John Winston Howard - ICC President 2012 and beyond!

[sifter132]

The NZ candidate was always a better choice than Howard but Australia had to get their way...

Possibly true, but I think Australia pushed Howard because they believe he might crack some heads and make a real difference whereas Anderson might have been a bit less likely to step on toes and make changes - a 'safer' pick I guess. Howard's a riskier nomination for many reasons but I think for that risk they see a potential greater reward in that he might get the ICC running a lot better.

But I can't believe some of the reactions to him. Because he once thought Murali threw he'll suddenly hate all things about Sri Lankan cricket? Lots of people thought Murali threw... Anyway, if anything, he'll be trying to be NICE to Sri Lanka to mend any bridges he's burned. I think the bottom line is that some boards are scared of Howard (eg South Africa) and I personally think that's a good thing. They're worried he might actually DO something to make cricket better rather than acting like the weak as water puppets we've had in the ICC up til now.

 

[sohum]

Sure, everyone had their opinion of Murali. But it is completely out of line for the Prime Minister of your country--the head of state--to make such a controversial statement about a visiting team. Did he once stop to think that the Lankans were visiting his country? That their fans were coming in and spending money and boosting the economy? That citizens of his own country were going to be spending their hard-earned money to go watch a good cricket match?

He has an opinion, but when you are a politician--and a PM no less--you have to be a lot more prudent about what statements you make in public. John Howard acted pretty tactlessly in that and other incidents, and he may have thought he was being all gung-ho about making controversial statements, but it's come back to bite him in his ass, hasn't it?

 

[TumTum]

Sure, everyone had their opinion of Murali. But it is completely out of line for the Prime Minister of your country--the head of state--to make such a controversial statement about a visiting team. Did he once stop to think that the Lankans were visiting his country? That their fans were coming in and spending money and boosting the economy? That citizens of his own country were going to be spending their hard-earned money to go watch a good cricket match?

He has an opinion, but when you are a politician--and a PM no less--you have to be a lot more prudent about what statements you make in public. John Howard acted pretty tactlessly in that and other incidents, and he may have thought he was being all gung-ho about making controversial statements, but it's come back to bite him in his ass, hasn't it?

You didn't answer the question of why he doesn't deserve to be the ICC president. Obviously it wasn't the best thing to say but I think just like everybody else you are making up excuses.

 

[smssia0112]

They need to drop him, he is just too controversial, why even start this headache

Because it's what the ICC needs - they have become far too corrupt. When they sacked Speed for daring to suggest they follow the recommendations of an independent audit of Zimbabwe Cricket's finances, they just reinforced what we all know - they are a joke of an organisation that holds no real control over cricket whatsoever. Howard is the president we need - someone who will do what's best for the game and not for his pocket.

 

[sifter132]

He has an opinion, but when you are a politician--and a PM no less--you have to be a lot more prudent about what statements you make in public. John Howard acted pretty tactlessly in that and other incidents, and he may have thought he was being all gung-ho about making controversial statements, but it's come back to bite him in his ass, hasn't it?

Totally understand where you are coming from and yes, he could have been a bit more tactful.

But throwing the cat among the pigeons, as a politician he's a representative of the Australian public and whenever I saw Murali live I can guarantee you a LOT of people in the crowd shared John Howard's view on his action. So he was really just representing the views of the people - like any politician should

Adam Gilchrist's stance is the perfect example of how fickle this stuff is. When asked if Murali threw back in 2002 he said "Yeah, I think he does". Yet all it seemed to take was Gilly walking in the 2003 World Cup when given not out and suddenly Sri Lankan fans respected him again. Really? Is Sri Lanka really going to 'argue the toss' just because John Howard had an opinion that MANY other cricket players and followers had. Guys like Michael Holding, Dean Jones, Bishen Bedi and Martin Crowe had no problem pointing out their problems with his action. Then again apparently Sir Donald had no problem with his action...

Anyway, it's really a silly topic that's taken up way too many words in the last 15 years. I just hope the best decision is made for CRICKET and not revenge or cheap political points on EITHER side of the debate.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Totally understand where you are coming from and yes, he could have been a bit more tactful.

But throwing the cat among the pigeons, as a politician he's a representative of the Australian public and whenever I saw Murali live I can guarantee you a LOT of people in the crowd shared John Howard's view on his action. So he was really just representing the views of the people - like any politician should

there's a difference between representing the publics opinion and pandering to it.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Agreed 100%



Nah, don't think so

Its only the difference of perspective Hmarka. I don't want to start an argument but I have seen Australian and English players get away with murder on field many a time whereas Asian players have been nailed for the very same mistakes. So for me this issue does exist. I just fear that with a controversial person like howard at the top, things will get worse.

