ICC news May 26, 2010

Howard nomination hits a roadblock

Martin Williamson and Brydon Coverdale
163

World cricket is set for a serious political rift over the nomination of John Howard, the former Australian prime minister, as the president-designate of the ICC. The cricket boards of South Africa and Zimbabwe are leading an initiative to block Howard's nomination, while Australia and New Zealand, who jointly nominated him, stand behind their man. Four votes are needed to block Howard's nomination and it is believed that, barring some dramatic late changes, his candidature will not be a formality.

The BCCI's position is expected to play crucial role in the issue. David Morgan, the president of the ICC, is scheduled on Thursday to meet Sharad Pawar, who takes over the presidency next month, and is expected to discuss the matter.

Cricket South Africa has taken up the matter in the strongest of manners, accusing David Morgan, the ICC president, of ignoring the sentiments of an "overwhelming number of ICC directors" who were opposed to Howard's candidature. Morgan has also been accused of making the matter a personal cause.

The ICC follows a policy of regional rotation for its presidency and this year was the turn of Australia and New Zealand. Howard, a career politician and self-declared cricket tragic, beat off a strong challenge from New Zealand Cricket, which favoured John Anderson, a former chairman of the board and a long-time cricket administrator, to win the nomination for the term, which starts from 2012. He was due to serve as vice-president to Pawar for the next two years.

As it turns out, though, a section of the ICC board has strong reservations about Howard. Zimbabwe Cricket has made no secret of its opposition to a man who was so critical of it when he was prime minister and is certain to vote against him if the matter reaches that point.

Morgan has strongly defended his position in an email exchange with Mtutuzeli Nyoka, the CSA president. He is believed to made it clear that he had no personal agenda and that he had acted according to the ICC constitution. He is expected to vigorously defend Nyoka's charge and is understood to have reminded his fellow directors that their job is to act in the best interests of ICC members, and not pursue personal agendas.

Howard, it will be stressed, was selected by New Zealand and Cricket Australia as part of the ICC's constitutional process, and therefore Morgan has not acted unconstitutionally

For the record, the ICC is playing down the issue. "The board has not yet discussed the matter," its chief executive, Haroon Lorgat, told Cricinfo." What you might be hearing might have happened on the sidelines but it was not discussed at the board meeting. The process is that Australia and New Zealand nominate someone, followed by the board considering the nomination before putting it before the annual conference. It is a three-step process.

"It [the opposition to Howard's nomination] is speculative at this moment. We haven't yet faced such a scenario; it has not been blocked as yet, nor even considered."

Asked what would happen if the nomination was rejected, Lorgat said: "We will probably go back and ask (the same region) for another nomination. But that has never happened and what you are saying is speculative."

Meanwhile, Cricket Australia stood firmly behind its man. "We remain rock solid in our support of the nomination," Peter Young, the CA spokesperson, told Cricinfo. "CA and NZC undertook an exhaustive professional process and have come up with a joint nomination that we are convinced is the best possible nomination we could put forward. We will continue to be welded on in our joint support of that nomination. We have made that clear to the ICC in recent weeks."

Australia's position received unqualified backing from New Zealand cricket. "We certainly haven't heard any notification from ICC that there's a problem with that. We're certainly not contemplating any other scenarios than John Howard being our man," Justin Vaughan, the NZC chief executive, said.

"We believe we went through a very robust and thorough process. We believe ICC should accept that and accept the nomination."

The matter may come down to the neutrals and the ECB offered a non-committal comment on the situation. "It's up to New Zealand Cricket and Cricket Australia to nominate a candidate and we as the ECB will await that nomination at the ICC annual conference," an ECB spokesman said.

The sense of what is at stake was summed up by Ijaz Butt, the PCB chairman. "This is a very sensitive issue right now so I don't want to discuss it," Butt said. "I know John Howard personally and I know how much he loves the sport and the game."

(Andrew Miller, Osman Samiuddin and Nagraj Gollapudi contributed to this article)

Martin Williamson is executive editor of Cricinfo and managing editor of ESPN Digital Media in Europe, the Middle East and Africa; Brydon Coverdale is a staff writer

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • poderdubdubdub on June 1, 2010, 10:13 GMT

    Frankly this time its Autralia-NZ turn to nominate a candidate for the presidency of the ICC, who ever is selected by those countries should be respected. If we go down the route of opposing a candidate whome we dont like and force him out of the contention, it will set a very dangerous precedence for the future, who is perfect in this world? Dont we all have our little prejudices?

  • Jagman50 on June 1, 2010, 9:15 GMT

    I really don't know why some people dying to bring this dejected, old fart to lead this prestigious game of cricket. He never played this game in his life. All he knows about this game is to heckle asian cricketers and to watch the game from the pavilion. I don't know what qualification he has out of 19 million other Australians doesn't have to be desperately nominated for this post. This whole saga is nothing more than ego battle of this little man and the ICC.Good on you Sri Lanka to have spine to stand up against this bully.

  • Meety on June 1, 2010, 5:24 GMT

    @long_handle - dont mind your opening sentence, but Apartheid??? Come on, he did no more or less than any other politician at the time, he wasn't PM then either. On the 15 degree issue - the ICC had to bring it in otherwise Murali would be branded a chucker and could be no-balled out of the game. I only vaguely recall Truemans action but I do know that Thommo had a near perfect action, there was talk that the Lee & McGrath bent there arms more than Murali did/does, (Ahktar as well). Despite all of that if you can't see that Murali's action at best is unique, and is far more suspect than 95% of International bowlers I think you are mistaking cricket for baseball! As I have said before I think ultimately, Murali has been good for International cricket, without him SL cricket would be fairly dismal at Test level.

  • long_handle9 on May 31, 2010, 15:43 GMT

    criticizing Murali doesn't make him a racist, but he is a HUGELY irritating and judgmental little man who should keep his dirty nose out of a sport he can't play and only supports as a cheerleader. where was his political integrity during the south african apartheid? And to comment on Murali etc is not wrong but in EXTREMELY bad taste. Btw all those who think the ICC "accomodated" Murali's action, gets ur facts straight. I don't like Murali and I personally prefer Warne/Saqlain/Swann but the fact is that that 15 degree thing wasn't an accomodation, it was a measure to see how far an arm can go without chucking. Otherwise Fred Trueman/Jeff Thomson would have been chuckers

  • Meety on May 31, 2010, 3:07 GMT

    @jagman - The Australian Institute of Sport Murali under the provision that there is a tolerable degree of bending. It is not racist to suggest he chucks, cricketers from all countries have been accused of this. You could argue biase, arguing ignorance that is just padding for your arguement - fact is Murali has/had an extremely unusual action that required scrutiny. The fact that he is now legitimate does not mean that people who questioned his action are racist. @Bonner - mate if you got a $400k mortgage and your worrying about entitlements and minimum wage increases you've bought the wrong house! Also work for the dole DOES NOT affect unemployment figures - it doesn't count, they are still unemployed for statistical purposes. To blame mortgage woes on a gov't is typical of the victim mentality that is everywhere. Also - I distinctly recall interviews where Costello was saying there was going to be a major correction in the Housing Market years b4 the GFC finally occurred.

