Twenty years ago, they called him every bad name possible. The establishment was rocked, the traditionalists stunned and world cricket shaken by the Australian broadcasting tycoon Kerry Packer's launching of a world series to which he had managed to lure away the cream of cricketing talent available -- and there was plenty in that time, believe me. The establishment dragged the man to court but he came out victorious and cricket as a whole benefitted from this.
Today, even though some have not heard of the man and others prefer to act as though he was just a passing phase, there are plenty of very visible reminders of his World Series Cricket -- the coloured clothing which all teams in the world use at some time or the other, the night matches and the use of a white ball and black sightscreens. What were cynically described as pyjama parties have now become commonplace and cricket administrators around the world have Packer to thank for this. Of course, the same administrators now sanction matches in all parts of the world, never mind if the facilities and the grounds do not meet specified standards and result in all kind of dubious records being posted. World cricket today revolves around money alone; quality has been lost somewhere in the background.
There were some unsavoury aspects of the Packer episode; many English fans of that period still cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that the England captain of that time, Tony Greig, had the nerve to continue in his post while all the time secretly recruiting players for Packer. The double standard is difficult for these fans to swallow; they are not opposed to the idea of any cricketer choosing to either play or serve as a recruiting agent but to do it while playing for one's country does, to them, seem repugnant.
That apart, Packerisation did one very good thing -- it made cricketers aware of what they were worth and nobody more so than the very talented bunch from the West Indies. The authorities in the islands did not mind their players joining up and it was only after they decided to leave out two players from the team that a rebellion surfaced and Lloyd resigned the captaincy. Other players also came to realise that if they played well, then they would be able to earn much more than what the boards had been doling out, despite the profits being good. And Packer brought in an element of professionalism to the game which had been missing upto that point; players were able to have their wives with them, something which the boards had for long frowned upon.
Despite all these very positive developments taking place as a result of the Packer years, people are loath to admit that the Australian did the game any good. They would rather not talk about it. And it isn't because of any moral scruples that people aren't talking; Indian cricketers, who were among the lone standouts in the Packer period, are now among the most commercially oriented in the game. They play wherever and whenever the board wants them to and do not bother to raise a voice about performance because the money is coming in. Some say this kind of money-making is an offshoot of the Packer years but they fail to realise that in Packer's set-up, bad cricket earned little money. Good cricket earned excellent money. No, people don't want to talk about Packer because he did not fit the mould.
A second Packer, one who would change the direction which word cricket is taking, would be certainly welcome now. There is a trend towards crowded itineraries, dozens of games which produce mediocre cricket and tired, jaded players being asked to perform again and again. Contrast that with a scene where there are fewer matches, more fit and motivated players and better performances. Would the game gain or lose? One probably would not have an India-Pakistan tie every third day to vent one's jingoism but that would be about the only loss.
What kind of incentive would drive cricketers into the arms of a second Packer? Not money, for there is enough and more of it, both from the boards and endorsements. There does come a point, however, when even sportsmen want something more from the game than meaningless appearances that are beginning to jar even on themselves. Given the way the international calendar is shaping, that point may well come soon. There has to be such a point else cricket will soon become a game that one prefers to hear of rather than see.