John Howard to head ICC?

[vic_orthdox]

Personally, think some Australians are more up in arms about Zimbabwe managing to embarrass Howard more than we were ever able to.

 

[honestbharani]

Don't recall anything specific that would paint Speed as biased or incompetant, tbh. A lot of stuff that happened in his time as CE, well, he has no real control over. The position is nothing more than that of a figurehead.

I don't really blame him for decisions coz lets face it, blaming any decision of ICC on the President is stupid because the position and the body itself, basically, is a dummy one..


But I meant most of his interviews and simply the way he came across during his tenure.. Just have no respect for the man.. The two Malcolms then were bit of a disgrace to even Australia.. If you google it enough, I am sure you will come across those instances. Being at work, I can't spend the time to do that...


FWIW, I think the anti-Howard should actually be sad that his nomination seems to be falling through.. I am sure it would have given them immense joy to see him having to do every bidding of the BCCI and the Afro-Asian Bloc..

 

[Dissector]

I don't see the problem with rejecting Howard really. It appears that several boards dislike and mistrust him so why should they be forced to accept him in a leadership position? He doesn't have the votes and that's that. I don't see why Australia should expect that their nominee is automatically accepted regardless of how other countries feel about him.

In any event his supporters like Haigh and Speed conspicuously fail to provide evidence that Howard has any serious cricketing expertise. I certainly don't buy the idea that being prime minister automatically gives you the skills to administer an increasingly high-profile and complex international sport. Surely there is someone in Australia who can do a better job than Howard so why not nominate him? And ftr I don't like the idea of Pawar heading the ICC either.

Frankly this seems to be a case of traditional powers like Australia outraged at the fact that they don't get their way all the time and acting like spoilt children. The way to defuse this situation is for Australia to nominate an experienced cricket administrator and move forward.

 

[silentstriker]

SS, do a wheel of mediocrity. The last one was before I was active in the site. Never seen one of those things.

I feel like an anti-BCCI article coming on tbh.

 

[Streetwise]

But I meant most of his interviews and simply the way he came across during his tenure.. Just have no respect for the man.. The two Malcolms then were bit of a disgrace to even Australia.. If you google it enough, I am sure you will come across those instances. Being at work, I can't spend the time to do that...

:

Most people (and not just Australians} think they done a very good job. Under the circumstances cricket has managed to move forwards but I guess there will allways be knockers.

 

[honestbharani]

Most people (and not just Australians} think they done a very good job. Under the circumstances cricket has managed to move forwards but I guess there will allways be knockers.

yeah and never mind that they seem to be the majority.. they MUST be wrong coz they said something bad about an Aussie, huh...

 

[Streetwise]

Don't recall anything specific that would paint Speed as biased or incompetant, tbh. A lot of stuff that happened in his time as CE, well, he has no real control over. The position is nothing more than that of a figurehead.

You could say he was a white elephant.

 

[Streetwise]

yeah and never mind that they seem to be the majority.. they MUST be wrong coz they said something bad about an Aussie, huh...

No its more like you dont get the majority runing around saying how good a job they have done, there is more noise coming from the rent a crowd.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't see the problem with rejecting Howard really. It appears that several boards dislike and mistrust him so why should they be forced to accept him in a leadership position? He doesn't have the votes and that's that. I don't see why Australia should expect that their nominee is automatically accepted regardless of how other countries feel about him.

In any event his supporters like Haigh and Speed conspicuously fail to provide evidence that Howard has any serious cricketing expertise. I certainly don't buy the idea that being prime minister automatically gives you the skills to administer an increasingly high-profile and complex international sport. Surely there is someone in Australia who can do a better job than Howard so why not nominate him? And ftr I don't like the idea of Pawar heading the ICC either.

Frankly this seems to be a case of traditional powers like Australia outraged at the fact that they don't get their way all the time and acting like spoilt children. The way to defuse this situation is for Australia to nominate an experienced cricket administrator and move forward.

While I agree with most of your post, there was still no reason to do it at such a late stage.. If they had objections, they could have raised it MUCH MUCH earlier than this.. Just seems like a deliberate low blow by the Afro-Asian Block.. FTR, I think this was the right decision but done in such a wrong manner that it is hard to justify the means inspite of the end...


BTW, reading the latest news, looks like Australia are trying to get him a second chance.. Anyone else thinking BCCI probably using this as some kind of a bargaining tool to get something else they might want CA to do????? Wouldn't put it past the BCCI at all, tbh..

 

[honestbharani]

No its more like you dont get the majority runing around saying how good a job they have done, there is more noise coming from the rent a crowd.

Nope... the majority are always vocal.. The minority don't speak because there is nothing really to speak about, except for one or two who enjoy the straw clutching..

 

[Dissector]

While I agree with most of your post, there was still no reason to do it at such a late stage.. If they had objections, they could have raised it MUCH MUCH earlier than this.. Just seems like a deliberate low blow by the Afro-Asian Block..

