John Howard to head ICC?

[honestbharani]

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.

It is not what post you held but what you did with it.. You seriously think "I ran the 2007 Cricket WC" is impressive on a resume????????



Heck, Jagmohan Dalmiya has a 100 times better resume in that case...



But then again, why let facts get in the way of rants?



Speed is God. Satisfied?

 

[honestbharani]

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

He hushed up bookie contacts of Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, for one.


And as I said earlier, google him on cricket and controversy and you will see what people are talking about.


BTW, do you seriously SERIOUSLY believe the guy did nothing wrong inspite of so many people being provoked at the very mention of his name???????????

 

[Matt79]

It is not what post you held but what you did with it.. You seriously think "I ran the 2007 Cricket WC" is impressive on a resume????????



Heck, Jagmohan Dalmiya has a 100 times better resume in that case...



But then again, why let facts get in the way of rants?



Speed is God. Satisfied?

Not satisfied at all. There's a lot of room between "Speed should be ignored on everything because the 2007 WC was poor" and "Speed is God, ok?". If that's seriously your reason for saying you just discount his views then I'm afraid I don't find your argument very persuasive.

 

[Matt79]

He hushed up bookie contacts of Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, for one.


And as I said earlier, google him on cricket and controversy and you will see what people are talking about.


BTW, do you seriously SERIOUSLY believe the guy did nothing wrong inspite of so many people being provoked at the very mention of his name???????????

Given the level of knowledge and understanding of logic of most discussion of cricket in the media and especially on the 'net (CW aside), what I get back when he's googled, or what a ton of people who find him offensive doesn't mean anything to me.

You've raised a concrete point thee regarding ACB's conduct with the Warne/Waugh bookie incident, and I'll happily concede that that should be recalled when looking at what Speed says re: corruption in the game. I don't really see the relevance of that incident to his ability to discuss internal ICC politics.

 

[Smudge]

Speed is God. Satisfied?

Why on earth would I care about Speed being talked up or not? I'm a New Zealander, not an Australian - that is, if nationalism should even be relevant here.

My point was your assertion that Speed's two jobs as a CEO of, firstly, a leading sports organisation in Australia and then a multi-national sporting organisation was " To put it lightly, it is not something you would want on your resume" is just hyperbole in the extreme.

 

[honestbharani]

Why on earth would I care about Speed being talked up or not? I'm a New Zealander, not an Australian - that is, if nationalism should even be relevant here.

My point was your assertion that Speed's two jobs as a CEO of, firstly, a leading sports organisation in Australia and then a multi-national sporting organisation was " To put it lightly, it is not something you would want on your resume" is just hyperbole in the extreme.

Nope, I meant the ICC World Cup... It is not really difficult to understand when you decide to see what is there instead of what you want to see..

 

[honestbharani]

Given the level of knowledge and understanding of logic of most discussion of cricket in the media and especially on the 'net (CW aside), what I get back when he's googled, or what a ton of people who find him offensive doesn't mean anything to me.

You've raised a concrete point thee regarding ACB's conduct with the Warne/Waugh bookie incident, and I'll happily concede that that should be recalled when looking at what Speed says re: corruption in the game. I don't really see the relevance of that incident to his ability to discuss internal ICC politics.

No, I think some of his interviews and views and the way he conducted himself during that time gave more than enough credence to think that he is not beyond playing the political game himself. And it is amazingly hypocritical of him to come out and say that ICC are political now, as if they weren't then.


As Sambit Bal pointed out in his article for cricinfo, the way Australia and England tried to stop Jagmohan Dalmiya from being ICC president was something else... And why the hell are they complaining about the politics today, now that it has turned out sour for them?


Fact: ICC is, was and will ALWAYS be a political organization where the votes and favoritism rules over everything else. It happened when Australia and England ruled the roost, it is happening when India is ruling the roost, and it WILL happen when say a South Africa goes strong. Whining about something that you were very much a part of and something you did yourself doesn't endear yourself to anyone...

 

[Matt79]

Well, I wasn't part of it and didn't endorse it when Australia "ruled the roost" as you put it, but fair enough if that's your point of view. Please just don't ever act offended by anything that has been done to Indian cricket in the past, or indeed in the future, if that's your attitude, because you can't have it both ways.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, I wasn't part of it and didn't endorse it when Australia "ruled the roost" as you put it, but fair enough if that's your point of view. Please just don't ever act offended by anything that has been done to Indian cricket in the past, or indeed in the future, if that's your attitude, because you can't have it both ways.

I never did.. I am not sure where you saw me complaining, unless you are going to bring up Steve Bucknor but let's not go there now. It is all done and dusted..


