmiya actually do?

Packer took the game from the dark ages, introduced full-time professionalism and expanded its reach exponentially.

Dalmiya ????????????

It's like comparing Elvis to Milli Vanilli

 

[C_C]

Seriously, what did Dalmiya actually do?

Packer took the game from the dark ages, introduced full-time professionalism and expanded its reach exponentially.

Dalmiya ????????????

It's like comparing Elvis to Milli Vanilli

Did exactly the same but on a far bigger scale than Packer.
Packer made cricketers from being essentially unpaid pros to decent income earners. Dalmiya made them millionaire. Packer expanded its reach- so did Dalmiya. Cricket is being played in Mongolia or Timbuktu or wherever under Dalmiya's initiative.
Both are pretty identical in their roles- Dalmiya just has a lot more meat to his contributions. As i said, one took your hot dog stall in the park and turned it into a respectable restaurant while the other took your restaurant and turned it into a global chain.

 

[Poker Boy]

Sorry this is a no-brainer. For better or worse it was Packer who invented the modern game (lots of ODIs, coloured clothing, floodlights, etc). Before him most of the ODIs were in England - the rest of the world hadn't took to the format. Dalmiya? He couldn't even organise a good WC opening ceremony, and he spent his time at the head of the ICC with his head in the sand about match-fixing! To be fair he wasn't the only one but his country's police did more in the fight against match-fixing than he did.

 

[C_C]

Dalmiya? He couldn't even organise a good WC opening ceremony

In terms of fiscal gain and audience outreach growth from previous world cups, 87 reliance cup was the biggest jump forward- thanks to Dalmiya.

Look- as i said, facts are pretty conclusive about this- Dalmiya did pretty much the same stuff as Packer did- just on a much bigger scale.

 

[pasag]

You people are going to have to work for my vote.

 

[social]

You people are going to have to work for my vote.

You're kidding me

Before Packer came along, the average retirement age for a test cricketer was 30!!!!

They couldnt afford to play any longer than that because their bosses wouldnt give them time off.

There was no day--night cricket

No coloured clothing

It was a part-time sport played before miniscule television audiences with horrendous coverage

And Packer funded this revolution with his own money!

He convinced captains of their countries (Chappell, Greig, Lloyd, etc) to give up their positions to further the game (and line their own pockets) by playing on football fields in Australia

Cricket, as we know it, came to an absolute standstill.

Finally, the World Body had to beg him to take the game back but only on the proviso that they treated the players equitably, made them full time pros and gave him the tv rights

Dalmiya who?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I hate Kerry Packer with a burning passion. Don't get me wrong, he's a better guy than Rupert Murdoch, but in the same sense that Richard Nixon was a better guy than Hitler.

Still, it's obvious who had the bigger impact on the game, so I voted Packer.

 

[social]

I hate Kerry Packer with a burning passion. Don't get me wrong, he's a better guy than Rupert Murdoch, but in the same sense that Richard Nixon was a better guy than Hitler.

Still, it's obvious who had the bigger impact on the game, so I voted Packer.

Packer was a monumentally powerful media owner and took it upon himself to comment on matters far and wide - at least he was a cricket lover

 

[C_C]

Before Packer came along, the average retirement age for a test cricketer was 30!!!!

Lies.
If anything, it was far more common to see late 30s or 40 year olds in pre-Packer years than post Packer year.

It was a part-time sport played before miniscule television audiences with horrendous coverage

Same stuff Dalmiya did and expanded cricket into a much bigger global presence as well as unparalleled popularity and reach. Whether you like it or not, Dalmiya introduced the real money into cricket. Made cricketers into millionaires.
There is no logical basis-only preconceived notions due to the PR campaigns and image to conclude that Packer's contribution matches Dalmiya's. The cold hard facts just dont agree, i am sorry to say.

 

[Sanz]

Packer the revolutionary :-

 

[Sanz]

Seriously, what did Dalmiya actually do?

Packer took the game from the dark ages, introduced full-time professionalism and expanded its reach exponentially.

Dalmiya ????????????

It's like comparing Elvis to Milli Vanilli

TBH, Cricket's full time professionalism and exponential reach came after 1987 World cup which was a huge financial success.

 

[Dasa]

Even if Dalmiya invented cricket, he wouldn't get any credit from some.

 

[Turbinator]

I think Hair contributed more than both of them.

O wait this is for who did more FOR cricket not IN cricket.

 

[Jono]

Far too many sweeping statements without an ounce of evidence in this thread. Sounds like a political debate.

 

[Jono]

I think Hair contributed more than both of them.

O wait this is for who did more FOR cricket not IN cricket.

*crickets*

 

[Turbinator]

*crickets*

Hair sees a tootoo.....he gets excited!

 

[FRAZ]

Packer sure is the pioneer and introduced what we call modern cricket . But as far as practical achievements are concerned and the "Money making strategies" and proving the worth of sub-Continent cricket plus having done so many positive things recently plus yes 87 WC too , I ll go with Dalmiya having no doubts in my mind !
Packer did a great job and gave a vision , an idea but I don't think that he worked after wards that much as one could expect him to do . Dalmiya was a true champion and I guess we need a person like him for the betterment of the cricket . We have certain dummies and some insane dumbos having low understanding of marketing and the ones who make ridiculous comments in the media about petty issues , sitting in the offices of PCB and BCCI . I want him right there and actually I would like him to be the president of PCB tbvh (Don't know if it is a possibility or not ) !!!!
And I guess that there should not be a comparison of Packer and Dalmiya in the first place , both had their own chracter and role in the betterment of the modern cricket and it is just like comparing the roles of two chracters of a film , because film contains both of them and both have their own role regardless of the fact who got more shots or a better chick as a heroine !!

 

[social]

Even if Dalmiya invented cricket, he wouldn't get any credit from some.

Dalmiya's contribution to cricket whilst substantial in some areas, is sorely lacking in others.

With one other, he was responsible for securing the rights to 2 WCs for the sub-continent in the face of almost insurmountable odds. These 2 tournaments injected previously unheard of amounts into the game in that region.

He is credited with almost singlehandedly turning around the financial fortunes of both the ICC and the BCCI.

He is also credited with exponentially expanding the reach of the game into new markets.

However, the most compelling criticism of his tenure at both the ICC and the BCCI is what he did, or didnt do, with the game's new-found riches.

Take the BCCI for example. The world's richest cricketing body presides over a country where in 2006:

a. facilities are ordinary;

b. players are paid a miniscule proportion of the ruling body's revenue;

c. player development programs are substantially under-funded;

d. the Indian cricket team's playing contribution towards developing nations is pathetic; and

e. with the exception of India in ODIs, the popularity of the game is waning.

Packer's legacy is secure but it will be interesting to see in, say, 20 years, whether Dalmiya's contribution is regarded as positive or negative.