It appears that it was made clear quite early that Howard was not likely to get the votes:

There were clear signs for months that Howard's candidature was unlikely to go through, but CA chose to ignore them. Cricket South Africa chairman Mtutuzeli Nyoka wrote to David Morgan, the then ICC president, pointing out that an "overwhelming number of directors were opposed to Howard". It was strong letter which accused Morgan of acting unconstitutionally, a charge Morgan denied equally vehemently. And the Sri Lankan board openly said that they would vote against Howard. Cricket Australia was within their rights to stick by their man. Howard himself made a trip to Zimbabwe, another known opponent, to lobby support. Evidently that mission failed.

This is the point when Cricket Australia should have nominated some else preferably with a lot more cricket experience and all would have been well. Instead they chose to force the issue and created this mess.

As for the argument that boards who oppose Howard should go public with their objections that would only inflame the issue further. Clearly they don't feel they can work with Howard so what point is there in going into specifics?

 

[morgieb]

I don't see the problem with rejecting Howard really. It appears that several boards dislike and mistrust him so why should they be forced to accept him in a leadership position? He doesn't have the votes and that's that. I don't see why Australia should expect that their nominee is automatically accepted regardless of how other countries feel about him.

In any event his supporters like Haigh and Speed conspicuously fail to provide evidence that Howard has any serious cricketing expertise. I certainly don't buy the idea that being prime minister automatically gives you the skills to administer an increasingly high-profile and complex international sport. Surely there is someone in Australia who can do a better job than Howard so why not nominate him? And ftr I don't like the idea of Pawar heading the ICC either.

Frankly this seems to be a case of traditional powers like Australia outraged at the fact that they don't get their way all the time and acting like spoilt children. The way to defuse this situation is for Australia to nominate an experienced cricket administrator and move forward.

It's not really him getting rejected that worries me. It's the double standards that do. Look at Sharad Pawar, he's a polly, so is Howard. Yet one gets accepted and the other one doesn't. Go figure.

 

[Jono]

By the way, I don't agree with rejecting Howard, especially in the fashion it was done... but if anyone now denies that Howard had issues with people of difference races and with foreign relations... reckon you've got your proof now.

 

[pasag]

I don't see the problem with rejecting Howard really. It appears that several boards dislike and mistrust him so why should they be forced to accept him in a leadership position? He doesn't have the votes and that's that. I don't see why Australia should expect that their nominee is automatically accepted regardless of how other countries feel about him.

In any event his supporters like Haigh and Speed conspicuously fail to provide evidence that Howard has any serious cricketing expertise. I certainly don't buy the idea that being prime minister automatically gives you the skills to administer an increasingly high-profile and complex international sport. Surely there is someone in Australia who can do a better job than Howard so why not nominate him? And ftr I don't like the idea of Pawar heading the ICC either.

Frankly this seems to be a case of traditional powers like Australia outraged at the fact that they don't get their way all the time and acting like spoilt children. The way to defuse this situation is for Australia to nominate an experienced cricket administrator and move forward.

nah, although you'd like to make it about that it's not about traditonal power bases and all that crap, just a recipirocal expectation. So disillusioned with cricket right now, haigh the only one with the balls to stand up and speak out and not be a cheerleader.

 

[Jono]

Why would you be disillusioned with cricket because of this?

At the end of the day, who gives a ****? It's the game that matters.

When you were 15 years old, loving the game and watching cricket as much as you could, you would have shrugged your shoulders at this news.

People on CW get way too caught up in the politics of it. That's fair enough if it's affecting you on field (e.g. Pakistani fans have the right to hate on the PCB) but we take it way too far.

 

[pasag]

Why would you be disillusioned with cricket because of this?

At the end of the day, who gives a ****? It's the game that matters.

When you were 15 years old, loving the game and watching cricket as much as you could, you would have shrugged your shoulders at this news.

People on CW get way too caught up in the politics of it. That's fair enough if it's affecting you on field (e.g. Pakistani fans have the right to hate on the PCB) but we take it way too far.

Posted from an iphone so had to be concise as possible, but anyways for I suspect most of us tragics, cricket is much more that just the sport and when there's serious problems at its core it does affect you. And it does impact "on-field" stuff, although I don't want to bring up many specific instances as this will just derail the thread.

 

[honestbharani]

It's not really him getting rejected that worries me. It's the double standards that do. Look at Sharad Pawar, he's a polly, so is Howard. Yet one gets accepted and the other one doesn't. Go figure.

Pawar has been BCCI President. Figured.

 

[Streetwise]

By the way, I don't agree with rejecting Howard, especially in the fashion it was done... but if anyone now denies that Howard had issues with people of difference races and with foreign relations... reckon you've got your proof now.

A few people post that Howard has issues, but nobody knows what those issues are.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Pawar has been BCCI President. Figured.

I reckon the BCCI would have supported Howard's nomination if he had taken the State CA > CA > ICC route. Nobody likes an outsider to get a free ride to the top post.

 

[Cevno]

Don't recall anything specific that would paint Speed as biased or incompetant, tbh. A lot of stuff that happened in his time as CE, well, he has no real control over. The position is nothing more than that of a figurehead.

Actually President is the figurehead position.

The chief executive along with the general manager basically run the ICC's operation day to day.