And point is, I didn't mean "you" when I said "you" in that post. I was referring to Speed, unless you implied that Speed wasn't part of it when Australia were the ones ruling the ICC... REally finding it difficult to be upto speed now, hard day at work.

 

[Matt79]

Fair enough - btw not meaning to stalk you from here to the BCCI article thread! Just enjoying actually having a reasonably substantive discussion in CC after a while on a couple of issues, and you're on at the same time as me.

I understand what you're saying about referring to Speed not me - sorry, I guess I misunderstood that part.

I thought I recalled some posts where you had, but I'll take your word for it because I can't remember specifics now and certainly can't be bothered trawling through the archives! If I've confused you with other posters in terms of complaining about how India has been treated in the past, again my apologies.

Moving aside from you specifically, I guess I do find it somewhat depressing, on either 'side', when hypocrisy creeps in, in terms of people from the England-Australia establishment not being willing to concede that there have been flaws in the past (and I'm not talking about Bucknor or Chris Broad either), or people from India justifying current misbehaviour by saying it's simply turnaround for past misbehaviour directed at them, and then still complaining about that past misbehaviour.

 

[honestbharani]

Fair enough - btw not meaning to stalk you from here to the BCCI article thread! Just enjoying actually having a reasonably substantive discussion in CC after a while on a couple of issues, and you're on at the same time as me.

I understand what you're saying about referring to Speed not me - sorry, I guess I misunderstood that part.

I thought I recalled some posts where you had, but I'll take your word for it because I can't remember specifics now and certainly can't be bothered trawling through the archives! If I've confused you with other posters in terms of complaining about how India has been treated in the past, again my apologies.

Moving aside from you specifically, I guess I do find it somewhat depressing, on either 'side', when hypocrisy creeps in, in terms of people from the England-Australia establishment not being willing to concede that there have been flaws in the past (and I'm not talking about Bucknor or Chris Broad either), or people from India justifying current misbehaviour by saying it's simply turnaround for past misbehaviour directed at them, and then still complaining about that past misbehaviour.

Well, I have been saying from the beginning that the way the whole affair has been handled by those 6 or 7 boards have been wrong.


Having said that, I really hate the fact that people are now crowing as if Howard is the second coming or something. And the point is, CA knew something like this could have happened all along. Perhaps not on the same scale and I guess they did count on Pawar's word that India would vote for them but he was always going to be a divisive candidate and that is the end of that. You seriously think any of this would have happened had they gone with the other guy from NZ?


And no worries mate, I have always found it a pleasure to post and debate with you and quite a few others here.. My beef is with Speed, mate, not you..

 

[Matt79]

No doubt Howard is a contentious figure. He is a hugely competent man who would have brought a lot to the role and, I think, improved the game of cricket. But if he is genuinely unacceptable to several countries, then he's not a suitable candidate. I'm unimpressed, and I think you're saying you agree, with the way those opposed handled the issue. There surely could have been an opportunity when Aus and NZ were debating whether to put up Howard or John Anderson (who ironically is the namesake of Howard's former Deputy Prime Minister) to indicate to both countries that they would not endorse Howard if he was put forward. That would have saved a lot of face for Howard and Cricket Australia. I can't imagine that if CA had been told Howard would be refused, they would have decided to call the bluff and risk it.

I think the real problem that this has highlighted is the very slipshod nature of the arrangements. It's a ceremonial post, with appointments made by boards on a rotating basis by convention, but technically it's an elected post by all the board. The first time someone decided to play realpolitik, exercise that technically, and break the convention was inevitably going to result in hurt feelings on someone's behalf. It will be very interesting to see how such appointments go in future now that that convention is gone.

 

[honestbharani]

No doubt Howard is a contentious figure. He is a hugely competent man who would have brought a lot to the role and, I think, improved the game of cricket. But if he is genuinely unacceptable to several countries, then he's not a suitable candidate. I'm unimpressed, and I think you're saying you agree, with the way those opposed handled the issue. There surely could have been an opportunity when Aus and NZ were debating whether to put up Howard or John Anderson (who ironically is the namesake of Howard's former Deputy Prime Minister) to indicate to both countries that they would not endorse Howard if he was put forward. That would have saved a lot of face for Howard and Cricket Australia. I can't imagine that if CA had been told Howard would be refused, they would have decided to call the bluff and risk it.

I think the real problem that this has highlighted is the very slipshod nature of the arrangements. It's a ceremonial post, with appointments made by boards on a rotating basis by convention, but technically it's an elected post by all the board. The first time someone decided to play realpolitik, exercise that technically, and break the convention was inevitably going to result in hurt feelings on someone's behalf. It will be very interesting to see how such appointments go in future now that that convention is gone.

