The Kerry Pecker face-lift.

[Beleg]

Sir Vivian Richards, accomplished West Indian batsman wrote in his Auto-biography, Sir Vivian concerning the Kerry Pecker issue of the late 70's,

''... I felt that cricket had a new commercial image. Cricket needed a face-lift and Kerry Paker gave it to us....'''

As we know the Kerry Pecker fiasco revolutionized Cricket cultivating new trends and leading to many riveting advancements.

But do you feel that this whole new 'face lift' had a detrimental effect on the Game of Cricket itself? The sporting visage of Cricket has been marred by all sorts of transgressions; do you feel the Kerry Packer affair started it all?

 

[mavric41]

I think without the innovations started by WSC that international cricket would not attract the crowds and interest it does today. The marketing and gimmicks were essential to attract new fans to the game. Without them, the money would have dried up and test cricket died an unatural death.

 

[Swervy]

i agree....the game needed a kick up the ****, players needed to be paid more and looked after by the respective boards.

 

[Richard]

Whatever the goods (and there were undoubtedly some), Packer's actions were a disgrace and should be condemned every bit as much as those by the like of Cronje and Azharrudin.
I suppose he never claimed to have cricket's best interests at heart, but still.

 

[Swervy]

a disgrace? please elaborate

 

[Neil Pickup]

To quote Packer - "Cricket was the easiest sport in the world to take over - no one bothered to pay the players what they were worth."

Was a neccessity and cricket has benefited from it - of course it would have been nice if we could have done it without some Aussie doing it for us, but not with Lord Stuffy Pluminthemouth et al. in charge.

 

[PY]

neccessity

Grammar Police 8D

:P

 

[marc71178]

Whatever the goods (and there were undoubtedly some), Packer's actions were a disgrace and should be condemned every bit as much as those by the like of Cronje and Azharrudin.

You what?

Cronje and Azharuddin brought extreme shame onto the game of cricket.

Packer brought fame to it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Grammar Police 8D

:P

D'oh!

 

[Rik]

You what?

Cronje and Azharuddin brought extreme shame onto the game of cricket.

Packer brought fame to it.

Packer basically did what Roman Abramovich is doing at Chelsea, using his money to group the strongest players together so he could watch them do battle. Packer deprived most of the stronger teams in the 80s of their top players, weakened International Cricket and turned it into the money hungry corperate mess it is now. If Packer had not come along, players might actually have breaks from time to time rather than trapsing all over the globe for about 10 months a year to yet another meaningless ODI series set up by some Japanese computer firm with no idea how to spell Cricket let alone what it entails.

 

[Swervy]

but players wages in cricket would have meant many of the international players would have to have worked when no cricket was being played, indeed the situation was before the Packer affair that top players dropped out of tours because of work commitments.

Packer did not deprive teams of their top players, various cricket boards decided to ban Packer players, in fact the West Indies still chose Packer players after the all of it came out into the open.

It was at this time when cricket realised that the game was entertainment for its followers, all that glitz and glamour (Americanisation) has attracted alot of people to the game, probably inspired thousands to take up the game, which in turn has helped with the supply of top class players through out the world.

The endless touring is nothing to do with Packer. The game needs income, these players are now paid good money to play the game they love. It is up to each individual board to be sensible on scheduling and indeed team selection to ensure burn out does not take place. To blame the overcrowded schedule on events over a quarter of century ago doesnt seem right to me.

 

[Rik]

Packer did not deprive teams of their top players, various cricket boards decided to ban Packer players, in fact the West Indies still chose Packer players after the all of it came out into the open.

I'm afraid what you've just said contradicts it's self. Packer did deprive countries of their top players, since they were wooed away by the money and didn't play for their countries, then when Packer had finished with them, they were not picked by their countries because they had chosed Packer and their boards felt they had betrayed them.

As for the globalisation of cricket, yet Packer did start that, because of the increased wages he offered to the players surpassed anything they had recieved before and they demanded them on their return to International cricket. And since there wasn't enough money they had to find sponsers...who demanded greater exposia and more cricket so they could advertise more...

But I don't think many people will disagree with me, like you have, when I say there is far too much International cricket played that the moment, yes Cricketers are paid a lot of money, but is there really the need to be on the road 10 months a year with barely a break? This is a physical sport and most players are burnt out after just a few years, all in the name of advertising. Honestly it's like when McDonalds said their aim was to have a resturant a maximum of 4 miles away from anyone in America and England...some people don't like McDonalds, and some people like cricket but would rather it had some point to it rather than yet another of the phantom triangular series against the same oppenents they played last week...