  • Jagman50 on May 30, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    AdrKoe, you are as much as ignorant as John Howard does. What qualification you or Howard have to judge some one's bowling action. If you are not aware, it is the Australian Sports Academy who tested and cleared Murali about his bowling action. Those ignorant, bised, racist people have done enough damage to the game of cricket already. No one wants racist, facist, extreme, rejected old fart to the top job of the prestigious game of cricket. PLEASE bow out with respect Howard. Don't be a pain in the back to millions of cricket fans

  • AdrKoe on May 30, 2010, 3:56 GMT

    I am a proud Australian and I supported John Howard when he was our PM. Despite that I do not think he would make a good leader for world criclet. As demonstrated by many of the previous posts he is the type of leader that people either love or hate. Too many people would take an opposing position as a matter of principal. Having said that I'm not sure who could do the job because there are so many divergent opinions and self interest groups it will be a really tough gig. But a couple of thoughts I think are relevant. 1: Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a racist - I am so sick of people playing the race card just because they don't agree with another's opinion. 2: Murali was a chucker - they had to change the laws of cricket to make his doosra legal. 3: I sincerely hope that whoever does take the job can run the game for the benefit of all cricket lovers and not for one team and/or region. It's a tough ask but the game deserves the very best.

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on May 30, 2010, 3:43 GMT

    Hilarious that the corrupt BCCI would support John Howards tenure. Looks like greedy corporate fascists tend to stick together.

  • on May 30, 2010, 0:13 GMT

    Deb-61; It is not an issue of religion but of judgment and fairness. Whether, it is Cricket or governing a country or supporting immoral actions it is the character, judgment and fairness comes into play. I do not care about anybody's religion, including that of Mr. Howard. I do care how he perceives people in making decisions when it effects their lives, careers, livelihood and existence. The ease with which Mr. Howard condoned torture in Guantanamo Bay or supported war against Iraqi people says a lot to me about his personality. The way he would down to Indonesians and Sri-Lankans as PM says a lot about his proclivity. In my books he is a Racist with a condescending and pejorative attitude towards non-Whites. That attitude would be bad when he is governing Cricket as ICC President. We will discuss India's destructive role in another post.

  • bonner on May 29, 2010, 10:15 GMT

    You might have done ok under Howard, Rooboy, but I wonder how many are sitting in their 4 bedroom hotbox in Western Sydney wondering if interest rates will rise in the next 30 years on their $400,000 mortgage because they traded away their workplace benefits for a payrise that got gobbled up by the next minimum wage increase. Howard never once issued an across the board wage rise for low income earners. The Work-for-the-Dole program was a great way to reduce the unemployment figures while providing an opportunity to give tax breaks to the top income earners because they work so much harder than everyone else (?). Howard was a climate change denier who's conservation policy was to give tens of millions to a logging company to compensate for the preservation of Tassie forests that were already set aside for conservation (?)!! The Children Overboard scandal and the invasion of Iraq speak for themselves. Dark days under Howard and if you're not hurting, Rooboy, then you should be.

  • poderdubdubdub on June 1, 2010, 10:13 GMT

    Frankly this time its Autralia-NZ turn to nominate a candidate for the presidency of the ICC, who ever is selected by those countries should be respected. If we go down the route of opposing a candidate whome we dont like and force him out of the contention, it will set a very dangerous precedence for the future, who is perfect in this world? Dont we all have our little prejudices?

  • Jagman50 on June 1, 2010, 9:15 GMT

    I really don't know why some people dying to bring this dejected, old fart to lead this prestigious game of cricket. He never played this game in his life. All he knows about this game is to heckle asian cricketers and to watch the game from the pavilion. I don't know what qualification he has out of 19 million other Australians doesn't have to be desperately nominated for this post. This whole saga is nothing more than ego battle of this little man and the ICC.Good on you Sri Lanka to have spine to stand up against this bully.

  • Meety on June 1, 2010, 5:24 GMT

    @long_handle - dont mind your opening sentence, but Apartheid??? Come on, he did no more or less than any other politician at the time, he wasn't PM then either. On the 15 degree issue - the ICC had to bring it in otherwise Murali would be branded a chucker and could be no-balled out of the game. I only vaguely recall Truemans action but I do know that Thommo had a near perfect action, there was talk that the Lee & McGrath bent there arms more than Murali did/does, (Ahktar as well). Despite all of that if you can't see that Murali's action at best is unique, and is far more suspect than 95% of International bowlers I think you are mistaking cricket for baseball! As I have said before I think ultimately, Murali has been good for International cricket, without him SL cricket would be fairly dismal at Test level.

  • long_handle9 on May 31, 2010, 15:43 GMT

    criticizing Murali doesn't make him a racist, but he is a HUGELY irritating and judgmental little man who should keep his dirty nose out of a sport he can't play and only supports as a cheerleader. where was his political integrity during the south african apartheid? And to comment on Murali etc is not wrong but in EXTREMELY bad taste. Btw all those who think the ICC "accomodated" Murali's action, gets ur facts straight. I don't like Murali and I personally prefer Warne/Saqlain/Swann but the fact is that that 15 degree thing wasn't an accomodation, it was a measure to see how far an arm can go without chucking. Otherwise Fred Trueman/Jeff Thomson would have been chuckers

  • Meety on May 31, 2010, 3:07 GMT

    @jagman - The Australian Institute of Sport Murali under the provision that there is a tolerable degree of bending. It is not racist to suggest he chucks, cricketers from all countries have been accused of this. You could argue biase, arguing ignorance that is just padding for your arguement - fact is Murali has/had an extremely unusual action that required scrutiny. The fact that he is now legitimate does not mean that people who questioned his action are racist. @Bonner - mate if you got a $400k mortgage and your worrying about entitlements and minimum wage increases you've bought the wrong house! Also work for the dole DOES NOT affect unemployment figures - it doesn't count, they are still unemployed for statistical purposes. To blame mortgage woes on a gov't is typical of the victim mentality that is everywhere. Also - I distinctly recall interviews where Costello was saying there was going to be a major correction in the Housing Market years b4 the GFC finally occurred.

  • Jagman50 on May 30, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    AdrKoe, you are as much as ignorant as John Howard does. What qualification you or Howard have to judge some one's bowling action. If you are not aware, it is the Australian Sports Academy who tested and cleared Murali about his bowling action. Those ignorant, bised, racist people have done enough damage to the game of cricket already. No one wants racist, facist, extreme, rejected old fart to the top job of the prestigious game of cricket. PLEASE bow out with respect Howard. Don't be a pain in the back to millions of cricket fans

  • AdrKoe on May 30, 2010, 3:56 GMT

    I am a proud Australian and I supported John Howard when he was our PM. Despite that I do not think he would make a good leader for world criclet. As demonstrated by many of the previous posts he is the type of leader that people either love or hate. Too many people would take an opposing position as a matter of principal. Having said that I'm not sure who could do the job because there are so many divergent opinions and self interest groups it will be a really tough gig. But a couple of thoughts I think are relevant. 1: Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a racist - I am so sick of people playing the race card just because they don't agree with another's opinion. 2: Murali was a chucker - they had to change the laws of cricket to make his doosra legal. 3: I sincerely hope that whoever does take the job can run the game for the benefit of all cricket lovers and not for one team and/or region. It's a tough ask but the game deserves the very best.

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on May 30, 2010, 3:43 GMT

    Hilarious that the corrupt BCCI would support John Howards tenure. Looks like greedy corporate fascists tend to stick together.

  • on May 30, 2010, 0:13 GMT

    Deb-61; It is not an issue of religion but of judgment and fairness. Whether, it is Cricket or governing a country or supporting immoral actions it is the character, judgment and fairness comes into play. I do not care about anybody's religion, including that of Mr. Howard. I do care how he perceives people in making decisions when it effects their lives, careers, livelihood and existence. The ease with which Mr. Howard condoned torture in Guantanamo Bay or supported war against Iraqi people says a lot to me about his personality. The way he would down to Indonesians and Sri-Lankans as PM says a lot about his proclivity. In my books he is a Racist with a condescending and pejorative attitude towards non-Whites. That attitude would be bad when he is governing Cricket as ICC President. We will discuss India's destructive role in another post.

