From Ibrahim Moiz, Canada

The nomination of John Howard is an act of severe short-sightedness © Getty Images

Gideon Haigh has made himself a name for writing spanking pieces taking apart moral and economic flaws in the cricket fraternity. Unfortunately, his case for John Howard wasn't one of them. It's a fine piece in its own right, filled with Haigh's typical bafflement at the hypocrisies and short-sightedness of some of the world's most vocal bodies--yet it fails, I'm afraid, to make a case for the much-maligned Howard.

First of all, let's get the prerequisites out. What Howard was as prime minister of Australia really doesn't matter; the way and pattern he went about his work does, as that is what will be transferred to the ICC should he become vice-president or president. What he said or didn't say about Murali doesn't matter, either; it's his personal view, and though it may be mind-numbingly frustrating for some fans (myself included) to have to continually beat a dead horse every time Murali grabs a seven-for, Howard is entitled to his opinion.

Nor is the fact that he can't bowl to save his life of any consequence--mere knowledge and awareness of his responsibilities as an ICC official should suffice, and he is at least academically aware of cricket norms.

Indeed, it can be argued that his outsider rank is a strength and not a weakness, seeing as it removes a significant chip from his shoulder. But the fact remains that he is in no way qualified whatsoever for the job either. Those who attacked him as a racist or politician were indulging in ad hominem, trying to break their opponent's case by attacking his character instead of the issues at hand.

The temptation to expose their hypocrisy must have taken over, but instead of presenting a case for Howard's candidature Mr Haigh only attacked the double standards of the opponents; the subtitle to his piece, saying that Howard's opponents "are not exactly shining examples of rectitude themselves", signifies as much.

The fact is that there is a broadly divided view on Howard, and most of it is, unfortunately, not positive. To overcome that Howard would have to be a shining example of level-headed diplomacy, firmness and cool--yet his chuntering, in-your-face manner while leading his country suggests otherwise. His regular forays into the world of cricket went beyond endearing--that was a John Major, or a Robert Menzies--to simply tasteless. He is, unfortunately, seen in some parts of the cricket world as a divisive influence.

The fact is that from all the wonderfully capable administrators who surely must exist in the Anzac realm--that capable former NZC administrator, Sir John Anderson, springs immediately to mind--choosing Howard, whatever the hypocrisy of the nay-sayers, was almost mind-blowingly short-sighted. You may as well have appointed George W Bush head of FIFA--he may be a hell of a nice guy personally and his politics may have nothing to do with his views on the sport, but the fact is that people don't like him.

To overcome that he would have to be a genius at management--and that, unfortunately, is not evident either. Howard would have to change his public image dramatically--and serenading India, unfortunately, won't be enough. Indeed it is a sign that instead of standing up for the Anzac divide, Howard may just end up pandering to the hulking Indian board. In the end, whether Howard does or doesn't get the job--the fact is that there are many, many people better suited to the job, and the nomination is an act of severe short-sightedness.

From Alan and Philip Sutherland, Australia

A Test average of 39.04 for Victor Trumper - not great by today's standards but during his time, he was arguably the best batsman around © Getty Images

It is easy for those of a romantic disposition to fall for an imagined idea of a yesteryear, to dream of the great Ranji and Victor Trumper, or of SF Barnes and Tibby Cotter, and think it a Golden Age. Equally, for those of a more hard-nosed nature, it is easy to believe that with modern professionalism we are amid an even more lustrous age than has ever been seen before.

The ever-present media, in all its 21st century diversity, can easily mistake cricketers for deities and thus lead us to the conclusion that those who’ve played the game previously were never as good as those are who play it now. Yet, is this really the case? Cricket history has a habit of repeating itself, whether it is by independent tours, player strikes, financial problems or political troubles. And so too, as early as about a century ago, one saw a precursor of the media coverage we have today. In 1915, during the dark days of World War 1, Australian newspapers made ample space to headline the death of the aforementioned Trumper. Thousands turned out for his funeral, which for the time was remarkable.

It is easy to overlook the role that cricket played in an early Australia. The colonial outposts were collectively challenging England long before the Commonwealth of Australia existed. By the time of national federation in 1901, Trumper was beginning to make his mark and by 1903 he was arguably the best batsman in the game. He certainly was so on a wet “sticky dog” wicket that could have doubled for a mud-wrestler’s paradise.

Any age however, like any team, is not the sum of one player. Over a twenty-year period, entire careers can grow, flower and fade. Modern cricket crams so much into one year’s calendar, it is hard to imagine today the lengths that cricketers of previous generations went to in order to join a single tour. Who today practices on a slow boat to the UK? Cricketers of a century ago never played with a modern bat, helmet and space-age pads, to roped-in boundaries on a flat, rolled wicket. If Trumper did, he may well think the fun of it all had been taken from him. As it was, he saw himself as an entertainer, which along with the state of the pitches helps explain an average of only 39.04, which today would make him fairly ordinary indeed.

