The Kerry Pecker face-lift.

[Richard]

When did I say the contracts for WSC did say the players couldn't play in proper cricket?
What I said was the schedules clashed.

 

[Richard]

And you've mentioned it several times, but I might remind you that the Imperial Cricket Conferance (as it was then) had very little influence over anything - MCC was still the large governor of the game in those days.
ICC plays virtually no part in the discussion of WSC.

 

[Swervy]

and your point being....

 

[Richard]

My point being you constantly talk about "ICC" being at fault in various ways, and that it in fact had very little influence over anything in those days. MCC was effectively still the game's govorning body.

 

[Swervy]

And you've mentioned it several times, but I might remind you that the Imperial Cricket Conferance (as it was then) had very little influence over anything - MCC was still the large governor of the game in those days.
ICC plays virtually no part in the discussion of WSC.

well as we appear to picking up on the minor details,the ICC was not the Imperial Cricket Conference in the time of Packer, its name had changed from that to 'International' in 1965...and the ICC did have a lot of powers in 1977...we are talking about 1977, not 1877.

even the courts deemed the ICC's actions unfair and various Packer players won a court case in which it was declared that the ICC (and for that matter the old TCCB) were acting in a way which was an unreasonale restraint of trade.

Just think what the game might have been like for a minute, if Packer hadnt done what he did.......do you think the game would have survived?...if so how?

 

[SquidAU]

IMO, without Packer doing his nasty thing and luring cricketers away with money, cricket would have been reduced to a sport where very few spectators go and the cricketers still getting paid a pittance for their work...

I was watching this documentry on the ABC on saturday and it had Ian Chappell talking about how much he was getting paid per test in the mid 70's and how many arguments he had with the ACB (particularly the Don himself!) about pay. Chappell said he had no hesitation going with Packer because $200 a test match with gate receipts being $200,000 for some test matches, he did not think it was fair. And I agree!

 

[Richard]

well as we appear to picking up on the minor details,the ICC was not the Imperial Cricket Conference in the time of Packer, its name had changed from that to 'International' in 1965...and the ICC did have a lot of powers in 1977...we are talking about 1977, not 1877.

even the courts deemed the ICC's actions unfair and various Packer players won a court case in which it was declared that the ICC (and for that matter the old TCCB) were acting in a way which was an unreasonale restraint of trade.

Just think what the game might have been like for a minute, if Packer hadnt done what he did.......do you think the game would have survived?...if so how?

For the last time - the actions were not the ICC's, they were those of various Cricket Boards (The TCCB amongst them). And so what if various courts wouldn't allow bans - fortunately they couldn't influence national selectors, who did what the Cricket Boards told them.
The International Cricket Conferance had sod-all power in 1977 - and The Imperial Cricket Conferance didn't even exist in 1877, it was founded 40 years later.
I have thought about the game without the Packer schism - and I've come to the conclusion that, like so many things in life, there are so many variables, it is impossible to predict with any realism what would have happened if some major event had not happened. People have said that so many times. What if Hitler had been struck by the bullet that missed his head by a whisker in WWI? No-one can even begin to guess.

 

[Swervy]

For the last time - the actions were not the ICC's, they were those of various Cricket Boards (The TCCB amongst them). And so what if various courts wouldn't allow bans - fortunately they couldn't influence national selectors, who did what the Cricket Boards told them.
The International Cricket Conferance had sod-all power in 1977 - and The Imperial Cricket Conferance didn't even exist in 1877, it was founded 40 years later.
I have thought about the game without the Packer schism - and I've come to the conclusion that, like so many things in life, there are so many variables, it is impossible to predict with any realism what would have happened if some major event had not happened. People have said that so many times. What if Hitler had been struck by the bullet that missed his head by a whisker in WWI? No-one can even begin to guess.

yes ..the ICC did have a major part to play in imposing bans on players....hence the court battles vs the ICC.

The impact of WSC was immense..the game was slowly dying a sorry death, players were dropping out of teams due to financial implications of them missing work etc.

The fact of the matter is attendences rose,players were treated better, the game became a spectator sport again (white ball, night cricket etc).

I for one was a kid who got into cricket thanks to the effects of Packer...saw a day night game in Australia on TV, thought it looked brilliant,loved all the little gimmicks that Channel 9 used, made the game exciting...i was hooked ever since, and I will guarantee I am not the only person who was influenced in that way.