  • bonner on May 29, 2010, 10:15 GMT

    You might have done ok under Howard, Rooboy, but I wonder how many are sitting in their 4 bedroom hotbox in Western Sydney wondering if interest rates will rise in the next 30 years on their $400,000 mortgage because they traded away their workplace benefits for a payrise that got gobbled up by the next minimum wage increase. Howard never once issued an across the board wage rise for low income earners. The Work-for-the-Dole program was a great way to reduce the unemployment figures while providing an opportunity to give tax breaks to the top income earners because they work so much harder than everyone else (?). Howard was a climate change denier who's conservation policy was to give tens of millions to a logging company to compensate for the preservation of Tassie forests that were already set aside for conservation (?)!! The Children Overboard scandal and the invasion of Iraq speak for themselves. Dark days under Howard and if you're not hurting, Rooboy, then you should be.

  • whocareswhowins on May 29, 2010, 1:53 GMT

    @NaveedKhan - what is about some people ?? Every issue becomes a religious one; there has to be an anti-India stance,etc etc. If you must comment, please try and be rational (though that can be difficult for some types). John Howard may indeed end up doing a good job. Had he not criticised Murali, i wonder whether Srilanka would have opposed his nomination....in other words, please let us not pretend that Srilanka's opposition is purely because Mr Howard is a politician.

  • on May 28, 2010, 23:09 GMT

    Howard should gracefully withdraw his nomination. It would be a huge embarrassment to the prestige and honor of Cricket Australia and the Country Australia if his nomination is rejected. Mr. Howard served as PM of Australia and in his power egotistic euphoria, made some nasty comments about the Asians. In my book, his unequivocal support of War against Iraqi people and his support of Guantanamo Bay torture concentration camp disqualifies from being associated with the noble game of Cricket. Cricket does not need racially biased governance. Mr. Howard has shown enough to the world to judge that he is predisposed in favor of the White Race. He has demonstrated that he does not use common sense fairness when it comes to punishing or waging war against the non-whites.

    Even if he is nominated his role would be divisive and disturbing for Cricket. He should honorably withdraw his nomination.

  • alyaly1 on May 28, 2010, 16:49 GMT

    John Howard's candidature for the vice-presidency of ICC should be rejected immediately and forthwith. As Sri Lanka, Zimababwe, South Africa Cricket contro boardsl expressed it that the person best qualified for this position should be a former cricketer, or have been associated with the game for a long time. He is in neither of these 2 categories. Howard's a politician-and a cunning one may I add-but that's not what's bothering me-his decisions forthe game have been judgemental and a disappointment one for the game of Cricket. For example, when he was the PM of Australia, he called Murali,a 'chucker' not once, but twice. As a politician, you're not suppose to interfere in any game of sports-not even to express your opinion. What concern did he have to express his opinion on this subject? That showed his lack of foresight on this subject matter. ICC is already a very political body and adding Howard to it will make it even more so. So my vote for Howard is a strong NO!. Sorry, mate.

  • Jagman50 on May 28, 2010, 9:24 GMT

    This attention seeking power hungry oldman should get involve with some charity work to clear his concience. He has destroyed enough lives in Iraq and no matter what he would not be respected by many.

  • Jagman50 on May 28, 2010, 9:19 GMT

    This is very critical moment for Cricket. It badly needs some one who loved worldwide. John Howard is not only unpopular in asian countries but in his own country as well. Those who remember Howard was rejected in his own electorate while he was the PM of Australia. If Howard going to be cricket boss then even God cannot save cricket

  • tonymcbony on May 28, 2010, 7:59 GMT

    @ badsac, Hmm, good point, the Chappell-Hadlee is an Annual fixture. However, the rest of the year NZ plays Pakistan & Bangladesh. I can't remember the last time we played South Africa or England in tests or ODI's. Maybe I'm just venting my frustration at having no inbound tours next year.

  • on May 28, 2010, 6:36 GMT

    Its a challenge thrown at Howard...If he is a true leader, let him climb the uphill in front of him...

  • tick on May 28, 2010, 6:08 GMT

    Srilanka,South Africa and Zimbabwe are against it.Australia,New zeland,England in favour.NOW comes to 4 others.India,Pakistan.West Indies and Bangladesh.most likely it is that all of these will favour Srilanka and South Africa rather Aussies and English.result is clear.CHANGE THE MAN.

  • Meety on May 28, 2010, 6:08 GMT

    @SFay - LOL re:792 & counting!

  • Shen_Mark on May 28, 2010, 6:02 GMT

    Howard + ICC = NO CRICKET

  • Meety on May 28, 2010, 5:53 GMT

    @Gupta.Ankur - you paint yourself to be "racist" with those comments. @Bonner - I agree with the Racist v Xenophobe point - but is that what you are implying Howard is - I think its even harder to prove that point. @Reggaecricket - I tend to agree in that given the volume of comments that deride Howard he probably wasn't a good choice in hindsight. @Manoj De S - whether or not Murali was cleared by testing or not the fact is that Murali has a unique action that is extermely suspect looking. I actually accept that he is cleared & I am gald for him & SL cricket, but it was poor of the ICC, (& SL cricket) to let that whole issue rage for as long as it did before fixing. Murali gets badgered by Aussie crowds and should take it as a sign of respect - just ask Richard Hadlee. Look at the abuse Ponting copped in England, and what Poms cop in Australia - nothing new or racist there. @Mehmet1453 - probably right. @Yousaf 465 - probably right too.

  • Sidath346 on May 28, 2010, 4:59 GMT

    I strongly oppose this man from getting this position because a man who was a coward to insult a top class player does not deserve any post in the ICC board. I only hope that one more country will join to oppose him. He doesn't deserve this post.

  • kdcricket on May 28, 2010, 4:41 GMT

    I do not want to comment much about John Howard's credentials as a politician and as a former PM of Australia, yet one thing is very very clear....if he is not able to win the confidence of at least 7 nations, he is not for the job. Let us remember that ICC is a democratic organization....It cannot be run by whims and fancies of people. If there is a rule of majority votes for presidency..let Howard win the confidence of protesting nations.

  • RogerC on May 28, 2010, 4:24 GMT

    The boomerang comes back. Howard is paying for his needless silly comments on Muralitharan years ago.

  • kgsh on May 28, 2010, 4:08 GMT

    Can anyone tell how many time Sharad Pawar has holded bat or ball in his life? If he can become president then why not Australian Prime minister. Atleast Australian prime minister has holded better posts than sharad pawar.

  • Neonboy on May 28, 2010, 4:02 GMT

    I hope the indian adminstrators remember how Mr. Howard treated Dr. Haneef before making their decision.

  • Jag07 on May 28, 2010, 3:45 GMT

    An ICC official, that too at the high level Howard is being nominated for, should have the necessary pre-requisites for the position. May we know what are Howard's? Is the comment about SL's Mutthaih bowling in any way adding to the merits!? Just watching cricket does not qualify! NO for his candidature!

  • ZEUS00 on May 28, 2010, 3:40 GMT

    @Rooboy! Cricket doesn't need any crude and unrefined administrators, that's why I brought up the intelligentsia. Howard has zero oratorical skills and his foot-in-the mouth disease is well-documented. With the increasing internationalization of cricket, there is definitely a need for a candidate who has cultural-intelligence, political sharpness, and a certain refinement in expression. In my opinion, Howard will be a really poor choice for this position. Ausgal your comments are incredibly honest and as sachin1bradman2 says, quite disarming.

