I thought the ICC President (or Vice President to begin with) was to serve international cricket, not to stand up for the ANZAC divide...

And why would Howard need to be liked? The President is elected by the board, not by the masses. I would hope the board look beyond a candidate's likeability!

Totally agree, people who say John Howard getting the job is a triumph for ordinary fans- what nonsense, he's only getting it because of his past as a politician and Aussie PM, not because he deserves the job on a meritorious level.

Nice opening remarks, but I am still waiting for your case against Howard to be presented. If this is the case presented against Howard, the case must now be closed and m'learned friend Gideon Haigh pronounced the winner.

So, it's a popularity contest is it? What a load of tripe.

OOOO. This is very interesting, I like it. I have a lot of respect for Gideon Haigh and liked his article. This is also a very good response, because rather than engaging in what Gideon Haigh does best, it circumnavigates it. I would love to see and open forum debate between you two.

I dont think Howard should either become President or Vice Pres of ICC. His past record suggests that he was biased against sub continent players especially Murli.I mean as PM he didnt had the right to say anything against world class bowler. It is the ICC job to call anyone 'çhucker'or not. Even when Australia wanted to tour Pakistan in 2002,he didnt allowed Cricket team to go there because of security concerns. At that time all the teams were visiting Pakistan including India, SA and England. He may be a very nice person but shouldnt become the head of the cricketing governing body. I would urge all Asian nations to block his nomination. I would like any Kiwi or person from Carribean to become Pres or Vice Pres.

Umer S.Malik - Lahore,Pakistan.

Mohammad Asad from USA.....

Yeah !!! there are many many people BETTER suited to the job....
I guess.. everyone will go for the Better!!!! isn't it..

Excellent article. Agree with you. Sir John Anderson should have been selected. I am happy to know that there are still sane people around.

Cheers

great piece Ibrahim, well written!

Sounds like your opinion on Howard has been formed based on what you have read in Indian tabloids.

Howard is being marginalised for his frank comments on the dictatorship in Zimbabwe and on Murali's action. I concur with his views on both topic. You can rattle on about his supposed lack of experience in cricket administration but this is hardly the issue - his record as Australian prime minister is impressive - it is no fluke he was elected as Prime Minister four times. The "moral" stand taken by the Asian/African bloc is laughable and ironic. Zimbabwe is run by a dictator who has crippled the country. South Africa is beset by massive crime and corruption and a worsening social situation. Sri Lanka is recovering from a bloody civil war. India has serious ongoing sectarian and social issues. Pakistan needs no explanation. Who cares about Bangladesh - the fact that they have Test status is a joke.

Ibrahim,

I am glad to see you can make a qualified opinion on a person from the other side of the world. To quote you "To overcome that he would have to be a genius at management--and that, unfortunately, is not evident either."

what do you base this assertion on?

Look at his credentials as PM of Australia, 12 years of economic properity, low unemployment, reform changes, the list goes on...

You, my friend, seem to make an opinion I only guess on the fact you didn't like his politics?

I find it amusing that there is so much protestation against this selection. As an outsider looking in it seems other countires are scared that they won't be able to bully, coerce this individual like they have done others over the years.

The important thing to understand is that a case does not need to be made for Howard as Australia and New Zealand have declared him their candidate.

You are right about the things that do not matter and wrong about the things that do matter in relation to the appointment.

All the members on the board are divisive figures and this is the reason why the ICC is weak.

To reject Australia and New Zealand's nomination is not about Howard but about the other countries rejecting the philosophy of Australia and New Zealand's desire for a strong leader in the administration of the ICC.

Comparing Howard to Bush Jnr is just plain silly. There is a world of difference between the two people and their service to their countries. To judge Howard by the standard of Bush Jnr is immensely stupid in more ways than one.

There are not many people suited to the job, that is a myth of ridiculous proportions. The others fear Howard because he is a strong leader who bring with him real authority.

Pawar as Pres n Howard as Vice-Pres - what a combo. But Cricket may be the winner here as these 2 can push thru many legislations and politicking which otherwise, normal administrators may not be able to or have the stature to get it done !!

Interesting read...what really worries me is empowering a person like John Howard who is controversial to say the least(remember his comments on Murali being a chucker which was unwarranted and unbecoming of the Prime Minister of a country)...the post of ICC VP and subsequently ICC President would give him the power to take decisions which could be disruptive for world cricket...the last thing you need in world cricket is a clash between the Boards of different countries and the ICC which is a distinct possibility if he becomes ICC President in 2 years time.

and where are the legit points in the case against howard? i cant see any!!! all i see is double standards. the muppets at the icc are scared they may get someone who will clean their act up and make it an actual governing body like a fifa as opposed the to the self serving rabel it currently is!

dont let that puppet anywhere near the game of cricket the guy didnt even win his seat at the federal election,everyone is onto what a puppet he is

Salaam,

Sir Richard Hadley will be a better option !!!!

