John Howard to head ICC?

[silentstriker]

Britney Spears to head the ICC IMO.

 

[Shri]

leavebritneyalone.avi

 

[Smudge]

Looks like I touched a raw nerve there by stating that some knighted Kiwi isn't well known. He is anonymous compared to John Howard and no one outside New Zealand would contest that.

I'm not disputing that either. Point (no pun intended) is, Anderson is far better qualified for the job and if you had bothered reading up on him, you'd realise that.

 

[Flem274*]

Looks like I touched a raw nerve there by stating that some knighted Kiwi isn't well known. He is anonymous compared to John Howard and no one outside New Zealand would contest that.

Sup ostraaaarliaaaan.

Sir John Anderson>you

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

 

[Flem274*]

Nom nom.

 

[Point]

I'm not disputing that either. Point (no pun intended) is, Anderson is far better qualified for the job and if you had bothered reading up on him, you'd realise that.

Actually I read up on him as soon as I saw the story and I find it amusing that you think this dude is more qualified than someone who ran a country for 11 years. If anything, John Howard is too qualified.

Though obviously that depends heavily on the arbitrary criteria you are creating for the term "qualified" which is clearly designed post-hoc to suite your fellow.

 

[NZTailender]

Actually I read up on him as soon as I saw the story and I find it amusing that you think this dude is more qualified than someone who ran a country for 11 years. If anything, John Howard is too qualified.

Though obviously that depends heavily on the arbitrary criteria you are creating for the term "qualified" which is clearly designed post-hoc to suite your fellow.

Anderson is the one with more relevant skills, but let's not bring logic into this.

 

[Point]

Anderson is the one with more relevant skills, but let's not bring logic into this.

And let's not bring clarity into this either. Let's keep equivocating so that our criteria can be tailor made to suit our candidate.

 

[Flem274*]

Actually I read up on him as soon as I saw the story and I find it amusing that you think this dude is more qualified than someone who ran a country for 11 years. If anything, John Howard is too qualified.

Though obviously that depends heavily on the arbitrary criteria you are creating for the term "qualified" which is clearly designed post-hoc to suite your fellow.

Um wat?

Even if he was a good PM (LOL), he's a mere fan when it comes to cricket.

With his history, him trying to be diplomatic to the BCCI will be hilarious.

I nominate Helen Clark or John Key then if being a PM makes you awsum.

 

[Smudge]

Actually I read up on him as soon as I saw the story and I find it amusing that you think this dude is more qualified than someone who ran a country for 11 years. If anything, John Howard is too qualified.

I give up if that's your attitude.

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

Looks like I touched a raw nerve there by stating that some knighted Kiwi isn't well known. He is anonymous compared to John Howard and no one outside New Zealand would contest that.

I nominate Russell Crowe. He's well known and has cricket connections

 

[silentstriker]

Britney Spears. If being well known is a criteria, surely she beats John Howard out. They both have equal cricket administration experience.

 

[NZTailender]

And let's not bring clarity into this either. Let's keep equivocating so that our criteria can be tailor made to suit our candidate.

You're the one doing this, not me.

 

[Point]

Try this simple experiment. Take both of their resume's to any non-NZer and ask them who is more "qualified."

You're argument collapses unless you start talking about cricketing experience. Maybe according to your criteria Steve Waugh would be even better. I can see those goal posts shifting uneasily as you read this.

Frankly, I'm not really that passionate about who wins, though I know it would far better for the reputation and the progression of cricket if John Howard would head the ICC.

But the way all you guys are responding to this, is as if it's a matter of national pride. It's the pride of NZ versus your big brother across the tasman. So I'll leave you guys to foam at the mouth while your nationalism trumps your common sense.

 

[Flem274*]

Hi bond21

 

[Burgey]

Try this simple experiment. Take both of their resume's to any non-NZer and ask them who is more "qualified."

You're argument collapses unless you start talking about cricketing experience. Maybe according to your criteria Steve Waugh would be even better. I can see those goal posts shifting uneasily as you read this.

Frankly, I'm not really that passionate about who wins, though I know it would far better for the reputation and the progression of cricket if John Howard would head the ICC.

But the way all you guys are responding to this, is as if it's a matter of national pride. It's the pride of NZ versus your big brother across the tasman. So I'll leave you guys to foam at the mouth while your nationalism trumps your common sense.

I'm not a Kiwi mate, and I can tell you Howard's not suited to it. In fact, I can tell you he's a ****.

 

[Craig]

And how does being well known matter in all of this?

 

[duffer]

This is a pretty decent standard of trolling. I'm impressed.

 

[NZTailender]

This is a pretty decent standard of trolling. I'm impressed.

Yeah, it's like being trashed talked by Dr Frasier Crane.