John Howard to head ICC?

[pasag]

Howard faces tough road ahead: Murali

 

[Sir Alex]

It has no real power.. You are a dummy in the hands of the member boards (read BCCI)... Of course it is a dummy post. A figurehead with no powers..

Sorry I misinterpreted your words. My opposition is only on principle btw.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Must admit, had to chuckle when I put "John Howard apologise Murali" into Google, and that article was the first one that came up.

 

[four_or_six]

Goodness me, if ICC members can't get over an argument years ago about whether a bowler had a 14º or 16º bend in his arm, there's not a lot of hope for the future.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I'd endorse him heartily but for his constant injury scares.

Can't trust him to hang on to his seat.

 

[Quaggas]

Speed on opposition to Howard (cricinfo)

"There is some irony in this," Speed told the Australian. "Zimbabwe throughout has said 'you must come and play against us for the sake of our cricket. You can't have politics in cricket, you can't make political considerations', and the ICC has consistently endorsed that position.

"Their position now, as I understand it, is that Howard's not qualified because he's a politician and he's criticised Zimbabwe, so they bring politics back into it when it suits them. I think the behaviour of Zimbabwe, and South Africa supporting them, has been outrageous.

 

[GraemeSmith]

Oh look, it's GraemeSmith baiting Australians. There's a keeper for the photo album. Really, just ignore him guys.

Thank you for making a straw-man out of me My opposition to him has nothing to do with him being an australian, it has to do with his lack of experience as I have pointed out numerous times in this thread. I'd more than happy if his nomination was replaced by any australian who has cricket administrative experience or knowledge about cricket for that matter.

 

[Cevno]

Speed on opposition to Howard (cricinfo)

"There is some irony in this," Speed told the Australian. "Zimbabwe throughout has said 'you must come and play against us for the sake of our cricket. You can't have politics in cricket, you can't make political considerations', and the ICC has consistently endorsed that position.

"Their position now, as I understand it, is that Howard's not qualified because he's a politician and he's criticised Zimbabwe, so they bring politics back into it when it suits them. I think the behaviour of Zimbabwe, and South Africa supporting them, has been outrageous.

Speed Backing Howard makes me want to follow the graemesmith and Sir Alex line too.
The two Malcolm's incharge of the ICC were a real mess.

 

[Cevno]

Just reading through this thread and has to be said some people are using Really clutching at straws argument to Justify their Opposition to Howard .

I can understand opposing him because of his non cricleting background in any sense ,but because he lost a member of parliament election seems really odd.

 

[Matt79]

After serving as one of the longest serving MPs, and second longest serving Prime Minister in Australia's history.

 

[Matt79]

Thank you for making a straw-man out of me My opposition to him has nothing to do with him being an australian, it has to do with his lack of experience as I have pointed out numerous times in this thread. I'd more than happy if his nomination was replaced by any australian who has cricket administrative experience or knowledge about cricket for that matter.

I'm not going to call you a liar, I'm just going to say that you're not being truthful there.

 

[Quaggas]

It's like "Asterix and the Soothsayer" here, no prizes for who's the Soothsayer.

 

[honestbharani]

just reading through this thread and has to be said some people are using really clutching at straws argument to justify their opposition to howard .

I can understand opposing him because of his non cricleting background in any sense ,but because he lost a member of parliament election seems really odd.

awta

 

[Sanz]

I agree with everything Brother Alex has said in this thread.

 

[slippyslip]

I think the great concern about Howard is the way he operates rather than his policies.

Howard relied on divisive politics. He took issues and purposely manipulated them and said things purely to divide his opponents without regard to the social or cultural impact upon the country.

It doesn't matter what his views or policies were during his terms. I don't think someone who operates this way should be involved at high levels at the ICC. I didn't like his deputy leader throughout his time as PM at all, Peter Costello, but I would be less objectionable to him taking this role (not that he's interested) than Howard since he is not such a divisive character. Even in the Liberal party Howard created conflict. He had some of his own backbenchers calling him a rat.

It's 100% obvious that Howard is going to be divisive and manipulative during his time at the ICC because thats the way he operates. Its almost guaranteed there were be political schisms amongst ICC members while Howard is there.

If you think a divided and bickering ICC is in the best interest of cricket then by all means Howard is the perfect candidate.

 

[stephen]

i think the great concern about howard is the way he operates rather than his policies.

Howard relied on divisive politics. He took issues and purposely manipulated them and said things purely to divide his opponents without regard to the social or cultural impact upon the country.

It doesn't matter what his views or policies were during his terms. I don't think someone who operates this way should be involved at high levels at the icc. I didn't like his deputy leader throughout his time as pm at all, peter costello, but i would be less objectionable to him taking this role (not that he's interested) than howard since he is not such a divisive character. Even in the liberal party howard created conflict. He had some of his own backbenchers calling him a rat.

It's 100% obvious that howard is going to be divisive and manipulative during his time at the icc because thats the way he operates. Its almost guaranteed there were be political schisms amongst icc members while howard is there.

If you think a divided and bickering icc is in the best interest of cricket then by all means howard is the perfect candidate.

dwta

 

[Jono]

And you're entitled to that opinion.

I don't think Howard would do a bad job, but I think there are legitimate concerns that he may struggle in an area or two. It's not like he had the perfect foreign relations record.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

It's like "Asterix and the Soothsayer" here, no prizes for who's the Soothsayer.

I call dibs on being Obelix.

Trollish I may be, but I AM NOT FAAAAAAAAT!

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think the great concern about Howard is the way he operates rather than his policies.

Howard relied on divisive politics. He took issues and purposely manipulated them and said things purely to divide his opponents without regard to the social or cultural impact upon the country.

It doesn't matter what his views or policies were during his terms. I don't think someone who operates this way should be involved at high levels at the ICC. I didn't like his deputy leader throughout his time as PM at all, Peter Costello, but I would be less objectionable to him taking this role (not that he's interested) than Howard since he is not such a divisive character. Even in the Liberal party Howard created conflict. He had some of his own backbenchers calling him a rat.

It's 100% obvious that Howard is going to be divisive and manipulative during his time at the ICC because thats the way he operates. Its almost guaranteed there were be political schisms amongst ICC members while Howard is there.

If you think a divided and bickering ICC is in the best interest of cricket then by all means Howard is the perfect candidate.

Don't know if the ICC is that cohesive as it is.

 

[howardj]

Howard Hit For Six