  • badsac on May 28, 2010, 3:39 GMT

    @ tonymcbony Don't think NZ will benefit from Howard, he'll ignore them and keep the NZ team on the same cycle of constantly playing Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    What about that country called Australia that plays NZ every year in one dayers and every couple of years in tests? I guess that support doesn't count?

  • on May 28, 2010, 3:24 GMT

    Howard's candidacy is dead. There is no way Pakistan is going to support him after Sri Lanka has opposed it openly. India as always is duplicitous about it. India wants to be on both sides of the issue. India never has the guts to stand up and support what is right for the global cricket. India's role as cricket power house is extremely disappointing. Its persistent anti-Pakistan stance and creation of corrupt and debauch IPL is a repulsive affront to the cricket loving fans of the world. Let us see if India finds enough courage to oppose Howard's candidacy. Howard is not a deserving candidate because his talk, behavior, demeanor is racist. He will cause damage to cricket. Now days India is a destructive force in Cricket.

  • on May 28, 2010, 3:17 GMT

    After 6 years.. howard has to leek murali's shoes now to become ICC president ... Ha..hahaaaaaaaaaaaa

  • tonymcbony on May 28, 2010, 3:08 GMT

    I think people are forgetting the MONTHS of arguing between the NZ and Aus cricket boards about the nomination; they had to get someone to come in and mediate to break the deadlock! I would say they had two very strong candidates but it's hard to see that NZ didn't get bullied into accepting Howard, as Anderson is the most obvious, experienced choice. Don't think NZ will benefit from Howard, he'll ignore them and keep the NZ team on the same cycle of constantly playing Pakistan and Bangladesh. I hope that he gets blocked and Anderson gets the role instead, I don't see how Howard deserves it.

  • lad43 on May 28, 2010, 3:07 GMT

    Well serves Howard right - all those non-white people doen't seem to want him as ICC president, I wonder why that is?

  • D.V.C. on May 28, 2010, 2:41 GMT

    Am I the only one who finds it ironic that SL are opposed to Howard because he "isn't a cricket person" when their team selection can be vetoed by their sports minister? Seriously, how many of us here on these boards have played cricket to a high level? Not that many I would think, yet we all follow the game intently and thus have a good idea of what the game needs. Howard is a massive fan of cricket, that makes him a good candidate as far as I'm concerned. Maybe some of these other administrators are opposed to Howard just because he hasn't had to grease his way into this position, and they therefore don't hold him over a barrel. Oh no! Someone who is interested in cricket rather than their own agenda!

  • badsac on May 28, 2010, 2:38 GMT

    It will be interesting to see how other countries with whom the ICC is interested in furthering cricket in will take this pettiness and petulance? I can see cricket making great strides in Venezuela. I can't see it helping to crack the US frontier.

  • whocareswhowins on May 28, 2010, 1:54 GMT

    @Meety matey!!! BCCI have not yet opposed him, have they, or have we all missed something? BCCI has lots of faults, of course. Even as an Indian, i totally agree. But some of the commentators here, like dear ol'Pottedlambshanks' seem to forget that many administrators from the 'oh so clean' an 'perfect' countries have shady connections too. I realise that a lot of people feel very very uncomfortable with the power that the Asian bloc now possess. Sorry guys! Thats the way the world is now............

  • on May 28, 2010, 1:49 GMT

    This man is nothing short of an extremist or polarizing figure to be moderate. As an Indian cricket fan, ICC president makes no difference to me as BCCI is strong enough to offset any impediments of a bad administrator. But think about Pakistan. They certainly need a strict, yet tender and caring man to do the job. Think about Zimbabwe. They don't need a man who goes on relating politics with down-sliding condition of cricket.

  • Rooboy on May 28, 2010, 1:26 GMT

    @ZEUS00 - what is the relevance of your comment that Howard's perception is poor amongst the 'intelligensia' (sic)? Who cares what these people think, and if we did care, I would think that being unpopular with a group of mostly sheltered academics who have little contact with the real world could only be a good thing. And all you guys from the sub continent, please keep up your comments expressing your irrational hatred of all things Australian, while at the same time complaining of Australian racism ... you discredit your own arguments but I enjoy the laughs such comments provide.

  • knowledge_eater on May 28, 2010, 1:21 GMT

    Interesting, even Cricket Administration is close contest hahaha I don't know what to say, 1) Within Aus. there will be many people who won't like him (especially the one who voted against him) 2) In Nz, even though they will vote for him, they know that their beloved Nzlander could have been better choice. 3) Srilanka already rejected him 3) SA most likely will vote against him, we all know why, if they do, they will not like him 4) Zim will def. vote against him we all know why 5) England will vote for him because of famous relationship of Ashes legacy 6) Bangladesh will vote for him, they need to play cricket to keep their cricket alive 7) Pakistan will vote for despite half of the fans will hate him, administration like because they are providing them Cricket MCC support remember !! 8) WI will vote probably, they need to play more Cricket as well due to their recent financial rift 9) So, it is most likely will come down to India. Will Cricket be different though? I don't think so

  • on May 28, 2010, 1:17 GMT

    Firstly, a question should be raised as to why Zimbabwe have an equal vote to powerhouse cricket nations of England, India & Australia? Zimbabwe have been evicted from test cricket and rarely play competitve top nations in limited overs cricket.I believe they can have an opinion and some sort of vote however not in a decision about this. Secondly, Mr.Howard like many Australians loves his cricket and follows the sport on a global scale not just focusing on the Australian summer. Putting an Australian as President of the ICC would shift the game a cricket to new heights. As for his experience, a person who has run a country could easily manage the structural board of a global game. He is following his two passions, the love of cricket and his love of helping the world become a better place.

  • Fauzer on May 28, 2010, 1:16 GMT

    the harm this man along with bush and blair have caused to the world by dividing people and exploiting and feeding their fear of each other is immeasurable. the thrashing in the elections they eventually got from their own people is credit to people finally comming to their senses about the real howards, bushes, and the blairs.

    there are very few images more revolting than a smirking howard. for those who can't let go of him, pls put up his pin up poster in your living rooms, don't subject the rest of us for more howard. thank you.

  • on May 28, 2010, 1:02 GMT

    I appreciate Sri Lanka Cricket's bold move to oppose Howard's candidature. Let me hope one other ICC member from Asia, either India, Pakistan or Bangladesh will join hands in keeping this racist away from cricket, in which he has no business.

  • Rooboy on May 28, 2010, 1:01 GMT

    @bonner - even if, as you say, all that Australians have is a place to live (and it's much more than that for many of us who managed to pay off one or more properties during the economic prosperity thanks to Howard's era in govt, but let's not worry too much about FACTS), that still doesn't explain your comment that Australians are still hurting from Howard's time in govt. Hurting over what?! Having a job, a home, and a stable economy?! Yeah that hurts. @chikmeister - yes, racism is a fact WHEN IT EXISTS. Having an opinion that does not align with your own is not automatically racism. It's hilarious that these people who cry racism over Howard's opinion on murali are oblivious to the irony that their own anti-Australian diatribes being much more racist than anything Howard ever said or wrote. Most of the concern from the sub continent seems to be that the ICC might finally have someone who will stand up to the asian bloc and not let them continually get their own way.

  • Stevo_ on May 28, 2010, 0:34 GMT

    Cricket players can't administer , and administers can't play cricket.

    And why should they have to? ( or why would you want them to). All the big sport leagues in the world are administered by non-players, its there job to administer not know how to set a field. I think Howard would do a good job.