 

[Swervy]

i havent disagreed with you on the fact that there is too much international cricket being played.

Which countries didnt pick WSC players after Packer got his TV rights? I know England, Australia and WI picked those players straight away...as did Pakistan (imran Khan)

These players were actually available to play for their countries but the ICC and the boards decided to make a stand (cut off their noses to spite their faces?) and not allow these players to play in 'officially' sanctioned games.Packer never said that they couldnt play for their countries.

The players who played WSC never regretted it,the players who have benefitted from better pay will be glad it happened, the spectators are certainly happy with the show,and I dare say the increased revenue due to increased awareness of the game pleases the boards as well......so really what is there bad to say about the Packer 'circus'?

 

[Rik]

i havent disagreed with you on the fact that there is too much international cricket being played.

Which countries didnt pick WSC players after Packer got his TV rights? I know England, Australia and WI picked those players straight away...as did Pakistan (imran Khan)

These players were actually available to play for their countries but the ICC and the boards decided to make a stand (cut off their noses to spite their faces?) and not allow these players to play in 'officially' sanctioned games.Packer never said that they couldnt play for their countries.

The players who played WSC never regretted it,the players who have benefitted from better pay will be glad it happened, the spectators are certainly happy with the show,and I dare say the increased revenue due to increased awareness of the game pleases the boards as well......so really what is there bad to say about the Packer 'circus'?

Fair enough they are your views, but what I feel there is bad to say about Packer I've already said and that's what I believe.

Draw

 

[marc71178]

Personally I would question what International Cricket would be like (if indeed it existed) without Packer's influence.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Grammar Police 8D

:P

Tut tut, Neil. :P

 

[age_master]

Personally I would question what International Cricket would be like (if indeed it existed) without Packer's influence.

i agree, i really dont think cricket would be anywhere near the level it is today without Packers money

 

[marc71178]

i agree, i really dont think cricket would be anywhere near the level it is today without Packers money

Actually, that may mean someone other than Australia was number 1 then.

Maybe it wouldn't be all bad?!

 

[Richard]

Which countries didnt pick WSC players after Packer got his TV rights? I know England, Australia and WI picked those players straight away...as did Pakistan (imran Khan)

These players were actually available to play for their countries but the ICC and the boards decided to make a stand (cut off their noses to spite their faces?) and not allow these players to play in 'officially' sanctioned games.Packer never said that they couldnt play for their countries.

These two paragraphs certainly contradict each other.
Very strange.
If you look back into the recordings of these matters, it is clear that the World Series deprived Australian international cricket, at least, of the simple possibility of the players playing - because they were playing WS instead.
Some countries took the stand, quite rightly in my view, of not allowing some players to play real international cricket. West Indies caved-in and didn't - the problems very similar to the problems with the rebel tours to South Africa in the 80s (though of course it was a Board thing the former, a players thing the latter).
Like I say, there were benefits to the game brought about by the schism (coloured clothing and day\night games, extra payment) but there were also drawbacks (the problems with commercialisation and overcrowded fixture-lists - not that these haven't been exacerbated by individual Boards). However, the basic fact of the matter is that Kerry Packer took the players away by offering them more money than, in most cases, could be afforded.
I've never been a fan of those who can undercutting those who can't. It strikes me as rather unfair.
Still, no blame can be attached to some of the players - Underwood and Knott, for instance, it was simply understandible security at the end of their careers, and their past nature counts for something, too.
The like of Tony Greig and most of the players in their prime, however, should IMO be ashamed of themselves - whether they were or not.

 

[Swervy]

There was no contractual obligation by the WSC that stated that the players had no right to only play in the WSC.

Why on earth should someone like Tony Greig (who in actual fact was coming towards the end of his career),Viv Richards,Imran Khan etc be ashamed to be a part of something which has seen a number of improvements for both players and spectators. What the Packer affair showed was that the boards and the ICC couldnt just do what they wanted to do, ie. line their pockets whilst giving players, umpires etc virtually nothing. It made it so that it was the player who was more important than the authorities...quite rightly.

Increased sponsorship is a way of life now, cant get away from it. Cricket would needed to have gone this way, whether Packer and his nasty horrible players had have done what they did or not. The game simply wouldnt have survived. A number of top class players would have turned turned their backs on the game due to financial pressures.

Some times someone needs to do something drastic to make people see whats going on. Packer,Greig, Benaud,'Strop' Cornell etc changed the face of the game forever, to the benefit of everyone, except you.(it would appear)