John Howard to head ICC?

[Tapioca]

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?

It was an experimental law and I believe BCCI had the option of refusing it

 

[silentstriker]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/47224-power-hypocrisy.html

 

[silentstriker]

Sambit Bal: Stop canonising Howard | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

 

[_Ed_]

Found it funny in the AP article in the NZ Herald this morning when it said the boards that voted against Howard voted "mainly along racial lines." Um, didn't the boards that voted for Howard do the same?

 

[Anil]

so did the **** get the nomination then?

 

[pasag]

Found it funny in the AP article in the NZ Herald this morning when it said the boards that voted against Howard voted "mainly along racial lines." Um, didn't the boards that voted for Howard do the same?

IMO (some of these have foundation, others, don't)

Sri Lanka - still upset about Murali
Zimb - obv
SA - Zimb's proxy
Pak - used it as a chance to get back at Australia after cancelling a couple of series against them
India - smartly realise that it's better to be with the majority and they'll be able to generate political capital with this. Not they need it, but it can't hurt to play smart.

People like to go on about an Australia India rift, meh, the two countries have been working together well for a couple of years now and both see the value in each other and have no interest in a ****fight.

 

[Fusion]

IMO (some of these have foundation, others, don't)

Sri Lanka - still upset about Murali
Zimb - obv
SA - Zimb's proxy
Pak - used it as a chance to get back at Australia after cancelling a couple of series against them
India - smartly realise that it's better to be with the majority and they'll be able to generate political capital with this. Not they need it, but it can't hurt to play smart.

People like to go on about an Australia India rift, meh, the two countries have been working together well for a couple of years now and both see the value in each other and have no interest in a ****fight.

Pak went the way they did to get back into India's good graces. It had nothing to do with getting back at Australia for the cancelled tours. The PCB realizes that any good fortune they might get now or in the future will be through the BCCI. It probably didn't help that Australia has never had a cozy relationship with the PCB, but I really doubt that any animosity towards the Australians played a part in this. It's all about the money and influence as far as the PCB goes.

 

[Johnners]

Gah, reading some of the comments on cricinfo reminds me of a you-tube comments section.

 

[honestbharani]

Gah, reading some of the comments on cricinfo reminds me of a you-tube comments section.

TBF, reading the pieces by Heigh, Speed and Conn had the same effect on me.. It is not like those 3 wrote any better pieces.. Sambit Bal's pieces have been the best on this issue, right from the get-go... And easy to see why Heigh, Speed and Conn are the worst.. They just always come across as if it is their God given right to say what is right and wrong about cricket.. Irrespective of whether they are actually right in their assessments.. Easily the worst writers I have seen on cricket... Takes something to beat Roebuck in that stakes, you know... Thankfully the worse section of Indian writers don't always get the same coverage... If these 3 are among Australia's best cricket writers... I prefer to leave that sentence incomplete...

 

[pasag]

Pak went the way they did to get back into India's good graces. It had nothing to do with getting back at Australia for the cancelled tours. The PCB realizes that any good fortune they might get now or in the future will be through the BCCI. It probably didn't help that Australia has never had a cozy relationship with the PCB, but I really doubt that any animosity towards the Australians played a part in this. It's all about the money and influence as far as the PCB goes.

I don't think, so just because of the timelines and I don't believe India felt strongly on this matter. Again, I have nothing to support this at all so happy if others have a different theory but it seems like India came on board last. Pak I think feel unfairly treated by the cricketing community in general over the past few years so happy to get a bit of political revenge here or there. IIRC Howard always vocally support Australian players not going there so there's a connection there as well.

 

[pasag]

TBF, reading the pieces by Heigh, Speed and Conn had the same effect on me.. It is not like those 3 wrote any better pieces.. Sambit Bal's pieces have been the best on this issue, right from the get-go... And easy to see why Heigh, Speed and Conn are the worst.. They just always come across as if it is their God given right to say what is right and wrong about cricket.. Irrespective of whether they are actually right in their assessments.. Easily the worst writers I have seen on cricket... Takes something to beat Roebuck in that stakes, you know... Thankfully the worse section of Indian writers don't always get the same coverage... If these 3 are among Australia's best cricket writers... I prefer to leave that sentence incomplete...

Haigh is easily the best writer on cricket in the world. It's funny how when people don't agree with guys like him or Osman (as good as Haigh) they become "idiots."

 

[honestbharani]

Haigh is easily the best writer on cricket in the world. It's funny how when people don't agree with guys like him or Osman (as good as Haigh) they become "idiots."

I have always found Osman much much better than Heigh... And Sambit is so much better it is not funny.. So is Harsha Bhogle but then he never seems to have a "Strong" opinion on anything. From Australia itself, I think Ian Chappell is like a million times better when writing about cricket, even when I disagree with his opinions...