    On side note : Murali = 792 test run-outs and counting....

  • on May 28, 2010, 0:05 GMT

    Please have a gentleman appointed from NZ. Howard can be saved to initiate/motivate another war................

  • on May 27, 2010, 21:41 GMT

    I dont understand why Newzelanders are back bone less. I am an Indian and I strongly oppose to the nomination and Election of the Politicians in sports. I dont think both Sharad Pawar and Howard will be doing any good to the game. I know Sharad Pawar is here for money but I dont understand Why Howard wants to come here. May be to be against the Asian and african teams.

  • johnmal on May 27, 2010, 21:15 GMT

    For those who argue that you need a cricketer here, especially Sri Lanka Cricket Board (see http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/461094.html, where were you when Sharad Pawar was elected. Let's face it ICC is political at the core

  • yorkslanka on May 27, 2010, 20:52 GMT

    well done SL cricket for blocking Howard's nomination !! Surely of all the great players Australia have and have had in the past,they can come up with a better candidate than this man..i know a fair amount about planes but it doesnt mean i can fly one !! If he becomes teh ICC president then cricket will becoma a HUGE laughing stock and the current structure may even collapse...

  • picolax on May 27, 2010, 20:17 GMT

    As an Australian appalled at this man having the gall to think he could administer the ICC , after not playing cricket of any note whatsoever (and please look up some of his attempts at bowling on youtube, it is extremely funny ), I urge any other country to come forward and oppose him. He was only the 2nd prime minister in our history to lose his own seat as well as government at the same time. He should not be allowed near anything that has connotations of fairness, such as cricket. If India oppose him that's fine by me, but we need some kind of neutral or somebody untainted as ICC president and those people are thin on the ground. Imran or Richard Hadlee should put their name forward, I'd vote for them

  • on May 27, 2010, 20:06 GMT

    Flighted_kiwi makes the most clear argument about Howard's inappropriate comment. It is not really whether Murali chucks or not, but the fact that a leader of a country publicly claims it to be true. Howard clearly made a very controversial sport fan comment as a leader of the country, which ruffled some people who were unlikely to have any effect on his political career. Who is going to have the last laugh now? I guess the moral is, don't burn your bridges.

  • chikmeister on May 27, 2010, 19:22 GMT

    Firstly, to the CA supporters, the term "race card" is nonsense and not for you to to use. Ethnic people do not use a "card" when talking about racism - racism is a fact. Secondly, every non-fanatic can smell Howard and his ilk a mile away, and it stinks!

  • haliasturindus on May 27, 2010, 17:25 GMT

    First, as the PRESIDENT of ICC we need somebody who has had experience in the nuances of Cricket Administration, at least at the national level. Even though we'd like that person to be an ex-cricketer, we have to remember that not many cricketers make good administrators. Secondly, the PRESIDENT of ICC should command respect from all its member nations, and should not be a polarizing figure. Thirdly, the PRESIDENT of ICC should be unbiased in the eyes of all its member nations, cricketers & its fans. Howard might be a good administrator & a very influential politician. But, he fails on all three counts mentioned above. Why risk a division within the ICC, when there are enough good choices (e.g. John Anderson -- I just wish that CNZ had a backbone!)

  • ionic on May 27, 2010, 16:52 GMT

    Ok ok, forget about the political comments. I can understand that CA want Howard as he's one of them, and I can understand NZC getting railroaded by "big brother" but frankly, 1) this man has zero experience of running cricket. And from the comments already, he's already 2) a very divisive personality. The last thing the ICC needs is a divisive person in charge. Find someone else.

  • sachin1bradman2 on May 27, 2010, 15:48 GMT

    And it takes courage to write the comments that Ausgal did, such utter disarming honesty.

  • sachin1bradman2 on May 27, 2010, 15:43 GMT

    We should get an Irishman to run the party to take the seriousness out of the equation! Boy some of the below comments are so emotionally loaded, we all need to chill and have a couple of pints!

  • Sanki88 on May 27, 2010, 15:33 GMT

    Howard being the ICC president in 2years is going to be the biggest cricket joke of all time! I can't believe NZC backed this stupid move.

  • on May 27, 2010, 15:31 GMT

    please save the game by taking it to every corner of the world and how will you achieve that by electing Howard who stopped the Zimbabwean team to play in so many matches because of Politics. not even a single tean which toured Zimbabwe has ever been threatened security wise, then wat happened in Pakistan wen Sri Lanka was there, wat happened in India wenEngland was there, wat is happening in Jamaica were South Africa is touring the West Inides. Please save the game NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO to hayward

  • on May 27, 2010, 14:57 GMT

    Get a cricketer in there........

  • Dubby49 on May 27, 2010, 14:56 GMT

    I am surprised at the number of comments which say that India is blocking John Howard's nomination as the next Vice President and President elect. The article states that Zim, SA and Sri Lanka are against the nomination and that one more Nay is required to scupper the deal. That may well be India's and given the animosity against India expressed by many posters (aussies presumably) they might just do it.

    I am no fan of politicians heading sporting bodies, but that is the norm in India. Why quote Sharad Pawar as an excuse for drafting a politician. bad example and not one to be emulated. Incudentally it's not quite the same as Pawar has been a cricket administrator (good or bad??) for a long time and was the last President of the BCCI.

    Howard has made a lot of enemies and his history is biting back. Can anyone explain why SA is anti Howard.

  • bonner on May 27, 2010, 14:55 GMT

    @Jmoney90, I am nobody's crony - especially that of the Labour Party. @Rooboy, what is it all those Australians own? Sure they have somewhere to live but all they really have is a mortgage (often inflated per the value of the house - thanks 1st H/B scheme). And the Reserve Bank controls interest rates not the Govt.

  • Shen_Mark on May 27, 2010, 14:44 GMT

    Howard? Who? Is he??? The bizarre politician or the cricket lover who knows next to nothing about cricket!!!

  • bonner on May 27, 2010, 14:43 GMT

    @Meety, it was the Howard Govt that disseminated that dangerous and erroneous term: 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS'. Australia, being a signatory to the International Convention on Refugees, has agreed to accept asylum seekers and to assess their refugee status. For many there is no 'queue' to jump and this is the same worldwide. I believe Howard to be Revisionist not Racist - racism is a very serious & considered standpoint. Most accused racists are merely ignorant and don't have broad enough experience dealing with people from different cultures to actually know what they are talking about. Xenophobic might be more accurate.

  • Ausgal24 on May 27, 2010, 14:34 GMT

    John Howard is the most unpresentable Aussie PM we've ever had. Thanks to him, Australians have a terrible reputation overseas. People think each one of us is prejudiced so we have only ourselves and our political choices to blame. His demeanour was downright arrogant, insensitive and ugly on more than one occasion, I only pray that someone from NZ or England gets chosen for this position. We Australians are culturally not as advanced as those two countries yet.

  • auggie on May 27, 2010, 14:29 GMT

    A former test player or someone having considerable experience in cricket administration should get the job. Howard has neither.... Even if he had, I doubt everyone or rather the needed support for his candidature would have come through. He made some mighty powerful gaffs while still a politician with his 'Talk before thinking' cricket comments, ala Muralitharan etc. I doubt he wanted to intentionally hurt anyone but as they say, 'What goes around comes around'. Nemisis and karma and all that you know!...Works really!