It is gonna go the way everything else in the ICC goes.. Decided on votes and backroom politics.


But still don't think CA and BCCI would be stupid enough to let an issue like this get in the way of a mutually profitable alliance...


Still sticking to my "BCCI using this as a bargaining tool with CA" theory, tbh.. Don't rule out a Howard comeback sometime, once BCCI gets what it wants from CA, whatever that may be I have noo idea though..

 

[Fusion]

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.

Pakistan and Bangladesh didn't come out against Howard until the BCCI did. That to me is a clear indication that both the boards were following their big brother's lead. In fact, the PCB chairman (described as a "buffoon" by the ever so classy Malcolm Speed) had indicated his support for Howard earlier as he considered him a personal friend. To me, PCB did what it thought was best for itself: being in India's good graces. Being part of the so called "Asia Bloc" is far more advantageous for the PCB than being in any alliance with Australia (which had never held a strong relationship with the PCB in the first place). Anyway, it's all a matter of personal opinion on why they voted the way they did. The more important matter is that fact that they did vote the way they did.

 

[pasag]

Pakistan and Bangladesh didn't come out against Howard until the BCCI did. That to me is a clear indication that both the boards were following their big brother's lead. In fact, the PCB chairman (described as a "buffoon" by the ever so classy Malcolm Speed) had indicated his support for Howard earlier as he considered him a personal friend. To me, PCB did what it thought was best for itself: being in India's good graces. Being part of the so called "Asia Bloc" is far more advantageous for the PCB than being in any alliance with Australia (which had never held a strong relationship with the PCB in the first place). Anyway, it's all a matter of personal opinion on why they voted the way they did. The more important matter is that fact that they did vote the way they did.

I think it's the other way around, it's not important that they voted the way they did, more important why. Also iirc there were mumblings coming from Pakistan about Howard's candidacy in the lead up. Certainly seems to me BCCI were very much the last on board.

 

[Cruxdude]

A very interesting article here by Sambit Bal. Brings in to focus some stuff which have been forgotten in all the BCCI hate.
Sambit Bal: Stop canonising Howard | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

 

[pasag]

A very interesting article here by Sambit Bal. Brings in to focus some stuff which have been forgotten in all the BCCI hate.
Sambit Bal: Stop canonising Howard | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

The majority of this is spot on and really what we've been saying since post 1. Call him a ****. Oppose his rejection because he's a ****. Bring his politics into it by all means. Just don't dress it up behind "too inexperienced to run a sporting body" arguments.

 

[Smudge]

It is not really difficult to understand when you decide to see what is there instead of what you want to see..

EDIT: Not worth it.

 

[jeevan]

The majority of this is spot on and really what we've been saying since post 1. Call him a ****. Oppose his rejection because he's a ****. Bring his politics into it by all means. Just don't dress it up behind "too inexperienced to run a sporting body" arguments.

I agree. This situation has been made needlessly murky.In fact it is not even necessary to demonstrate whether or not Howard is a general ****. Just that a reasonable number of cricket boards did not have a great deal of faith in him.

The three that spoke out (ZC, SLC, CSA) ought to have been enough to give CA a hint to pick someone else. This vote was necessary to show that 4 more didn't have enough confidence in him to stand up for him in any way and in fact could be easily persuaded to oppose him - not even the BCCI and it's allegedly massive weight that does not need to "worry" about the "smaller" boards like BCB.

What makes this whole thing a real travesty though, is that CA & NZC passed over a perfectly fine candidate who wanted the job and had gobs of ICC experience and is just the sort of non-politician that would make for a professional ICC. At this stage, people should be on their knees begging John Anderson to now take this tainted post.

Instead we apparently have Mark Taylor, seems a fine candidate in himself from what I know - but who has the exact same commentary/columnist conflict that made the ICC ask Gavaskar to choose between his paying gigs and the ICC! (This was absolutely the right thing to do wrt Gavaskar, btw.). I cannot believe the CA is being so inept about this whole episode.

 

[jeevan]

BTW I did not know who John Anderson was until this thing blew up. But that's the point - one can expect the most professionalism from exactly this kind of non-politician, non-celebrity sports administrator who has been doing only that (and perhaps a paying day job) for a while. Shashank Manohar - present BCCI chief - might be another of that sort of person and may their tribe increase.

ICC going from a non-controversial (wrt the cricket boards of the world) politician like Pawar to a controversial one like Howard is such a retrograde step.