Six boards reject John Howard for ICC role

[sohum]

What has the BCCI done wrong here? Stop finger-pointing without cause. If you want to diss the BCCI go find one of the many other things they have done wrong such as the IPL and apparently killing test cricket even though we still manage to get full house crowds.

 

[McLOVIN]

McLOVIN added 1 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...

nvm only > < wont help you understand. Break it down.

I was being sarcastic. Because you guys were saying people just blames everything on BCCI, so..

 

[sohum]

The sarcasm was lost on me. Please add an extra helping next time.

 

[sifter132]

He is a politician who wants a powerful position in cricket administration. This is the epitome of mixing politics with sport.

No, Howard is retired and has nothing to do with politics. He's no more a politican than Mr Pawar is! On top of that he was asked by CRICKET ADMINISTRATORS themselves to apply for the job. He said yes and he was chosen after going through the proper process.

I'm angry about this and it shows how childish the ICC and their delegates are. Yes, I'll freely admit Howard was a risky nomination, but it was risky for the GOOD reasons - that he might actually do something for the good of cricket, rather than being the usual limp wristed ICC president.

I don't know about blaming the BCCI for this, but as usual they will be getting their way, although they are in turmoil at the moment too and it's hard to blame them with a blanket statement. Didn't Pawar support Howard's nomination? Anyway, it would be very interesting to know how much the BCCI influenced the decision. I mean, could a bit of negotiation between Cricket Australia and the BCCI make this disappear?

Anyway, I'm more concerned with how SA, Zim and SL have been so vocally against Howard basically by saying he's a racist. Where's the proof? To me Howard's been rejected basically because: a) he's a politician - ohh everybody run and cower in fear, yet as I said, Pawar's a politician, b) he called Murali a chucker - big whoop so have PLENTY of people, the blameless, spotless Adam Gilchrist among them and c) he's apparently a closet racist, and so must be the Australian people since he got voted in 4 times.

It's a sad day for cricket when a man chosen by a proper process by 2 of crickets most respected boards is rejected by 7 of the 8 other nations. Shame on you ICC fatcats, playing politics by not electing an ex-politician. Oh wait, you just did, he just happened to be Indian.

 

[sohum]

Sharad Pawar has been the BCCI President for a few years already. Sure, he came in with no experience in cricket administration there, but he did have that under his belt. Jagmohan Dalmiya, who was responsible for making cricket lucrative both in the ICC and the BCCI was a businessman with no cricketing background as far as I am aware. Of course, the ICC doesn't need money as much as it needs stability now, which is why we don't need a businessman now.

Secondly, I like how you allow Howard to hide behind his statements about Murali just because so many other people have said it. In the other thread about this situation, I already pointed out how the words of a prime minister--the head of state of a country--are regarded very differently from just anyone else's statement. In fact, that is the whole basis of the phrase "politically correct". Quite simply, Howard was being an ass when he said that about Murali and the Sri Lankans have now got their revenge.

That validates 2 of your 3 points of why people were against Howard. The third one is obviously ludicrous and I haven't seen it flung around that much as an excuse so I cannot comment on it.

And you say that he was chosen using the proper process but there are several people involved in the process and covering the process in the media who claim otherwise. There have been several reports that CA arm-twisted the more respected candidate that the NZCA association had put forth--thus exhibiting their power over their smaller, less-powerful neighbors. I don't see the Kiwis being very vocal about their support for Howard's candidature right now--it's only the CA executives who are crying to the media.

If this is the kind of turmoil Howard puts cricket into before becoming President, just imagine the crap that is going to fly if he becomes President. Honestly, I don't see why everyone has this uber-cynical nature of cricket at the moment. It's not as if the game is about to die tomorrow and needs some kind of saviour to come protect us. Cricket is still a financially successful sport and from a competitive standpoint it's as good as it gets right now. Most of the controversies we have today are not even about the game anymore they're about the backroom politics. Quite frankly, I don't care about all that crap and I would be more pissed off if we actually saw less or worse cricket as a result of this whole mess.

sohum added 2 Minutes and 37 Seconds later...

Oh and going by your "he called Murali a chucker - big whoop so have PLENTY of people" argument, I can equally claim that the member boards were well within their rights to think Howard was a bad choice because of his lack of political tact (not only the Murali issue, but the Zim issue and the Bush issues which have been brought up in this thread) when PLENTY of people around the world agree with him. If Howard didn't want to mix politics and cricket he should have kept his mouth zipped.

 

[drainpipe32]

The sarcasm was lost on me. Please add an extra helping next time.

Thank you sifter, good to see some sensibility around here.

 

[angryangy]

Well Mark Richardson is a whiny bitch then. It's been evident for ages that the likes of Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, South Africa had problems with Howard's nomination even before India stepped into the game. These countries were definitely acting on their own will. India just brought the rest of the Asian bloc in (and apparently West Indies). There have been qualms about Howard's nomination from Day 1, and that's not a secret.