  • on May 27, 2010, 14:27 GMT

    It's amazing how most Howard Supporters are ignorant or conveniently ignoring the fact that Chucking Rules were changed because the ICC study found 99% of the bowlers were operating over the then legal limit. They ignore that their "paragon" of clean action (McGrath) & Brett Lee were also measured to be over the then legal limit (13 & 14-15 respectively). They also chose to ignore that Murali has been tested & cleared by one of their own Universities. All those studies has convinced former critics of Murali such as Ian Chappell, Micheal Holding & Dean Jones, but not the most Aussie fans (who are apparently still reeling from their diuretic-popping hero losing his world record). While you can always understand & allow these comments & views by "fans", an Administrator who choose to ignore scientific studies & go with popular sentiments (for whatever reasons) is not fit to run the game at the highest level. Period.

  • CiMP on May 27, 2010, 14:23 GMT

    @ Spadeaspade: "ICC needs a strong leader like John Howard to ensure the future of cricket considers all nations not just India." It is SA and Zim which are opposing. SL joined the opposition today. Where does India come into the picture?

    @ obstreperous: "The South African cricket authorities needs to remember how firmly Australia and other nations supported their struggle during the dark years of apartheid " LOL! Australia did that? It was Peter Short of England who led a Stop The Seventy Tour when the colored cricketer Basil D'Oliviera was included in the English team to tour SA. When it came to a political impasse SA was banned. Until then Australia and England turned a Nelson's eye to apartheid. Pl check history.

  • VisBal on May 27, 2010, 14:20 GMT

    What were CA and NZC thinking when they nominated Howard? Why nominate someone with no experience in Cricket Administration for the job of the top Cricket Administrator in the world? This is stupid in the least and back-slapping at worst. It is bad enough that Sharad Pawar will be the President of the ICC, but at least he has been the head of the BCCI before this. In any case, both are bad options, and it is too late to do anything about Pawar. At least let us have some sanity and bring in some experienced men into the ICC.

  • on May 27, 2010, 13:58 GMT

    Australia is the only country and Australian fans are the only ones who accuse Muralitharan of "throwing". Nowhere else in the world - even in other "white" countries - England, South Africa or New Zealand, has Muralitharan been bullied or yelled at as "chucker" for "throwing". When others can accept him, what is the problem for Australians? Are other country people blind?!

  • on May 27, 2010, 13:46 GMT

    I dont see any bad having selecting Howard into administrative level. If he is good in administration ,that should be enough.Is not it? Moreover,If he can rule a such a big country,ICC is should be peanut for him? Am I wrong guys? I think sri lankan should support aussies as they not oppose SL in anyway. Good luck mr.howad !!

  • Copernicus on May 27, 2010, 13:24 GMT

    I'm still bewildered as to why Howard was nominated at all! However, the more i think about it, the better an idea it seems....which is strang, given how much I despised him as Prime Minister. The reason I think he should be given a go now is that, while it's almost impossible for him to be worse than the status quo, there's actually a rather good chance that he'll be better. Being an outsider who doesn't actually need the job to line his own pockets is good, but more so his clear and genuine love for the game. I count myself as cautiously optimistic (something I never thought I'd say about John Howard).

  • Jmoney90 on May 27, 2010, 13:21 GMT

    Kuruwita, I am inclined to believe you are lying about being Australian, you do not speak like one. Just because he was voted out after 11 years, does not mean he was not successful, read the post from The_Wog and you will see all the evidence you need. @ Peter Bowron, I think you raise a valid point, and present it well. I believe that perhaps an outsider will overhaul the system better, just like how it seems past very successful players make mediocre coaches.

  • on May 27, 2010, 12:56 GMT

    This fellow used racism in his politics to win votes .Here are some of the examples 1."children overboard" issue which he capitlised to win elections 2."Iraq war" he claimed along with Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction 3. He said voting for Obama would be supporting Osama Bin Laden 4. called Murali a chucker when he was prime minister 5.Dr Haniff issue just before elections which back fired on him. He will wield his racist instincts especially against countries of Indian Subcontinent if he comes in to the cricketing arena. He should be stopped!!!!

  • Flighted_kiwi on May 27, 2010, 12:44 GMT

    Further to my earlier post, is Howard unsuitable or a racist because of comments about Zimbabwe? In my opinion - No. Zimbabwe is a blight on cricket. That is not a racist assertion but a humanitarian one. How has Mugabe and the Zimbabwe cricket bettered the lives of the average Zimbabwe citizen and cricketeer? Henry Olonga deserves far more respect for his courageous stand at personal cost than Mugabe, Chingoka and their ilk ever do. And South Africa's blind support of Zimbabwe has been a disgrace. On this matter Howard was correct to make a stand.

    On the Murali issue, however, Howard shows his unsuitability. The chucking issue is debatable and certainly not clear cut. On a contentious issue was it wise for the leader of a country to categorically declare a visiting sportsman to be a cheat? No.

    Look at the posts by Aussies. Their views on Howard are generally divided according to their politics. Having an ex politician in this role will always be potentially divisive.

  • Reggaecricket on May 27, 2010, 12:30 GMT

    We'd be more racist than JH if we hit out at Australians in general. Much to their credit, Aussies themselves have expressed concern over Howard's candidature for some of the same reasons others have stated. Sadly though, most sub continental people judge Australians by the on filed attitudes and behavior of the Aussie cricket team which they perceive is their off field personality as well. I am a person from the sub continent, but have no hesitation in saying that the behavior of our people and their corrupt and uncivil ways are perhaps what invites all the prejudices if any Asians have faced them. Not an excuse, but perhaps an explanation. Australia is made up of a wonderful ethnic and racial mix. MANY Aussies disapprove of racism and the known culprits like John Howard. Cricket will be in dire straits if this monster is allowed to be at the helm of the ICC. Those of us who have accepted the country as our own and have integrate well and have no problems living in Australia (neither

  • on May 27, 2010, 12:18 GMT

    Sri Lanka should oppose howard as well. he called murali a chucker.So SL board should act strongly

  • robheinen on May 27, 2010, 12:09 GMT

    Who cares who's the president of a none influential organisation like the ICC. The administrators in the ICC are only there because they have nothing else to administrate. They're like children told by their mothers to 'Please go play outside and get out of the way!'

  • Farhan166 on May 27, 2010, 11:56 GMT

    John Howard should never be appointed as the ICC chief. He provided unconditional moral and logistic support to George Bush and Tony Blair in starting an illegal and unjustified war in Iraq which resulted in killing of thousands of civilians and displacing millions from their home. The man has blood on his hand. In 2001 he showed his true sportsmanship when he ordered special forces to storm the ship Tampa pointing guns on down-trodden refugees including women and children. He is also a good friend of one of the talkback radio presenter in Australia who specialises in demonising the ethnic minorities in Australia and provoke racial riots in Cronulla. Howard calls this man as an 'Outstanding broadcaster'.This man is unfit for the post. What next - George Bush to head Amnesty International?

  • rickywanting on May 27, 2010, 11:54 GMT

    I really don't know much about this man, but this story in SMH seems to show that several of his actions could be called racist in the past.

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/12/15/1134500961607.html#

  • Bappi123 on May 27, 2010, 11:51 GMT

    John Howard is a very controvercial person. He shouldn't be ICC head.

  • karnold_cricket on May 27, 2010, 11:51 GMT

    The idea of John Howard as a leader in the ICC is a bewildering prospect to say the least. I think that the Australians and NZ'ers alike could have found a nominee who represents some form of cricket background and heritage. We want a leader who lives and breathes cricket, regardless of how lacking predecessors may have been. Im sure he would do a reasonable job, but this seems, more than anything else a marketing campaign than a constructive decision to pick an appropriate leader. Funnily enough the ICC is more credible than Australian politics so lets find a more deserving leader, who has earned the position.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on May 27, 2010, 11:50 GMT

    If this coward becomes ICC president ( I do not think), all full member countiries (except ENG & AUS) will be forced to follow Zimbabwe. Then we will have only Ashes Tests.

