The Kerry Pecker face-lift.

[Richard]

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...

No, I never said he did - covering of wickets happened before that.
Bowling standards are lower, Rich, believe me - yes, it's exaggerated by less seam-movement and turn in wickets, combined with coincidental better weather at Test-matches Worldwide in the recent past.
But the fact is, bowlers who have recently retired (Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Wasim Akram, Srinath etc.) could extract something from any wicket. If these had been in their prime now, no amount of lifeless wickets could cause the run-fests that bedevil the game ATM.

 

[Richard]

Only if you choose to believe they are.

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

And I choose to believe both because what I have looked into suggests that to me.
If you wish to attempt to denegrate the validity of my sources, that's up to you - but somehow I doubt you've looked into them as much as I did.

 

[marc71178]

So on the 1 hand, the bowling has gone down in quality, yet on the other 2 of the more mediocre bowlers from this low quality period are almost as good as one of the best of a high quality period?

 

[Richard]

No, two who are perceived as mediocre from one period don't have the benefit of what someone else did.
If Laker player now he'd be as "mediocre" as Croft and Giles are. Because the conditions would make him so.
Before Imran Khan no-one knew what reverse-swing was, anyway - so the best seamers are almost invariably better from the '80s onwards than they were before that. But of course in many days before 1970 bowlers didn't need to be as good to get better results - eg Laker.
Once again you're simply trying to put words onto my keyboard - I never said the 50s was a time of especially high bowling standards relative to the 2000s. The fact is, we can't say anything for absolute certain from 1970 backwards about bowlers.

 

[Swervy]

you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that Laker would be a mediocre bowler if he played now.Believe it or not, but there is a lot more to orthodox off spin than the spin side of things (which by all accounts he had no problems with anyway)...flight,accuracy....

 

[Richard]

Yes, of course there is - no bowler is anything without accuracy (obviously the more the better). But even more so, no bowler is anything without sideways movement. If you can't deviate it off the straight enough to beat the bat, you're never going to threaten decent batsmen.
I have every evidence that Laker would be considered as mediocre as Croft, Giles and any other good fingerspinner of nowadays - fingerspin cannot turn the ball significantly on most wickets today. Plus the above.
This is all the evidence neccesary.

 

[Swervy]

sorry...did i miss that evidence.


anyway..this does seem to be getting away from the topic of the thread

 

[Richard]

Yes on both counts.

 

[raju]

Before Imran Khan no-one knew what reverse-swing was, anyway

Except Sarfraz Newaz, who taught Imran about it. I think I read this in Imran's autoboigraphy. Not sure how much Sarfraz used it though. Increased media coverage of the game (slo-mo, etc.)has surely assisted in its more widespread use...and increased media coverage was partly due to the Packer affair and its aftermath.

It's all cyclical.

 

[Swervy]

first reported use of reverse swing (as opposed to in swing of course) was reported way way back...second world war time maybe even before

 

[raju]

first reported use of reverse swing (as opposed to in swing of course) was reported way way back...second world war time maybe even before

That may due to good old fashioned ball tampering though as opposed to the geuine reverse swing which was pioneered by Sarfraz (and later made famous by Imran).
I think from the year dot any altering of the ball has caused inconsistencies in the ball's flightpath. The question is how the alteration took place.
The same is true in baseball where the 'spitball' was outlawed many moons ago.

 

[Swervy]

That may due to good old fashioned ball tampering though as opposed to the geuine reverse swing which was pioneered by Sarfraz (and later made famous by Imran).
I think from the year dot any altering of the ball has caused inconsistencies in the ball's flightpath. The question is how the alteration took place.
The same is true in baseball where the 'spitball' was outlawed many moons ago.

mmm. i wonder if sarfraz taught Imran how to use a bottle top....hehehehe

 

[Richard]

The point stands true, if slightly misphrased - "before Imran, no-one knew what ... etc."
Just strike "no-one" and insert "hardly anyone significant". Sarfraz Nawaz never made it prominent.