And yeah, the pieces on this issue have made me consider him the worst alongside Conn.. And then Speed started writing columns on Cricket..

 

[Burgey]

I have always found Osman much much better than Heigh... And Sambit is so much better it is not funny.. So is Harsha Bhogle but then he never seems to have a "Strong" opinion on anything. From Australia itself, I think Ian Chappell is like a million times better when writing about cricket, even when I disagree with his opinions...


And yeah, the pieces on this issue have made me consider him the worst alongside Conn.. And then Speed started writing columns on Cricket..

I so read that as "Corrin".

Was about to post "AWTA"

 

[pasag]

I have always found Osman much much better than Heigh... And Sambit is so much better it is not funny.. So is Harsha Bhogle but then he never seems to have a "Strong" opinion on anything. From Australia itself, I think Ian Chappell is like a million times better when writing about cricket, even when I disagree with his opinions...


And yeah, the pieces on this issue have made me consider him the worst alongside Conn.. And then Speed started writing columns on Cricket..

Conn is really bad, let's move that out of the way from the start.

Regarding Haigh, it would be akin to me saying that you're a poor poster because I vehemently disagree with almost everything you post on these type of issues. But I don't think that, and respect your posts even though I think you're wrong almost all of the time.

I have around 10 books of Haigh's on my bookshelf. He is one of the best writers I've come across, certainly one of the best cricket writers out there. To give a bit of context he's traditionally been quite critical of boards, for example he rips the Australian board of the early 1910s a new one for their treatment of the Big Six. My long winded point is just because he falls on the opposite side of the debate as you at the moment shouldn't make him an "idiot" or a "poor writer" and I hope public cricketing discussion can move past that sort of stuff.

 

[honestbharani]

Conn is really bad, let's move that out of the way from the start.

Regarding Haigh, it would be akin to me saying that you're a poor poster because I vehemently disagree with almost everything you post on these type of issues. But I don't think that, and respect your posts even though I think you're wrong almost all of the time.

I have around 10 books of Haigh's on my bookshelf. He is one of the best writers I've come across, certainly one of the best cricket writers out there. To give a bit of context he's traditionally been quite critical of boards, for example he rips the Australian board of the early 1910s a new one for their treatment of the Big Six. My long winded point is just because he falls on the opposite side of the debate as you at the moment shouldn't make him an "idiot" or a "poor writer" and I hope public cricketing discussion can move past that sort of stuff.

Well.. in that case, fair enough.. The only stuff I have read of him have been on the columns and he comes across as extremely divisive, bitter and biased and borderline imperialist for me.... Never really read his pieces on actual cricket though.. So I can see where I have been wrong. Apologies. I will modify my post.. He is the worst guy when it comes to commenting on Politicis in cricket..

 

[honestbharani]

Conn is really bad, let's move that out of the way from the start.

Regarding Haigh, it would be akin to me saying that you're a poor poster because I vehemently disagree with almost everything you post on these type of issues. But I don't think that, and respect your posts even though I think you're wrong almost all of the time.

I have around 10 books of Haigh's on my bookshelf. He is one of the best writers I've come across, certainly one of the best cricket writers out there. To give a bit of context he's traditionally been quite critical of boards, for example he rips the Australian board of the early 1910s a new one for their treatment of the Big Six. My long winded point is just because he falls on the opposite side of the debate as you at the moment shouldn't make him an "idiot" or a "poor writer" and I hope public cricketing discussion can move past that sort of stuff.

And tbf, I am not sure what I posted here that you have to "vehemently" disagree with, apart from Heigh..

 

[Matt79]

Zac has already said what I was going to re: Haigh so I'll move on. I think Conn is poor too, but Speed is entitled to put forward his views given he has vastly more experience of trying to run the ICC than almost everyone else in this discussion.

 

[honestbharani]

Zac has already said what I was going to re: Haigh so I'll move on. I think Conn is poor too, but Speed is entitled to put forward his views given he has vastly more experience of trying to run the ICC than almost everyone else in this discussion.

And I think we are entitled to say what we think of him based on what he has done, both as CEO of ICC and the ACB as it was back then... To put it lightly, it is not something you would want on your resume.

 

[Smudge]

To put it lightly, it is not something you would want on your resume.

Yes, that would look completely atrocious on one's resume.

Utterly atrocious.

I'd be surprised if he could ever find another job again, with that shocking job history on his measly CV. Even Sizzler might throw his application in the can.

 

[Matt79]

And I think we are entitled to say what we think of him based on what he has done, both as CEO of ICC and the ACB as it was back then... To put it lightly, it is not something you would want on your resume.

What was he supposed to have done that was so atrocious in either position that we should simply discount his views now?