    Cricke will be ashes. Ha Ha !

  • on May 27, 2010, 11:48 GMT

    My reading of the situation is that CA bulldozed a much better nomination from New Zealand (and I'm an Aussie). John Anderson is far better qualified as a cricket administrator, John howard is merely a former PM who likes his cricket. Whetehr he was good or bad poitician is ireelevant, the question is would he bood for cricket internationally and i am not convinced. I'm rather ashamed of CA - they could at least have provided a better cricketing representative as ther nominee, and it's a pity CNZ rolled over.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on May 27, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    Jmoney90 said Howard ran Australia successfully. Then why was he defeated by a huge margin in his electorate? He was a refused politician by Australians.

    As an Australian I believe that he is not an impartial administrator. He is the guy who always worship US whether US correct or not. I do not think that cricket will be developed in other countries or even full member countries except AUS, NZ, ENG will be benefitted.

  • The_Wog on May 27, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    Greatest PM that we Aussies ever had. 11 years of unbroken economic growth (despite 2000-02 global recession, 1997 Asian Depression), the largest real wages growth ever, the biggest reduction in unemployment, his HIGHEST interest rate was much lower than the AVERAGE of the previous govt, the restoration of the budget to surplus and debt free from a record debt inherited - all of these things while the rest of the OECD was going down the toilet. We're still benefiting from his reforms of the prudential regulatory system - the only banking system on earth not to blow itself up and therefore rendering the GFC almost an irrelevance in AUS (1% rise in unemployment vs 6% elsewhere).

    But he was a horrifyingly bad choice for this job given a vastly better qualified CRICKET administrator from NZ, quite apart from certain countries having a particular axe to grind personally. Hopefully sanity prevails and NZ's Plan B gets up after an embarrassing manure-fight in the ICC again.

  • SpadeaSpade on May 27, 2010, 11:31 GMT

    To all those out there that say Australia is anti Asian, maybe its time you had a good look around Sydney and Melbourne and you would realise just how stupid those remarks are. I think those of you that think like that are simply jealous of Australian cricket despite having 3 Hall of famers retire in the past 3 years (Maybe more) we are still showing our great strength and depth. ICC needs a strong leader like John Howard to ensure the future of cricket considers all nations not just India. P.S. Murali seems to be a good man but doesn't change the fact that he was a chucker.

  • MozCricket on May 27, 2010, 10:47 GMT

    Loose a nomination because you criticize the regime in Zim?? Come on , those with influence that ignore the nonsense there should be the ones examining themselves

  • Jmoney90 on May 27, 2010, 10:43 GMT

    Whoever said that Howard commented on Muralitharan's action to win votes is grossly misinformed. A very very very large majority of the Australian population couldn't care less about his action, let alone Howard's view on the legality of his bowling. The people who are saying Howard is not suitable are raising very weak points, the only one who is raises a good point is Yousaf465.

  • obstreperous on May 27, 2010, 10:42 GMT

    John Howard never got my vote when he was prime minister but his criticism of Mugabe's regime and refusal to allow an Australian cricket tour of Zimbabwe was one of the best things he did in government. The South African cricket authorities needs to remember how firmly Australia and other nations supported their struggle during the dark years of apartheid and abandon their misplaced loyalty to the fascists that have blighted the lives of the Zimbabwean people.

  • Frankk on May 27, 2010, 10:33 GMT

    I'm curious to know what right the completely discredited cricket authorities in Zimbabwe have to have a view, let alone express it and expect anyone to take it seriously , on anything in world cricket. And their catspaws the South African Cricket Board and the also discredited cricket authorities in India, know that the improved governance a Howard predsiency could bring to the ICC would make them more accountable, something they abhor. If the ICC rolls over on this one then global cricket is in even worse shape than I thought.

  • on May 27, 2010, 10:21 GMT

    LOL @ Tanaka Perera. "Howard is a very poor choice as he has a proven track record of using circumstances to his advantage regardless of how ethically correct or how actually correct the facts are..." O RLY? Guess what he was for 30 odd years? No, he wasn't a janitor or a corn farmer. He was a politician. It's what they do. Sri Lankan politicians included.

  • AndrewWI on May 27, 2010, 9:24 GMT

    To all the people who say that the BCCI is corrupt and engages in arm-twisting tactics , you are right. But please do not say that the India is the most powerful nation in world cricket - that title still rests with England and Australia - the old powers of world cricket. Just ask someone who's actually occupied a significant position in the ICC - eg Sunil Gavaskar and he will tell you. The face is that England and Australia push the foolish Indians into thinking they are the 'Kings of World Cricket' (Geoffery Boycott) and do ALL the controlling from the background. Any thinking person can see that. As long as England backs Australia, India will fall in line, believe me.

  • Happy_AusBang on May 27, 2010, 9:16 GMT

    Howard would be an extremely bad choice for such a position. We need someone there who is known to be inclusive in their demeanour, certainly not those who are well known for their divisiveness and insensitive behaviour towards those that are not like them in appearance. Howard, Hair, and their likes are mavericks in the cricket world; they try to go beyond the rules and institutions. We don't need such people in cricket. How about Helen Clarke? She could arouse interest among women in a game that is largely followed by males.

  • Amu7 on May 27, 2010, 8:22 GMT

    I would like to see that the ICCs rotation policy goes well and look to see Mr John Howard be in its top spot. Since the presidency then belongs to Aus/NZ and he has been nominated by them I dont see any reasons why he should be at the helm in two years time. Well he was pretty right about Murali, laws were "bent" to allow him to allow him to straighten the arm and we are strictly faced with lots of chuckers like Botha playing International cricket. About Zimbabwe , well the players led the revolt against the board which was the main cause of cricket going downhill for them. Murray Goodwin and Neil Johnson were the first ones to walk out , later followed by henry olonga and Andy flower and in the end by Sean ervine and heath Streak .Howard isnt remotely responsible for the mess in cricket in Zimbabwe it is their own board and their policies.

  • Ausgal24 on May 27, 2010, 8:08 GMT

    Yes, it is unfortunate that there is so much opposition to Howard's nomination. Not that he deserves the position or anything, but the fact how people around the world view us Australians. I can understand where Meety is coming from, but we do need to get our own house in order and stop living in denial about the race-related issues prevelant in our society. The more we deny/invalidate the existence of these problems, the more painful reminders we get from the outside world. This position should be filled by someone who has been an accomplished cricketer not a politician, otherwise Gordon Brown might apply as well.

  • ZEUS00 on May 27, 2010, 7:52 GMT

    If Howard is perceived as Racist, unfortunately he himself is to blame for that. He may have had clean intentions about various issues in the past, but was certainly found lacking in cultural sensitivity and diplomatic correctness on many occasions. The Aussie bravado of making insensitive remarks/taking smug stances, comes and bites them, in moments like this, and they conveniently forget that it was all self-invited. Darrel Hair, Howard, Symonds, Hayden, Mcgrath etc are all controversy-mongers and guess what they all hail from Australia! Having said that Simon Taufel is a fabulous umpire and person, so it will be unfair to indulge in any generalizations and character assassinations!

  • yousaf465 on May 27, 2010, 7:50 GMT

    This is a sensitive post, so anyone nominated for this should be free of any controversy, and Howard is not that right man.

    Secondly we can't have Indian, Australian only ICC. Anyone from New Zealand could have been a much better option.