 

[TumTum]

but I have seen Australian and English players get away with murder on field many a time

really?

 

[sami ullah khan]

I hope you understand i did not mean it literally

 

[sohum]

You didn't answer the question of why he doesn't deserve to be the ICC president. Obviously it wasn't the best thing to say but I think just like everybody else you are making up excuses.

It is implied. He says stupid ████ and he doesn't have the support of the majority of the boards.

sohum added 7 Minutes and 53 Seconds later...

But throwing the cat among the pigeons, as a politician he's a representative of the Australian public and whenever I saw Murali live I can guarantee you a LOT of people in the crowd shared John Howard's view on his action. So he was really just representing the views of the people - like any politician should

That's a total cop out and you know it. Politicians are supposed to build international relationships, not break them down.

Adam Gilchrist's stance is the perfect example of how fickle this stuff is. When asked if Murali threw back in 2002 he said "Yeah, I think he does". Yet all it seemed to take was Gilly walking in the 2003 World Cup when given not out and suddenly Sri Lankan fans respected him again.

What does Gilly have to do with anything? Gilly actually plays cricket and hence he is entitled to what he wants to say because he has actually played Murali. Howard is a couch-fan whose opinion holds more weight not because it's right but because he happens to be a head of state. And his opinion doesn't only matter in cricketing discussions because he was the damn Prime Minister of the country.

Really? Is Sri Lanka really going to 'argue the toss' just because John Howard had an opinion that MANY other cricket players and followers had. Guys like Michael Holding, Dean Jones, Bishen Bedi and Martin Crowe had no problem pointing out their problems with his action. Then again apparently Sir Donald had no problem with his action...

That's how politics works. Your past is as important as your present and potential future. Howard is simply reaping what he sowed.

Anyway, it's really a silly topic that's taken up way too many words in the last 15 years. I just hope the best decision is made for CRICKET and not revenge or cheap political points on EITHER side of the debate.

It is arguable that by putting such a controversial guy at the head of the organization, that he will split cricket, which is worse for it, not better.

 

[drainpipe32]

Please Sohum, just let me know when the movie comes out....

 

[smssia0112]

It is arguable that by putting such a controversial guy at the head of the organization, that he will split cricket, which is worse for it, not better.

Cricket has been split for some time sohum, it's integrity has been compromised for years and it's about time these issues came to a head. In the short term a split would be devastating but in the long term it might just sort out the issues present.

 

[sohum]

Cricket has been split for some time sohum, it's integrity has been compromised for years and it's about time these issues came to a head. In the short term a split would be devastating but in the long term it might just sort out the issues present.

I think you're taking too cynical an attitude towards cricket.

Let's take a look at the actual cricket being played. We're at the most competitive moment in international cricket right now. Test cricket's top spot is up for grabs at the moment with any of the top 4-5 sides capable of winning against each other. ODI cricket is enjoying somewhat of a revival as people are getting bored of watching Twenty20. We've seen several world class fast bowlers emerge over the last couple of years to straighten the balance that had been progressively shifting towards batsmen.

All the politics and integrity really are not important from a cricketing point of view. Controversies will always exist--doesn't matter if the next president is Howard or that Kiwi bloke or Lalit Modi.

I completely disagree that a split now wouldn't be devastating in the long term. How many years of test cricket has it taken us to reach a stage where we have so many competitive teams? Are you willing to throw all that away just because the BCCI flexes its muscles every 6 months? There is no way to guarantee that by alienating the huge fanbase in Asia now, that you will ever get them back in the future, especially when the BCCI ego is at stake.

Cricket in India will survive without the ICC (heck, it could probably survive just with Sri Lanka--as we have seemed so intent on proving with our endless series' against them). But the ICC relies very heavily on the money that it makes by keeping India in the fold. And I'm not talking about BCCI, I'm talking about their sponsors (used to be GCC, might still be the case). Do you know the 4 companies that sponsored the CWC2007? LG, Pepsi, Hutch and Hero Honda.

One of these companies was completely Indian (Hero Honda). Hutch was the Indian subsidiary of Vodafone, and I'm pretty certain that Pepsi and LG were acting through their Asian subsidiaries, if not their Indian ones. You might take the moral high ground by throwing away all that money, but the ICC won't be able to survive without money. And the fact is that most of the money is coming from Asia, NOT THE BCCI, but from actual Asian companies.

I'm sorry, but there is no way I can agree that a split would be good for cricket. I don't think even John Howard is daft enough to try and effectuate something like that, though.