When John Howard was first put up as candidate, a Mr Roebuck wrote a scathing piece on why Howard was so wrong for the job, and how Australia had all but bullied New Zealand into accepting him, and not their nominee, the much better qualified Sir John Anderson.

However, a week or two later, the same Mr Roebuck wrote a very supportive piece of Mr Howard. Obviously someone in the ACB had put the hard word on him.

It will be interesting to read his next piece, now that Mr Howard has been rejected by the ICC.

And I love the irony of the shoe on the other foot now. People say that India wielded its might on this issue - hmmm... just like Australia did to New Zealand.

New Zealand cricket must be (privately) laughing themselves silly.

Part of being a good administrator is diplomacy.
he might have been a PM for 12 years. He might have been good for Australia in every way , but diplomacy is not his forte.
his remarks about other cricketers is an example that he is not a diplomat.
non controversial administrator and one who can resolve conflict is one of the important things apart from others as well for high jobs.
ICC president presides not over only Australia but others as well and hence the credentials would include likability to other boards and also level headed individual capable of handling conflicts in various factions
in the end it an election and popularity does count and he lost because of that which is democracy as we like it or not

And his nomination has been rejected. Make no mistake, this is a message from India to England, Australia and New Zealand about who really runs international cricket.

How about ICC starting a new rule.....that President and
his deputy should be a former test cricketer !!!!!!

As a (white, anglo) Aussie, i can't think of anything better than seeing Howard get rejected, apart from seeing him get kicked out of his own seat at the last election. There a plenty of better candidates in Australia.

So where is the justification against Howard. A waste of time. So we will have a popularity contest and let Shane warne or Sachin Tendulkar take over as ICC vice president. :) Think what you write before you write. Howard's nomination is just right. Gideon raised the question about the morality of those who object to Howard and they were perfect. If Haroon Lorgat, x, y , z and on top of it, a power broker Sharad pawar can be the ICC president, why on hell should a man of great management skills like Howard not become.. On top of everything, ICC is a big joke. Write better next time. Don't allow hatred to enter your communication.

I am glad Howard is not chosen. He is a bias person and asian teams would have suffered under his administration. In future, people like Howard should watch out what they say because it will haunt them for ever, wohooo!

Well said Paul, Michael Girolami and Anonymous. A ridiculous article by Ibrahim Moiz. What would a Canadian know anyway? At least Mr Howard is genuinely passionate about cricket, a trait not apparent in most of the ICC members and his administrative experience includes leader of the opposition and treasurer not just 12 years as PM.

Such vitriol on all sides. Suddenly Howard's supporters will have you believe that he is angel incarnate and Australia having the best humanitarian record etc. with and the other countries not even worthy of existence (read Paul above). His opponents have a somewhat tangential rejoinder by recalling his comments, or being soft on Apartheid South Africa, aborginal issues etc. etc. A careful examination shows that he has serious flaws but he may very well have been OK as ICC head as the position does not give unlimited power. I dont think he (or anybody for that matter) can change the ICC dramatically; that takes years. Aus/NZ could have done better by going for Mr. Anderson. My only issue here, is that a veto like this sets a bad precedent. England /Aus. abused their veto in the past but India (BCCI) should have risen above this. With the $$ in hand they could have laid claim to being the game's leader. A wasted opportunity.

Am not sure if either Mr.Howard or anybody else becoming ICC chief makes any difference from the way its being run. Also I dont think Howard is a strong leader as being portrayed here. Please note that he went to the same Zimbabwe to "garner support" for his candidature for ICC post, a place where he diplomatically didn't want his team to travel. So at the end of the day, he is also a normal politician and will make no difference to the way ICC functions.

Isn't democracy awkward when it produces `undesirable' results :-)

Clearly Mr Howard is a divisive personality. It's no use harking about his credentials. The majority has exercised its right (as delivered by the ICC constitution) to reject the CA/NZ candidate. Since it is the turn of CA/NZ to propose a candidate, they are permitted to produce a new one. What they do not have is a guarantee that any old candidate will be accepted.

This is how democracy works, these are the checks and balances. case closed.

This is not a case against, there are no facts in this article and to compare yourself to a REAL cricket writer like Gideon Haigh is just a joke. Anyway the only people who will be made president of the ICC is someone who the BCCI can manipulate so it is no longer a "democracy" but an oligarchy and the rest of us must pay homage!

