the fact remains that indian politics is a haven for low-down criminals and scumbags and sharad pawar is without a shadow of doubt one of them...
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
John Howard to head ICC?
- Thread starter NZTailender
- Start date
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Don't spin my statement, I did not even mention Bangladesh. I don't care if Kumble played in the matches or not. Sharad Pawar as the President was responsible and should have resigned. But again who will demand accountability from someone who has become the president of BCCI because of his political might and not because of any sports administration ability.
Not relevant to this thread.
I'll let you prove that assertion since you're making it. Start with how you would have to have large amounts of political muscle to acquire the presidency of the Maharashtra Kho kho association. Since then it has been fairly incremental progress, with relatively closely fought elections against people who would be lower profile in public life but it was a relatively even contest given the profiles in that narrower field. (Ajit Wadekar for MCA, Dalmiya faction for BCCI).
Again the main point here is that Sharad Pawar has put in the miles, his getting the ICC presidency does not automatically open the doors for any political Tom, Dick, Harry or John Howard. You can meander all you want as long as you come back to this one.
Which, precisely was one of the obvious flaws in your assertion. There is no national disgrace in sports in losing a match on a day to an opponent who plays out of their skins and your team chokes.
Tremendous disappointment, yes, witch-hunt no. Forget Pawar, I wouldn't even call for the heads of Sehwag, Tendulkar,Dravid, Dhoni who all failed that day.
It was not like the WC 2007 team had Mongia, Saha etc who could be called questionable selections.
actually it is since the comparison is being made between pawar and howard...
How so? Sharad Pawar and John Howard may or may not have similarities in being slimy politicians (note: don't know much about Aussie politics, and do not want to hijack this thread and forum into a discussion on Indian politics), but there is a very significant difference in their CVs as far as ICC presidency is concerned.
Sharad Pawar achieved his ICC presidency through his presidency of BCCI, which in turn builds on a previous background. If bankers, lawyers and businessmen become part time sports administrators, and then grow gradually into more prominent roles, why should politicians be looked upon with suspicion when they do so? Especially Mr Pawar's sports administrative career for most of his life has been in much lower profile roles than his political ones (which is why I think people might automatically subscribe to bad-politician-knee-capping-people-to-get-there theory in his case).
John Howard's only claim appears to be by means of his political career (again, don;t know much about him), not the case for Mr Pawar.
Since people are making 1 line assertions about Indian politics, I'd like to point out that the lot running India have done better over 60 years than those running most (not all) countries that had equivalent socio-economic development challenges. This is very much due to the institutions in India (democracy, electoral commissions, the press, courts, military staying out of it) prevailing over big name individuals many (but not all) times.
Which is extremely relevant to the bigger point here. CA, by foisting a political big-name appointee, is diluting an institution. Precisely because I follow Indian politics, and am concluding from there that even imperfect institutions in imperfect conditions do work better over the long run than ****ed-up institutions run by "strong" people, this action fills me with dread.(I'm finding a lot of irony in some 'first world' posters touting the "experience" of a big name John Howard and a former 'third world' poster saying wait a minute, don't mess up institutions here).
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Please do let us know what has he done for the development of Sports of Kho Kho in In India. And if you believe that the (Sports Body) elections in India are won by your administration skills then you are fooling none but yourself. The fact that he won against Wadekar proves my point that it was his political clout that helped him win the election. Otherwise it will be laughable to suggest that he was more qualified than Wadekar for the MCA job.
First of all, Howard isn't getting the Presidency tomorrow. He will be the President in 2012, enough time to learn and understand ICC Cricket Business. Unlike Pawar he is not a minister anymore so obviously will have more time to spend on Cricket. The 'miles' that Pawar is supposed to have put in is a farce and very easy to do in India. Even Laloo Yadav and Ijaz Butt have those miles, doesn't mean they should be the next nominee from India/Pakistan.
Besides India doesn't decide who does or doesn't get the ICC Presidency, It goes to countries on a rotation basis, it is upto those countries to decide who they want to nominate and upto ICC to accept that nomination. If you don't like it, tough luck.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Here is the simple fact :-
"The ICC presidency is given to countries by rotation". ICC Presidency does not need to be earned, it is solely upto the desecration of the countries which individual they want to nominate and upto the ICC executive board to approve it. Sharad Pawar didn't earn it.
Okay please let us know what was Pawar's role in Cricket administration, before becoming the President of MCA. After all If I am just another lawyer/banker/businessman etc I wouldn't get MCA Presidency as my first job, will I ?
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Oh Jeez. How convenient for an Indian to make this point. Correct me If I am wrong, wasn't it India that decided to bring the political clout into ICC Presidency. From what I remember, the ICC Presidency was held by men like Sir Colin Cowdrey and Sir Clyde Walcott before we Dalmiya was put in there.
Sir Alex
Banned
The venom in your posts isn't good enough to veil what jeevan has been telling Sanz. You may hate the "politicians" in Dalmiya and Pawar, but in the former's time India became a force to reckon in cricket and in the latter's one dominating the sport in the world. Before that what was India's position in world cricket?
Sir Alex
Banned
And oh, how does the "politician" tag apply to Dalmiya? He was an enterpreneur.
