John Howard to head ICC?

[jeevan]

And if the BCCI wanted to really throw it's weight around (a la George Bush & his lackeys), it wouldn't even bother with the ICC any more. With 70% of the money (cricket is an entertainment business, first and foremost), and a precedent now firmly established of the best players coming to the IPL and an increasing number having an IPL-exclusive career (right now as an extension to an international one, doesnt have to be this way) - it has all it needs to go its own way.

 

[Matt79]

That's a little overboard....

Quite probably, I had a good head of steam up by then.

 

[AaronK]

Blocking Howard has to go down as the best decision ever made..

think about it this way.. conservative politicians have ruined our world...they have been creating wars among us human beings in the name of religion, ethnicity and language for years now.. just think what he could do to ruin the great game of Cricket using his conservative 5th century views..

I say cricket should not have room for politicians.. for that reason i applude this decision..

 

[morgieb]

So Tubby the new candiate....that'll probably make Dubai a lot cooler.

 

[silentstriker]

Is it officially true? Last I heard it was just an idea and that Taylor may not want to give up his commentary and other gigs.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/a-lesson-in-politics-of-sport-20100703-zv1b.html

 

[silentstriker]

As an aside, I asked an uncle of mine (he is almost 65 and been a fan since he was a boy and actually a decent standard player in his day) about this Howard thing.

He said, "Australia and England had veto power for what, 75 years? Give it to us for half that long, and we get to treat them as second class players until then, and after that maybe I'll listen to their whining."

Obviously, I disagree with him completely, but people don't forget that stuff easily. Just a fact of life - and part of the reason I think it's so easy to get people riled up against countries like England and Australia.

 

[Cevno]

As an aside, I asked an uncle of mine (he is almost 65 and been a fan since he was a boy and actually a decent standard player in his day) about this Howard thing.

He said, "Australia and England had veto power for what, 75 years? Give it to us for half that long, and we get to treat them as second class players until then, and after that maybe I'll listen to their whining."

Obviously, I disagree with him completely, but people don't forget that stuff easily. Just a fact of life - and part of the reason I think it's so easy to get people riled up against countries like England and Australia.

Exactly and they are still holding out right power and doing far worse in other sports than anything that has happened in cricket but same whingers in their sport papers won't say a word about it.

Just look at Field Hockey ,India and Pakistan were the best in the world on grass.
But since they had all the money the Europeans along with Australians changed the game to astro-turf ,which the developing countries could not afford at all levels.
And India and Pakistan fell off their perch. They also removed the off side ruled which favoured Asian style of play and recently forced some of their coaches on the Indian Hockey federation.

Just look at Rugby too .
It is a matter of fact in sport that whoever has the most commercial power ,normally has the most say. Just deal with it.
And compared to other sports like Hockey and even in cricket where they held veto for 75 years and took decisions alone ,this is just nothing they are whinging about.
I guess it is a more a case of something unusual happening in sports ,which these countries are unused too before.Someone not only challenging their power and authority but usurping them.

 

[Malleeboy]

Not to mention Australian Rules football, quite frankly the AFL's decision to change the rules without consulting the subcontinental nations is a travesty.

(Sarcasm off)

I don't think John Howard was the best choice and if this brings about a more thorough evualation of all future candidates then it would be good for cricket. However the process and way it was done was very pathetic and really shows the objectors in a poor light IMHO.

If you want a true democracy then lets open the voting process to all associates and not just a monoply of Test playing nations (and Zimbabwe which is not a test playing nation, so why is it still on the top tier of the ICC, and not say Ireland or Netherlands. In many ways the veto of Eng/Aus, has been merely transfered to a veto of Test playing nations)

 

[four_or_six]

Reading this article, seems like a very measured response from Howard. If he can keep his cool in this way all the time, I'd say he seems like a pretty good choice.

 

[Matt79]

Exactly and they are still holding out right power and doing far worse in other sports than anything that has happened in cricket but same whingers in their sport papers won't say a word about it.

Just look at Field Hockey ,India and Pakistan were the best in the world on grass.
But since they had all the money the Europeans along with Australians changed the game to astro-turf ,which the developing countries could not afford at all levels.
And India and Pakistan fell off their perch. They also removed the off side ruled which favoured Asian style of play and recently forced some of their coaches on the Indian Hockey federation.

Just look at Rugby too .
It is a matter of fact in sport that whoever has the most commercial power ,normally has the most say. Just deal with it.
And compared to other sports like Hockey and even in cricket where they held veto for 75 years and took decisions alone ,this is just nothing they are whinging about.
I guess it is a more a case of something unusual happening in sports ,which these countries are unused too before.Someone not only challenging their power and authority but usurping them.

Tighten your tinfoil hat there mate.

 

[Cevno]

Tighten your tinfoil hat there mate.

Not as bad as shifting the world cup out of australia, newzealand for ever.EH?

What i stated are nothing other than facts.Though maybe a bit out of place.

 

[Matt79]

Which I immediately acknowledged to be an over-the-top piece of rhetoric, whereas you've got your "facts". Good work Langdon, you've cracked the "beat down the subcontinent's hockey teams" conspiracy.

 

[Cevno]

Which I immediately acknowledged to be an over-the-top piece of rhetoric, whereas you've got your "facts". Good work Langdon, you've cracked the "beat down the subcontinent's hockey teams" conspiracy.

So what according to you is wrong and not facts according to you?

I.e if you have any knowledge about the matter you are being sarcastic about.

 

[honestbharani]

Naive in the extreme to believe a position like that and who they know could have no influence, though.

No.. I do accept that they will have influence but I think they will get influenced more than actually use their influence.. If that makes sense.. lol

 

[honestbharani]

I think that's ridiculous. No-one (as far as I'm aware) currently, including those you mentioned, thinks that Australia, New Zealand and England have the right to rule over the other countries. I wish we could just worry about whether the ICC can do a good job.

I have seen that more than once with Conn and Speed... And Heigh though not as bad as the other two..

 

[honestbharani]

Your kidding yourself if you think this is a victory for democracy or accountability. All that's happened is that the interregnum between the old English-Australia regime and the new corrupt oligarchy is now clearly over. You seriously think there's going to be more 'accountability' or scrutiny of the next corrupt Indian politician to be put up for a leadership role in the ICC? Or that this makes it more or less likely that decisions will be made for the good of the game rather than the good of the group that now have the numbers? Look forward to the 2015 WC being moved from Australia and never coming back under this new model.

You know.. The new oligarchy is as corrupt as the Australia-England one was... At least they are bringing more money though...

 

[silentstriker]

Tighten your tinfoil hat there mate.

TBF, what about England instituting a leg side rule (max five fielders on leg side) in the 70s specifically to neutralize India's spinners after losing two series in a row to their spinners?

Let's not put blinders on and say the previous power-brokers were blameless or acted in the best interest of the game.

 

[jeevan]

LOL at Howard's "no one country should dominate" - even if it did apply to this situation (no indications that is does) - it's not like India started a couple of actual shooting wars and got a couple of lackey PMs from other countries to send troops to kill and be killed.

Even if BCB,PCB,WICB all voted on India's behest - does he not see the irony in criticism coming from his personage. What does he think his role in world history will be remembered as?

 

[Shri]

A question regarding an earlier point in this thread that I came across. Someone said that there was so much agitation only because there have been no proper reasons given for rejecting Howard. When some politician loses in some national election, does the majority of the voting public give reasons for the politician's rejection?


Ps: I might not remember posting this in the morning since I have just fixed myself a drink that is about to be drunk.

 

[G.I.Joe]

?