I don't think anyone argued that there was no resistance, but questions are easily raised as to how that became a majority vote. There is limited transparency. Did six members individually decide what was best? Voting as a bloc automatically implies that they didn't. Of course, that lack of transparency protects their motives, but any time someone magically doubles their vote, it looks sinister.

 

[sohum]

I don't think anyone argued that there was no resistance, but questions are easily raised as to how that became a majority vote. There is limited transparency. Did six members individually decide what was best? Voting as a bloc automatically implies that they didn't. Of course, that lack of transparency protects their motives, but any time someone magically doubles their vote, it looks sinister.

South Africa, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe were against the move before it even went to vote. Since a nomination requires two-third majority, a single vote would have flipped it. Given that the West Indies eventually voted against Howard's nomination, one can safely say that the Asian bloc's vote wasn't even required.

If you then raise the question that the Asian bloc convinced West Indies to vote with them, this raises a bigger question. If 7 of the 10 Test sides agree with each other, how come people are complaining? That constitutes a majority. If you complain that the BCCI is somehow farming the votes of 70% of the member nations, I can equally say that 70% of those nations actually agree with the BCCI's policy. It would be more hurtful, then, to go against them, since it seems that the BCCI has managed to get everyone except Aus/NZ/Eng on their page.

This is all conjecture, of course. The fact of the matter is that Howard didn't get his nomination passed because he shot his mouth off when he was PM without thinking of the repercussions. Unfortunately, that's just not going to fly. Think of the worldwide criticism if someone like George Bush or Sarah Palin were nominated as FIFA president. Do you think their nomination would get through?

sohum added 1 Minutes and 25 Seconds later...

Thank you sifter, good to see some sensibility around here.

Last time I checked, sensibility didn't mean someone who agreed with your opinion. And I think you meant the word sense, anyway.

sohum added 10 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...

This article by Harsha Bhogle is a great read on the current power struggle.

 

[sami ullah khan]

I could not agree more with Sohum. Sometimes things done or said (as in this case) come back to haunt you. This is what happened with Howard. He had a developed negative perception about him when he commented about Murali. But thats not the only thing he said. I remember when Australia won a test series against Pak in 1998 (IIRC) and Mr howard who was PM at that time said something about reason for Australia not winning a test series before in Pakistan was due to biased umpiring . Coming from PM of country, these are unwarranted comments.

 

[drainpipe32]

Indeed. And what exactly is my opinion on this? Tell me sohum?

Sifter's the only person here who's not writing off Howard based on the fact that he's was once a politician. Not only that you and some others automatically assume we're blaming the BCCI for everything, so much so that even a small joke is taken way out of context. He's actually looking for proof and past events that mean Howard is a racist, mixing politics with sport and would be a menace on the game while others are against the appointment because he's Australian and a former PM.

 

[sohum]

What? My point was that you assumed everyone who agreed with you was speaking sense and everyone who wasn't was speaking nonsense. That's what that quip in your post was all about.

I'm not writing off Howard because he was once a politician. I think I've made it pretty clear that I think Howard would be a divisive, raw president given his track record as the Australian PM in attracting controversy.

And with the whole BCCI thing, perhaps you would have a different POV if CA was the strongest board and every little issue as blamed on them. Go read Bhogle's article, it really puts a balanced frame on that discussion.

Basically, you've said a lot to defend the points as to why people think Howard would be a bad ICC President, but no one has really offered any points as to why he would be good. Apart from him being a hardline and apparently putting the BCCI in line, but if you did that you would be contradicting yourself since in effect you would be blaming the BCCI for everything.

 

[drainpipe32]

Wot? Where did Sifter agree with what I said? I just said he was the only one acting sensibly because it had turned into A Midsummer Night's Dream and he took the most reasonable approach.

I haven't said Howard would be a good or bad president, I simply said we shouldn't assume that by bringing him in it'll be mixing sport and politics just because he's a former PM, and that it wasn't a reasonable reason to write him off.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I'm with sohum, Howard forfeited his right to a post with this much power when he decided shooting his mouth was important to him. I'm pretty sure had Tony Blair said all australians are racists, australia wouldn't want him as ICC president. His defense, that lots of people have said this, would be just as airtight as Howards.

I also think that given he has no cricketing admin experience gambling on him is not warranted. Sure, had he a good track record at CA you could grudgingly admit that despite his outbursts he would be a loss to the ICC not getting the presidency. As far as anyone can guess he would be a disaster.

Also, i don't think the BCCI cared either way, the campaign against him was drummed up by zimbabwe and as far as I understand, was them calling in favours for voting with Asia for years.

 

[angryangy]

It's not like the ICC disagreed. At the time the comment was made, Murali was banned from bowling the doosra. I just think it's an utterly petty reason to hide behind and I'm amazed that people are really still butthurt about it. I'm pretty sure even Murali is over it. At least it was an indication that he paid attention to the sport. Come to think of it, that might have disqualified him for a job of any kind at the ICC.

 

[drainpipe32]

Yup, Murali has even said he forgave him a long time ago. I'll look for the article.

Gazza added 0 Minutes and 32 Seconds later...

Muttiah Muralitharan belives John Howard faces challenges | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com