Well may we say that there are lies, damn lies and statistics that are considered out of context. The only problem is that context is a hard thing to pin down. Cricket changes (rather more slowly than we often imagine, but changes nonetheless) and we forget or simply arrive in this world too late to see much that has gone before. Lovers of the game who did see a particular era might easily be expected to wax lyrical about its virtues and with some cause. For if one looks closely at the best of any era, one is struck by how good it is and that helps explain the continuing attraction of the international game for over 120 years.

Taking a representative snapshot of the best players from periods of twenty-years length, (with the exception of the first and the last, which must be longer and shorter respectively), one can see a consistency in quality of players, to a point that it is hard to argue that one is much better than another.

The following lists are in batting order with a 12th man. The 84 players include at least one representative from each Test-playing nation and one from outside the Test world - the legendary Philadelphian swing-bowling all-rounder Bart King.

1877-1899: C.Bannerman (Aus), T.Hayward (Eng), K.Ranjitsinhji (Eng/Ind), W.Murdoch (Aus&Eng), FS.Jackson (Eng), WG.Grace {capt}(Eng), H.Trumble (Aus), J.Blackham (wk)(Aus), C.Turner (Aus), G.Lohmann (Eng), F.Spofforth (Aus); JB.King (USA).

1900-1919: J.Hobbs (Eng), H.Taylor (SAf), V.Trumper (Aus), E.Tyldesley (Eng), S.Gregory (capt) (Aus), A.Faulkner (SAf), C.Macartney (Aus), W.Rhodes (Eng), T.Ward {wk}(SAf), SF.Barnes (Eng), A.Cotter (Aus);C.Fry (Eng).

1920-1939: H.Sutcliffe (Eng), B.Mitchell (SAf), D.Bradman (Aus), G.Headley (WI), W.Hammond (Eng) W.Armstrong {capt}(Aus), J.Gregory (Aus), W.Oldfield {wk}(Aus), H.Larwood (Eng), W.OReilly (Aus), C.Grimmett (Aus);L.Constantine (WI).

1940-1959: A.Morris (Aus), L.Hutton (Eng), V.Hazare (Ind), A.Melville (SAf), F.Worrell {capt}(WI), C.Walcott {wk}(WI), K.Miller (Aus), R.Benaud (Aus), R.Lindwall (Aus), H.Tayfield (SAf), F.Trueman (Eng); M.Donnelly (NZ).

1960-1979: S.Gavaskar (Ind), B.Richards (SAf), G.Chappell (Aus), G.Pollock (SAf), K.Barrington (Eng), G.Sobers (WI), Mushtaq Mohammad (capt)(Pak), A.Knott (wk) (Eng), R.Hadlee (NZ), D.Lillee (Aus), B.Bedi (Ind);B.D’ Oliviera (Eng/SAf).

1980-1999: G.Greenidge (WI), M.Crowe (NZ), V.Richards (WI), S.Waugh (Aus), A.Border (Aus), Imran Khan {capt}(Pak), Kapil Dev (Ind), I.Healy (wk) (Aus), Wasim Akram (Pak), S.Warne (Aus), M.Marshall (WI);I.Botham (Eng).

2000- Tamim Iqbal (Bang), A.Flower (Zim), S.Tendulkar (Ind), B.Lara (WI), K.Sangakarra (SL), J.Kallis (SAf), A.Gilchrist (wk) (Aus), A.Kumble (capt)(Ind), D.Steyn (SAf), G.McGrath (Aus), M.Muralitharan (SL); R.Ponting (Aus).

Certainly, there are differences in the above lists. Early batsmen were usually right-handed. Today’s era is littered with left-handers. Kumar Ranjitsinhji is the lone early sub-continental player and he had to represent England, encountering not a few objections to his right to do so in those less-enlightened times. Twelve others from the sub-continent appear later, including three who were more than sufficiently regarded as captains.

It’s possible, of course, that the current 20-year period will conclude with others having come to the fore. Tamim Iqbal’s inclusion is based on expectation, given his age and probability of continued improvement. However, as much as the current list may yet improve, it’s difficult to see how it deserves to be regarded as the very best of all.

Eras are unique and each can have its own attraction. If one prefers fast-bowling, the eras of Lillee, Hadlee, Marshall, Imran and Wasim would hold particular attraction. Yet, equally, wouldn’t one want to see, if one could, the great SF Barnes’ guile at one end and Tibby Cotter’s slingshots at the other?