|
ICC news
Howard has our backing, say Australasian boards
Peter English
April 21, 2010
|
|||
|
Related Links
News : Howard nomination hits a roadblock
Guest Column : No, Prime Minister News : John Howard nominated for ICC presidency Opinion : The ultimate cricket tragic Teams:
Australia
Sites:
Cricinfo ICC Site
|
|||
Australia and New Zealand have reconfirmed their support for John Howard, the former Australia prime minister, as the ICC's next vice-president following doubts raised by senior officials over his suitability for the role. The nomination of Howard, who led the country from 1996 to 2007, was expected to be passed by the ICC board in Dubai this week but was deferred without being formally discussed.
It is understood the issue of a politician being appointed instead of a cricket administrator was introduced outside the meeting by South Africa, which has close links with Zimbabwe, and it gained some momentum. Howard was critical of the Zimbabwe regime under Robert Mugabe and banned Australia from touring there in 2007. The process of Howard's selection for the post was also raised, along with his lack of cricket credentials.
However, there was no formal debate, mainly because the meeting was dominated by contingency plans for getting all the teams to the West Indies for the World Twenty20 if the flight ban over Europe continued. The vice-presidency item was deferred until June, when it will be discussed along with the possible move of the ICC headquarters.
Jack Clarke, the Cricket Australia chairman, and his New Zealand counterpart Alan Isaac, have since written a letter outlining their backing for Howard. "Australia and New Zealand have confirmed that our chairmen and boards fully endorse the exhaustive process for the joint nomination and fully support the nomination," a Cricket Australia spokesman told Cricinfo. "That is now understood by all ICC directors."
There is a feeling the issue wouldn't have developed had David Morgan, the ICC president, been at the meeting - he was held up in the United Kingdom because of the flight ban. Under the current regulations, the vice-president is selected by a region, in this case Australasia, and there is no other avenue for the ICC but to accept the nomination.
Howard was recommended for the role by Australia and New Zealand last month following a drawn-out process that included the forming of a committee to break the deadlock over the candidates. New Zealand had originally wanted Sir John Anderson, its long-standing cricket administrator, but eventually supported the findings.
Howard's supporters believe that after running a country he will be more than capable of guiding the ICC. They also point to his long-standing association with the game, which includes stepping in with touring advice for Australia's teams during his time in office, over-seeing the annual Prime Minister's XI fixture and delivering the Bradman Oration.
After serving as vice-president for two years, Howard is due to assume the presidency of the ICC in 2012. He is in line to succeed India's Sharad Pawar, who is also the country's federal agriculture minister.
Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo
Feeds: Peter English
© ESPN EMEA Ltd.
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
TopE-mail
Feedback
Print
Peter English
Sponsored Links
Watch Bollywood movies for free
Citibank NRI Account, Fast Reliable & Secure Way to
Transfer Money. Apply Online Now!
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
ICICI Bank Money2India brings " locked exchange rate" and a free gift
on registering and transfer of USD 250 and above.
BUY England 2012 official Test & ODI kit
Available now at Cricshop
John Howard will be fine. I am sure he could leave the political life behind and concentrate on what's good for cricket. For those saying just look at what he did in Government, this is an entirely new job, it's not running a country. And besides, how many politicians are well liked in their own country. Not many, so there are always going to be haters of Howard, just like there is for Rudd and the next Prime Minister and so on....
Posted by roflrofl on (April 22 2010, 07:00 AM GMT)Itchy: Who are you to say it was the correct decision? Even in Australia the papers mocked the fact that Howard was even nominated by Australia for the role, let alone the fact that he was chosen over Sir John Anderson. And your example of the FIFA World Cup just shows that "bullying" leads to bad choices, not that NZ administrators make bad choices. Besides, just because "Charlie Dempsey" made (in your opinion) a bad decision doesn't mean that Anderson would. Believe it or not but not all NZ administrators are the same person.
Posted by WavingNotDrowning on (April 22 2010, 03:50 AM GMT)Honest John Howard is a brilliant politician and Australia's best ever leader (in stark contrast to current pathetic half-wit). His political skill is only exceeded by his love of the game. A superb selection.
Posted by Clyde on (April 22 2010, 03:28 AM GMT)I am glad John likes cricket, but having seen his government close up in Canberra, and worked with it, one needs to be aware that the standards of administration were, let us say, something I and many others could not condone. OK, that's poliics, many would say, but prima facie that is what we would get, isn't it? At least I would urge reporters to keep a close eye on matters.
Posted by roflrofl on (April 22 2010, 01:51 AM GMT)vinnigefanie Australasia (latin for South of Asia) is a part of Oceania, basically the area South of Asia... It includes Australia and New Zealand and by some definitions New Guinea. And on Howard's appointment I think Sir John Anderson was a much more deserving candidate, but Howard (as much as I hated him as a politician) won't be too bad
Posted by Itchy on (April 22 2010, 00:01 AM GMT)Mikecnz: the last time a NZ administrator assisited in making a "decision" on the world sport stage, the FIFA World Cup ended up in Germany, not South Africa as had been the wish of the Oceania Group. Maybe that is why such "bullying" occurs - so that correct decisions are made.
Posted by eminem on (April 21 2010, 23:56 PM GMT)I think cricinfo should spend more time publishing headlines that are relevant. Did I read Australasian and then I read its Australia and Nz. When did NZ become Asian. Get your facts wright Peter before writing loads as usual. And if you think South africa and Zimbabwe are Asian, then no; they belong to the continent of africa. get back to school. Ps: Most people dont care who the heck come to the top of the board because the ICC are and will remain as receivers and not providers, if you know what I mean. get over it Peter and write something readable and usefull. check their similarities: SPeed and Howard Wasnt darrel hair removed from his position under speeds tenure, didnt speed and howard rule their places at the same time, and wasnt speed sent home because of the zimbabwe debacle, and didnt howard ban the Oz team from visiting zimbabwe at the time?
Posted by SanjivAwesome on (April 21 2010, 21:52 PM GMT)I am starting a referendum. Paris Hilton for President of ICC. Any supporters?
Posted by Manuu on (April 21 2010, 19:43 PM GMT)It really doesnt matter who the ICC vice president is. The job is a ceremonial position. Cricket is run by the BCCI. So no need to sweat over such a trivial matter.
Posted by mikecnz on (April 21 2010, 15:41 PM GMT)Another fantastic example of Australia bullying New Zealand into conforming to the choices they make, so much for alternating nominations i don't even know why its australiasia why not just Australia.