 

[Lora]

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?

A few (ok many) months ago Lucky Eddie (thank you) posted a post from another forum about the media's effect on the game and many of you replied. Thank you because all of that benefitted me and made up the answer to my media exam in January (which will possibly be resat in July - oops :rolleyes: )

Anyway the point is that the media has given the game a face life that it desperately needed. The 'face-lift' brought in the money and audience that the game needed and whilst many will agrue that in the process it 'sold itself out', others will see it as adaption to survive. Whilst baseball and other sports had adapted to the market, cricket had remained stagnant and was losing it's appeal and audience.

What Packer did was create a game that benefitted the audience and since then that has been further advanced in the form of 20Twenty. He repackaged the game and brought it to the public in a form that was easy to disgest. He took to account and addressed in social changes that effected the audience that the traditional form of the game didn't acknowledge.

The pace of life had quickened, colour had been introduced via colour televisions, people desired instant gratifications and Packer invented a form of cricket that gave the public all these things. People no longer have the luxury of being able to spend all day at a match and not still not have an outcome by the end of it all - I certainly don't - and attention spans are shortening in the MTV generation. And sport has changed it's role in life. It's is now a form of entertainment and as such has to compete with other forms - music, television.

I did a lot of opinion polling of fans regarding whether Packer and later 20Twenty had removed the traditions from the game ruining it forever. Some believed it had. The majority however were in favour of the changes.

It provided the game with a new audience - the future of cricket. And many people pointed out that cricket can change numerous times and yet still retain that spirit, that je n'ai sais quoi, that makes it's cricket and that makes it special. The gimmicks have brought the money and the crowds in... it's down to the game to keep them there.

 

[Swervy]

indeed...but Richard still wont accept that

 

[Lora]

That's ok...


I like a bit of conflict

 

[PY]

A few (ok many) months ago Lucky Eddie (thank you) posted a post from another forum about the media's effect on the game and many of you replied.

Did I get round to doing that? Apologies if I didn't.

What was the questions and conclusions you made?

EDIT: I just found the old thread, I replied and it also supplies the questions. Well don't I feel stupid. :duh:. Anyway, welcome to CW

(which will possibly be resat in July - oops :rolleyes: )

Tell me about it

 

[Lora]

What was the questions and conclusions you made?

The easy question I had to set myself (I know it sounds like an easy exam in that case but actually it's quite difficult). I set the hypothesis that "the media through it's invention and influence has changed the game of cricket away from it's traditional form with particular reference to 20Twenty cricket". I rambled about Packer, what he changed, why he changed, the technology andwhether 20Twenty was going to ruin/enhance the game.

Anyway, welcome to CW

Thank you

 

[Richard]

The media influences everything.
If you take a meaningful look you'll see that the media has very, very rarely got any grounds on which to criticise the selectors as they have almost invariably made the call (whether directly or indirectly) for the selection of players who are selected, and often the non-selection of those who aren't.
Similarly, we would do far better to criticise the media than the selectors.
Packer isn't exactly the media, but most major changes in everything have been influenced by the media.

 

[Lora]

The media influences everything.
If you take a meaningful look you'll see that the media has very, very rarely got any grounds on which to criticise the selectors as they have almost invariably made the call (whether directly or indirectly) for the selection of players who are selected, and often the non-selection of those who aren't.
Similarly, we would do far better to criticise the media than the selectors.
Packer isn't exactly the media, but most major changes in everything have been influenced by the media.

Totally agree And maybe that's what appeals to me about the media. The influence and power it has and how rarely it is critised for that, unless of course, it goes against Blair...

Although I don't know if you can argue that Packer isn't the media. He is after all, Murdoch in Australia (and many would argue that Murdoch has changed English football forever through his intervention).

Packer and Murdoch run their media empires and ensure that their companies reflect their biases, ideologies and work in their favour. Packer controls what Channel 9 shows, how it shows it and when it shows it. Does that not make him the media? Or at least THE influence behind it?