From the Wiki
He joined the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) in 1979, and became its treasurer in 1983 (the year India won the Cricket World Cup) and later, along with Inderjit Singh Bindra helped to win the right to stage the World Cup in South Asia in 1987 and 1996. He has been elected the President of BCCI on numerous occasions. Though initially rejected by many cricket playing nations, despite his winning the ICC Presidential elections by a 25-13 margin in 1996, he was unanimously elected as the chairman of the ICC International Cricket Council a year later in 1997 for a period of three years, a period in which his work greatly helped to enhance the fortunes of ICC.
In 1996, the BBC declared him to be one of the world's top six sports executives. When Australia and West Indies refused to play in terror-scarred Sri Lanka during the 1996 World Cup, he conjured up a united India-Pakistan team in a matter of days to play friendlies against Sri Lanka there. In 1991, when the boycott of South Africa officially ended, he arranged a tour of the South African cricket team in India that went a long way in helping them shed the stigma of apartheid.
In the words of the Australian cricketer Ian Chappell: "He has a vision for the game’s progress that I haven’t heard enunciated by any other so-called leader among cricket officials." [1]
From the Wiki
He joined the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) in 1979, and became its treasurer in 1983 (the year India won the Cricket World Cup) and later, along with Inderjit Singh Bindra helped to win the right to stage the World Cup in South Asia in 1987 and 1996. He has been elected the President of BCCI on numerous occasions. Though initially rejected by many cricket playing nations, despite his winning the ICC Presidential elections by a 25-13 margin in 1996, he was unanimously elected as the chairman of the ICC International Cricket Council a year later in 1997 for a period of three years, a period in which his work greatly helped to enhance the fortunes of ICC.
In 1996, the BBC declared him to be one of the world's top six sports executives. When Australia and West Indies refused to play in terror-scarred Sri Lanka during the 1996 World Cup, he conjured up a united India-Pakistan team in a matter of days to play friendlies against Sri Lanka there. In 1991, when the boycott of South Africa officially ended, he arranged a tour of the South African cricket team in India that went a long way in helping them shed the stigma of apartheid.
In the words of the Australian cricketer Ian Chappell: "He has a vision for the game’s progress that I haven’t heard enunciated by any other so-called leader among cricket officials." [1]
No, you need to provide evidence that he sucked at any of it, as you made the implication. Not going to do your leg work for you.
Wrt Wadekar, Sharad Pawar beat him in an election, somewhat narrowly too. In the end cannot argue with elections. You can laugh all you want but elections, flawed or otherwise, are part of what keeps institutions going. If he did a particularly atrocious job, point it out and Mumbai CA voting members will and should bear that in mind.
Or, Howard can (even in a premediated & accelerated plan) take over as ,say, field hockey administrator of whatever province he comes from. Then as cricket administrator of that province. Then as the president of CA. And then put forth his candidacy and then wait out his two years (which I believe every one has to). Surely those Australian sports organizations will flout their normal rules of operation and oblige? (Sarcastic remark alert for the impaired).
Don't know what association Lalu Yadav has with cricket or sports. Bihar is not on the cricketing radar, not even in Ranji plate ffs (& I'm not familiar with the state in general). If he goes on to bigger things, all power to him (certainly despite all previous failings has done at least one big thing right in his political career, and is very competent when he wants to be).
Ijaz Butt is a good example of someone who has had tenure and one can point at flaws in handling numerous hiring & firing decisions and of several controversial situations.
Not sure at all what you're getting at with those two examples.
A complete non sequitir. The candidates in question are John Anderson, who appears completely qualified to get the job & was proposed by NZ and John Howard. Both are from the region whose turn it is.
You are the one who needlessly and incorrectly brought Sharad Pawar, and later Indian politics, into this discussion. No one on this thread is suggesting any particular change in the rotational policy, much less an Indian-favored candidate.
Wrt the last line: On one hand you're insinuating that Pawar somehow forced himself upon Indian cricketing organizations purely due to his political back ground (when he did so in elections and had a prior track record, however nominal) and portraying it as wrong. On the other hand, when a purely political person is indeed foisted upon ICC, it is tough luck? Clearly consistency has not been your forte in this particular discussion.
Cheers.
p.s. Looked up India's WC 2007 campaign. Ganguly & Kumble who you singled out as bungled selections: Ganguly played all 3 matches with 2 fifties (top scoring in the BD match). Kumble just played one match 9-0-38-3. India's batting choked vs BD (bar Ganguly, Yuvraj) that's why they lost that match. SL was a better team in that tournament and outplayed India. Hardly the stuff that selectors need to be fired over, let alone their boss.
Dalmiya was very much active in cricket administration. Plus, not a politician as pointed out.
Cowdrey & Walcott were also administrators.
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Oh God. Don't put words into my mouth. I don't hate Dalmiya or Pawar.
If anything I like Dalmiya and IMO he really is one of the few people responsible for globalization of the game. But in his later years he became obsessive with power and somehow became a disruptive force both for ICC and BCCI. Pawar, obviously I don't have any admiration for because of his politics. If you look into the history of Maha politics since 1991, you will know what I am talking about.
And I really don't care much for India's position in the world cricket outside of Cricket field.
You can check the very Wikipedia page you so derisively pointed me to. Points out five other less popular sports that he was the main official of for Maharashtra. (Not just one as I thought). So the guy did have a track record, you can slice & dice finer than this - but you are doing exactly the sort of dissection that you find as being so odious in a different thread.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Please don't put words in the mouth, I said Dalmiya used political clout.