From Andrew Sanderson, Australia

An equal distribution of games should be the way to go © Getty Images

With talk of a Test World Cup, similar to the ODI and Twenty20 World Cups, maybe it is time to have a closer look at the Future Tours Programme (FTP) and how many games that Test teams are playing.

As it stands, there seem to be no uniform tours - each tour relies on the teams involved deciding how many Tests, ODIs and T20s that they will play. If the ICC were to set a uniform tour format, with an equal number of tours for each team, perhaps the ICC Rankings would have more meaning for all involved.

My proposal is simple - we set the number of games for each tour at three Tests, three ODIs and three T20s. The total days in playing time in this format is 21 days. If we allow five days rest between each Test and one day between each of the shorter games, this allows for 14 days rest, bringing the total days to 35. Allow an additional five days between the Test and ODIs, and a day between the ODIs and the T20s, and our tour total reaches 41 days. Finally, give the sides 10 days grace on each side of the entire tour, and the magic number becomes 61 days - about two months.

This format allows the players to have plenty of time before and after each tour (20 days), and allows teams to have six tours per year. Ideally this would be three home and three away tours. Given there are 10 Test teams (assuming that Zimbabwe are taken back into the fold), they would face each other once every 18 months, and in a three-year span would play one home and one away series against each Test nation. Of course, room needs to be made for major tournaments (the World Cups), but as a simple, starting suggestion, there seems no reason why this proposal would not work. If more Test teams enter the ranks, obviously the teams will face off against each other less frequently, but the distribution of games should still be equal.

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.