Again, your choice of example is telling -- you picked a competitive game for your example
Backyard cricket isn't competitive. One person bats, with everyone else fielding, until that person goes out. Then the one who got them out (generally bowled or caught) goes in to bat until s/he goes out. Etc, until we all decide there's some other way we'd like to spend our time.
Everyone is participating, but those who are better at batting, bowling or catching will exercise a greater degree of control over the flow of things. That's not a normative proposition: it's an observation based on experience.
In RPGing, my experience is that players whose PCs are more vividly realised, whose interest in the fiction is greater, who declare actions whereby their PCs take charge of the situation, will exercise a greater influence over the flow and direction of play than those whose PCs are ciphers, whose interest in the fiction is only passing, and who dont' declare actions for their PCs.
That's not normative; it's an observation.
[MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION] asked "Because other players are better roleplayers are they to be given all the attention and glory at the cost of always relegating other PC's to token importance and easily replaced by any other disposable character?" Putting the hyberbolic rhetoric to one side (there is little glory in RPGing; and the question is more interesting if we ignore the "always" and just consider it as "sometimes), that's a serious question. MitFH clearly thinks the answer is "no" - that the GM should modulate the fiction so that those players who lack skill as roleplayers get comparable spotlight on their PCs, and don't have less influence on how the game unfolds.
I don't agree with that proposition. I want the players in my games to bring their roleplaying skill, to engage with the fiction, to drive things via their PCs (including their PC backstories). One consequence of that is a proportionate degree of influence on the game.
If some players are happier having a less prominent role, that's fine. If they want their PCs to be just as central to the events in the fiction, though, then they have to engage the fiction and try and drive it. My own experience, for what it's worth, that most peopel who enjoy RPGing can do this if they try, because their enjoyment of RPGing is one manifestation of a broader enjoyment of stories and of characters.
EDIT: A further thought triggered by [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION]'s post.
There is an approach to RPGing which downplays story and character, and amplifies the wargaming/tactical element. Gygax advocates for this in his PHB (towards the end of the book, under the "Successful Adventures" heading). In D&D, an important element of doing this is planning and logistics: choosing gear; choosing spell load out; mapping well; having a good familiarity with typical dungeon tropes; etc.
I've played a bit of D&D along these lines, and much more Rolemaster where this stuff is important.
Skill is a huge factor in this sort of play. In my experience, good wargamers often are good at this sort of stuff. And the skilled players - the ones who come up with the plans, who can map out effective spell load-outs, etc - exercise a greater influence over the shape and direction of play than those players who just go along for the ride until it's time to roll a save or an attack or whatever.
Whatever the vehicle whereby players get to shape the flow of the game - whether by the wargaming stuff that Gygax was into, or the character/story stuff that is important in "indie"-type RPGs - some players will be better at it, or do more of it, than some other players.
There are obviously standard social norms around this stuff - when I'm playing bridge or 500 with my hardcore friends I'll follow the play and count the cards more closely than if I'm playing with less serious players just to pass the time - but that's a general feature of all games, not just RPGs. I've played 500 with people who will hardly ever bid above six whatevers. Depending on the details, it might be rude to try to push every hand to some complex play at eight or more tricks bid; but it's generally not going to be rude to bid seven, even if that means the timid player doesn't win the bid. But in any event, as the example shows, issues around social norms in games - how hard to play with timid players - aren't particularly special to RPGing. Nor does the GM have any special role in relation to that when it comes to RPGing: if it's polite to open up space for a weaker player, well that falls onto the other players (to life their foot off the pedal) just as much as it might fall onto the GM (to provide that player with some opening).
But if the player doesn't bite (to mix some metaphors) - and I've seen this happen, especially in club-type groups with all sorts of people turning up - then there I don't think there is an onus on everyone else to play a tepid game so that the timid player isn't any less influential on the shape of things.
(And in my experience, some of those timid players are still learning the game, and will be looking for models of less-timid play that they can learn from; and some others aren't really that into RPGing, or take pleasure from RPGing that isn't connected to shaping the direction of play, and so won't mind that others have more influence. If there are timid players who aren't interesting in engaging and driving the fiction, and yet want the fiction to invovle their PCs to the same extent of the PCs of others - they seem, in effect, to be asking the GM to control the fiction and tell everyone, including them, a story about their PCs. I personally don't like that sort of RPGing, either as GM or player.)