To attract kids to the game (which it did) can only be a good thing (hence for me 20/20 cricket is such an important step to have taken)...more kids playing, means more kids developing into great players....who are getting paid good money to entertain the crowds of people flocking to see them play.

Yes, maybe the Packer affair also was the start of the era of cricket becoming more financially aware,possibly too financially aware(!!!), but the game needed to change with the times, or the game would have now been looked upon as very much a minority sport.

 

[Richard]

Well, if you wish to think that way, fine.
Personally, I think there are many ways to survive, and that was not one.
Nor were the methods he used right.

 

[Swervy]

Well, if you wish to think that way, fine.
Personally, I think there are many ways to survive, and that was not one.
Nor were the methods he used right.

you think that there are many ways for the game to hav survived, but that wasnt one....have a look around Richard, the games is alive and well, it obviously was a way to ensure the game survived.


It wasnt all about the survival of the game....how about paying the players their worth as well..we all deserve the right to earn a living

 

[Richard]

Yes, and so did miners and factory workers in the 19th century.
Sadly, we don't all get what we deserve.
I am perfectly well aware that the game has survived - my point is it didn't need Packer's circus to survive.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, and so did miners and factory workers in the 19th century.
Sadly, we don't all get what we deserve.
I am perfectly well aware that the game has survived - my point is it didn't need Packer's circus to survive.

how the hell do you know that the game didnt need WSC to survive, Your father had even produced the the sperm that became you when the Packer thing was happening or for that matter, several years later.
Luckily, the players do now get what they deserve and not all the money goes to line the pockets of the boards.

Just tell me o wise one...what would you have suggested could be done to revive the sport then ?

 

[Richard]

I suggest that nothing need have been done - cricket was as popular then as it ever was. Surely you're not trying to argue that the Packer circus had any impact on the subcontinet fan-base?
If you really reckon every player gets what he deserves, tell me: how do all the millionaire footballers in Italy and Spain deserve what they get? And how do the two compare?

 

[Swervy]

I suggest that nothing need have been done - cricket was as popular then as it ever was. Surely you're not trying to argue that the Packer circus had any impact on the subcontinet fan-base?
If you really reckon every player gets what he deserves, tell me: how do all the millionaire footballers in Italy and Spain deserve what they get? And how do the two compare?

If you beleive that cricket wasnt dying a death then you are sadly mistaken and even if the game wasnt dying, it needed a boot up the **** to keep up with other sports.

i dont think these multi millionaire footballers do derserve the money they are on....i am not talking about football, I am talking about cricket.

Football had its wages revolution 15/20 years earlier than cricket..and because of it the standards of the game increased, due to the fact that the best players could concentrate on the sport rather than fitting it in between work for the local bank, or being a labourer etc.

 

[Richard]

The standards of the game increased - yeah **cking right! :rolleyes:
That's why bowling and catching standards are so abominably low, is it? And inevitably these two being poor drags down the standard of batting.
Cricket was not dying a death - how many times have we heard that? The first was apparently in 1890. I'd be amazed if it hadn't been heard before that.
Always a way was found to survive, by those in the game, not by some mhogul outside.

 

[marc71178]

I am perfectly well aware that the game has survived - my point is it didn't need Packer's circus to survive.

It needed something.

Packer's innovations have made the game much more of a spectacle and entertainment.

Spectacle and entertainment = more fans through turnstiles = more money generated = game increasing chances of survival.

 

[marc71178]

That's why bowling and catching standards are so abominably low, is it?

Only if you choose to believe they are.

Yet you're the one who said that Giles and Croft aren't far off Laker...

 

[Tom Halsey]

Marc speaks the truth...

 

[Swervy]

richard,
I think you would have been well suited being a part of the cricketing authority back then...stubborn,backwards thinking,set in your ways, afraid of progress,and a 'to hell with the people who are actually playing the cricket itself, coz I know best' attitude......

Unless you are only saying these things to stimulate discussion, which would explain your flawed arguments and factual inaccuracies (Imperial Cricket Conference in 1977????!!!!!!...the ICC had nothing to do with the Packer affair etc).

 

[Langeveldt]

Bowling standards are not low Richard, its to do with some insanely dead wickets, better equipment, and maybe better batsmen...

I seriously dont think Packer had anything to do with such things as a lack of quality fingerspinners in the 21st century...


What ive heard about Packer, i think it was only good for cricket... although maybe the whole affair was a bit heavy handed, i guess it had to be....