To those who say that it was A-NZ's turn to nominate a candidate and other nations had no right to reject said candidate; why do we need to have a voting in the first place then? There's a reason he's only a candidate. You all are hypocrites for calling Zimbabwe a dictatorship, yet not favouring democracy in ICC.

I hear what you are saying, but I think you are missing the point. I think Howard would have been a good thing for cricket, a good counterpoint to Powar, who is a consummate politician. I have no doubt that they both have cricket's best interests at heart, but we have to accept that the ICC has become a political beast (remember, inter alia, the burying of the KPMG report on Zimbabwe). I genuinely believe that they both love the game, but perhaps we need balance in the Council that will ensure that cricket's interests come first. I'm Indian (why do I feel the need to qualify this posting?), but the members of the ICC are given to making decisions that serve short term interests that overrule their better judgement.This applies equally to a muscle-flexing subcontinent as to a defensive ex-establishment. For God's sake, can we have some cricket?

What a load of tripe. A personal attack and no good reason, a bit like the ICC members non-reason, really. No-one wants to put their hand up and put their name to it and explain why. Good governance, transparency and oversight would be an anathema to the ICC, while vested interests wish to run everyone else's board with cash injections.

How refreshing that the nomination was rejected. Democracy in action. The majority voted against Mr Howard - why do they need to give an explanation at all? He should be used to losing by now. If any board doesn't like the result, they are free to leave. How arrogant to think that your nomination should just be accepted. Also good to see the strongarm tactics/bullying of failed in the end. Let's have the better csndidate for the job nominated this time.

Perhaps England, Australia , New Zealand and some in South Africa would like to play cricket among themselves and not with any one else. I did not hear any massive public outcry when England, Australia and New Zealand boards had veto rights.

Where are the valid points against Howard? People don't like him-is that it? Why don't they like him? Since when did being straightforward become a bad thing? Maybe he doesn't like Murali's action. So what? Some people claim he dint let Oz tour Pakistan. Lots of other countries didn't let their teams do that. These reasons are nowhere near enough to reject him. No cricket background, eh? What about Sharad Pawar?
Its clear as day he's being rejected purely because he wud've made life very uncomfortable for some boards.

Like it or not...theres politics everywhere in every organisation......

Democracy is supposed to be good for people and politics, if well meaning in intention......

The John Howard case can be argued on "merits of John" Vs "flimsy excuses from other countries" or "the-benevolent-and-world-leader-opportunity-loss-of-India" arguments, but at the end of the day the process is democratic and political and a choice has been made.

It is important to not judge the decision but hold the ICC accountable for whatever is in their charter and if John Howard is capable of doing a better job than anyone else on that board, may he prove himself to the board in a democratic way (or political if you like).

At the end of it, if cricket comes out better then the ICC is a body worth respecting else we might as well treat them like we treat so many multinational companies that we are not associated with but love to hate just for the heck of it...

If Howard is entitled to his opinion about Murali,then Sri Lanka is also entitled to its choice of supporting or not supporting Howard.Same case with Zimbabwe.But rather than frankly state that it hates Howard because of his remarks on Murali,Sri Lanka is taking cover in the fact that Howard does not have prior administrative experience and along with Zimbabwe,it is toeing that line in order not to appear foolish with such a childish reason.

It is time the OZ,NZ and England come to terms with the real world and who runs world cricket.

If these so called torch bearers of democracy practice what they preach then they should clearly accept the verdict on John Howard instead of whining like school kids.

''What he said about Murali doesn't matter''?
John Howard, man on the street, can shoot off with the mouth offering his expert opinion, no problem.
John Howard, Current Prime Minister of Australia as he was at the time, cannot.
If he cannot be trusted to conduct himself with tact and sensitivity as his country's top diplomat, why would he do any better in a job that involves major inter-action with many nations?

It is simple. There is no reason to appoint Mr Howard. I do think some may have been distracted by the fact that Mr Howard was a prime minister. A cricket administrator is someone who has played the game well and been obviously strong on sportsmanship and fair play. Mr Howard has no track record. Issues of finance are also a distraction. They need to be dealt with by accountants. And they need to adapt to the game, not the other way round. The same applies to the more general 'administrator' - who is, in the case of cricket, a 'cricket administrator'. Anyone can make a mistake, and Mr Howard has made one here.

John Howard came to this as an expert in political gambit , not in public relations , and in very difficult times ALWAYS got the numbers

I disagree his appointment would have been short sighted , It is now common place to hire CEO / Chair with experience in a totally different field , because they are not stained with impurity of old knowledge .

its crickets loss full stop
IMO