John Howard to head ICC?

[Sanz]

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.

I take it you don't have answer to my query.

 

[jeevan]

Sanz, I'm wondering if there is going to be a point after all of this. We're going round and round WC 2007, Dalmiya, Indian politics, Lalu Yadav.

Of all of these random topics, only poor selection (of Ganguly, Kumble in WC2007) might be any where in the ball park of slight relevancy. No substance found there.

Your disapproval of Pawar the politician, like many Australians' dislike of Howard the politician - while deeply felt are not relevant unless they somehow intrude on their work in ICC. Any lack of a track record in this field is, OTOH, front and center for the top administrative post in cricket.

I'm going to have to stop here unless you can somehow establish some content along Sharad Pawar's deficiencies as a cricket or sports administrators. Particularly, in significant bunglings while at the administrative helm of Mumbai CA or BCCI.

 

[Sir Alex]

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.

Dalmiya indeed had allegations thrown at him of misappropriation of funds (for Rs.2.5 crore FFS ) but the case is still going on and it does not take a sleuth to understand this was a case of "devious handshake" that incoming big guy (Pawar) gave to the outgoing one (Dalmiya) as is common in India. Other than that I don't see how he could be a "disruptive" force for both ICC and BCCI.

Pawar might be a scumbag or an angel when it comes to Maharashtra politics or national politics. But the fact is there has not been any blunders or major incompetence displayed (other than usual common for all stuff) that really shows him in bad light during his administration as the cricket head in India. Under him and his predecessor, cricket has truly evolved into a fully commercialised sport, bringing in unseen and unheard of professionalism and paycheques (IPL) into it.

To sum up, I don't really see the point in casting judgement on a particular person based on his track record in a different profession, particularly when he has a solid background in the current profession, which Howard lacks and Pawar has.

 

[jeevan]

I take it you don't have answer to my query.

Oh, if you must insist: A lawyer or banker who has chaired four or five Maharashtra sports bodies will fancy his or her chances at winning Mumbai CA elections. You're welcome to prove otherwise.

 

[Sanz]

Oh, if you must insist: A lawyer or banker who has chaired four or five Maharashtra sports bodies will fancy his or her chances at winning Mumbai CA elections. You're welcome to prove otherwise.

Please let us know which lawyer/banker tried that and/or won ?

 

[jeevan]

Please let us know which lawyer/banker tried that and/or won ?

Please give me the list of bankers and lawyes who headed five state sports organizations, and I will. Not doing your homework for you - you're the one with a point to prove.

 

[jeevan]

Please don't put words in the mouth, I said Dalmiya used political clout.

Aah, the slicing and dicing again. And Martin Luther King used political clout to get kids in the right school. While that's a highly exaggerated example - the parallels to the "Asian block", and the elections of Dalmiya and later Ehsan Mani are discernible.

If Dalmiya had been an incompetent administrator, or with an absolutely zero track record in cricket boards, at the time of his election, you might have had a point about that situation which might be relevant to Howard's situation.

I'm not looking to boost my post count. So, this pretty much is it unless you come up with any sort of point.

 

[Streetwise]

Here's how I see it panning out.

Everytime something goes wrong (from trivial to crisis) those that oppose his appointment will scream "Howards fault".

Those that approve of his appointment will credit everything to Howard that goes well during his term.

The line has been drawn in the sand and the sides have been selected. Regardless of how Howard performs he cannot and will not please all the critics because to please some he must fail.

 

[jeevan]

Here's how I see it panning out.

Everytime something goes wrong (from trivial to crisis) those that oppose his appointment will scream "Howards fault".

Those that approve of his appointment will credit everything to Howard that goes well during his term.

The line has been drawn in the sand and the sides have been selected. Regardless of how Howard performs he cannot and will not please all the critics because to please some he must fail.

Also may need to make a mindset change. ICC presidency seems like a facilitator's job and not one of a decision maker. He could have the all the right thoughts on issues, but still stuff it up if he does not recognize this. Having to be prime minister at the head of an unwieldy coalition helps, don't know if he had to do that.

 

[slippyslip]

So you agree now that George W was a bad comparison. I'm not arguing for or against Howard being picked, and besides, I won't judge until I see him in action in 2012.

No, go read Streetwise's comments. My analogy of George W. Bush is 100% perfect in combating the idiotic comments by this clown.

 

[shivfan]

I think the comparison with George Bush is quite apt...both are not terribly respected internationally after their foreign policies during the so-called War on Terror. And Howard did not help himself with his poor approach to the whole Tampa affair....

If Howard can be president of the ICC, then why not Bush for president of the IOC?

 

[Streetwise]

No, go read Streetwise's comments. My analogy of George W. Bush is 100% perfect in combating the idiotic comments by this clown.

Woo hooo free advertising.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Here's how I see it panning out.

Everytime something goes wrong (from trivial to crisis) those that oppose his appointment will scream "Howards fault".

Those that approve of his appointment will credit everything to Howard that goes well during his term.

The line has been drawn in the sand and the sides have been selected. Regardless of how Howard performs he cannot and will not please all the critics because to please some he must fail.

Yeah, true.

But also, that seems to be how it has gone for most before him. Malcolm Speed may have achieved plenty of things, but the administrators tend to be like wicket-keepers: only really highlighted for the things that they are seen to do wrong, rather than what they do right.

 

[silentstriker]

Nah, things that go wrong will still be BCCI's fault.

 

[silentstriker]

John Howard's nomination to ICC post in doubt | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

It's the BCCI's fault.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Thank God some cricket boards had the sense to voice their dissent. This needs to be stopped at all cost. I thought voting him out of office in 07 would have been sufficient but he is coming back to haunt us in my favourite sport now..

 

[DingDong]

Thank God some cricket boards had the sense to voice their dissent. This needs to be stopped at all cost. I thought voting him out of office in 07 would have been sufficient but he is coming back to haunt us in my favourite sport now..

+1
its a joke that some two bit politician thinks he can run the ICC. and i can't believe the nz board bent over and let the CA appoint this clown over john anderson. well done to the sa and zim boards for standing up.

 

[morgieb]

My question is, who would approve of Mugabe's regime? I don't like Howard, but I'd know I'd be against him.

 

[Streetwise]

+1
its a joke that some two bit politician thinks he can run the ICC. and i can't believe the nz board bent over and let the CA appoint this clown over john anderson. well done to the sa and zim boards for standing up.

Yes we can see why this two bit politician was such a failure, look at the poor position of Australia during the global financial crisis, if only Australia was run by such outstanding politicians like Zimbabwe we would be in a better position.


Maybe they could get the patron of Zimbabwe cricket to head the ICC seeing how well they run their finances within the Zimbabwe cricket board.

 

[social]

Zimbabwe in anti-Howard shocker

Remind me again why the opinion of a body that is regularly accused of racism and "financial irregularities" is allowed to have a say on anything to do with cricket

I'm no lover of Howard but Zimbabwe can **** right off as far as I'm concerned