  • Gupta.Ankur on May 27, 2010, 7:40 GMT

    Its very very important to keep an aussie out of ICC.We all know what happened when two aussies were at the helm at ICC

    We don't want more anti-asian team policies...............already ICC's umpires and match-referees are biased against Asian players.

    It is important that Mr.Pawar brings a balanced individual as President-elect.

  • Fast_Track_Bully on May 27, 2010, 7:06 GMT

    @ Jmoney90 - First of all I am not a big fan of Murali. But I like him because he is so humble. Now, do you think the PM represents a country? or what? You can't say such remarks to a person when you in that position. Not only that, ICC cleared Murali before that and that is the ultimate authority as far as Cricket is concern. A normal cricketer/fans etc can say that but not the PM. He is representing the whole nation, he should remember that.

  • redneck on May 27, 2010, 6:50 GMT

    being a present politican, yet alone a former one is irrelevent in the icc anyway! Sharad Pawar the next icc president is the curent minister of agriculture in india! hypocracy much! and south africa/zimbabwes former president nomination ray mali had alot more queston marks over than anything they can pin on howard! they sent our last icc rep on gardening leave and now are trying to block our next selected representative! and this is a council that welcoms Robert Mugabes offsiders with open arms and open cheque books! but our 2nd longest serving PM isnt acceptable, now thats just not cricket!!! cricket australia better show some spine for once instead of the usuall bowing to india's every wish! they have no grounds to block howard, espechally with the precedent of some former icc board members the've allowed in! the people of australia saw him fit to govern them for 11 years, to turn down one of this county's greatest leaders is an insult to australia! now lets see if they post this?

  • on May 27, 2010, 6:02 GMT

    Howard is a very poor choice as he has a proven track record of using circumstances to his advantage regardless of how ethically correct or how actually correct the facts are...best example is how he placarded and accused muralitheran's bowling action to try and increase his votes at the prime ministerial election...to my knowledge he has since acknowledged that and apologized for that....but this shows the shallow and political nature of him and cricket policies would suffer as a whole...i specially think the present sri lankan government being a patriotic govmt should oppose the candidature of Howard.

  • Jmoney90 on May 27, 2010, 5:35 GMT

    Haha Bonner, you seriously think all that is wrong in this country is from the Howard Government? Incase you haven't noticed, Kevin Rudd is a two-faced smooth talker who has literally not done anything. To the people opposing Howard, why should he have no boycotted the tour to zimbabwe, our players could have been in danger. Also, he was boycotting Mugabe, which I think is correct too. And about Muralitharan, how many people knew he threw? A lot. Now the rules have changed. So he wasn't being racist.

  • Icyman on May 27, 2010, 5:29 GMT

    Both Sharad Pawar and Howard are bad choices. As far as I am concerned, politicians should not interfere in sporting administration. Pawar has merely got through, thanks to the might of the BCCI. Howard, on the other hand, is not too popular amongst cricketers. The Zimbabwe example is in front of us. Add to that, his labelling of Sri Lankan off spinner Muralitharan as a 'chucker' can't have helped matters. This, of course, was when he was still the PM of Australia. When you have an experienced cricket admin in John Anderson, why look for anyone else ? Let us also not forget that Aus has got a chance at the ICC presidency, with Malcolm Gray at the helm long ago. So,logically, its the chance of the Kiwis.

  • Nihontone on May 27, 2010, 5:28 GMT

    Please, please, please don't let John Howard become involved in the ICC!!! This would be too much to bear. I don't care what he did while he was PM. This NOT the same thing.

    Tony

  • Reggaecricket on May 27, 2010, 5:14 GMT

    Did John Howard lobby against Zimbabwe in his capacity as a politician or as a Cricket lover? The Zimbabwe stand is a tough one to judge him over - but judging by his passionate display of prejudice against Muralidharan, I tend to think that he is mostly driven by personal prejudices. "Zimbabwe Cricket" needed/needs to be held accountable, Murali may or may not be a chucker (let's not start that here!), but he was out of line for making remarks that threatened a tour while he was the leader of a country. As such, I think he carries a lot of baggage and it's best to leave him out of the ICC. John Howard knows nothing about Cricket, why does he want to get into the ICC? He should spend his retirement doing some charity work or volunteering in Zimbabwe or Ethiopia! I know nothing about Powar, let the Indians educate us! If Howard gets in, it will create a lot of tension between boards and players too.

  • Fast_Track_Bully on May 27, 2010, 4:39 GMT

    Is this the same guy who called Muralidharan as a 'Chucker' when he was the PM?

  • Alburger2000 on May 27, 2010, 4:00 GMT

    hahaha Zimbabwe and SA calling howard a racist......when they themselves have / had their own racial quota selection policies! if it handt been for racial selection policies KP and the rest of englands top order might be playing for SA still!

  • StefanAbeysekera on May 27, 2010, 3:09 GMT

    John Howard has a life long history of discriminating against people of colour. He supported Apartheid fascism in South Africa, did nothing to improve the dire condition of Aborigines in his own country, used the deaths of innocent 'boat people' to whip up anti-Asian frenzy amongst the uneducated in Australia during election campaigns. On the cricketing front he accused the great Muralidharan of 'chucking', thereby making it impossible for Lanka's greatest cricketer to play test cricket in Australia. Despite the countless tests done on Murali's elbow proving that he is perfectly legitimate. No, this man is not just a cricket tragic, he's a human tragedy and we need him out of the public scene ASAP. Australia needs a representative who speaks for all cultures and races rather than continually pandering to Britain or the U.S.

  • leifedling on May 27, 2010, 2:54 GMT

    John Howard has an unusually extreme and unapologetic stance on migration and discrimination of people from underdeveloped/developing countries, something he himself admitted on a recent Hardtalk episode. It surprises and appalls me that he would be nominated to any post of international significance outside the Australian government.

  • Meety on May 27, 2010, 2:53 GMT

    And finaly..... I am sick of the "race card" being used by people to attack somebodies credibility. Howard took a tougher stand on ILLEGAL immigrants entering Australia. Most Australians welcome immigrants to settle in Australia, particularly if they are seeking asylum from a war torn country. Most Australians don't like queue-jumping, and are also fearful that people with bad intentions are try to sneak amongst genuine asylum seekers. Most countries around the world protect their borders, it is not racist! Under Howard, Australians citizens AND Government, donated more money per head of population than any other country in the world to the Boxing Day Tsunami, and gave aid in many other places in the world - is that racist? People have the right to their opinions but please keep it limited to the issues and use facts. Too many times on these posts people expose themselves through their nonsensical rants.

  • Meety on May 27, 2010, 2:42 GMT

    @GEBF - 1. Dr John Hewson was a smart man but couldn't sell his political views to the Oz voters, he would never of been voted into office. 2. Same with Peter Costello, also a very smart man and did a great job as treasurer, however, due to his smile often being described as a sneer, was not received well in polls. Interestingly despite not being friends - they worked very well together, could this be that he was able to put aside his differences for a better outcome to be achieved??? 3. There was never any comments by Howard against Murali to support Warne. That is YOUR prejudices coming to fore. Howard held a common view that Murali's action was not legal. He WAS right. The laws were changed, but at the time he WAS right. Ian Chappell has held similar views on Murali by the way. Chappell would be good but he doesnt have a diplomatic bone in his body, which would offend a lot of people who have rampant inferioty complexes, ie BCCI.

  • ZEUS00 on May 27, 2010, 2:28 GMT

    To my fellow Kiwi Bro Andrew Morrison! I think we Kiwis do ourselves a massive disservice by putting ourselves in the same popularity bracket as Australia, particularly since the rest of the world has got a much much better perception of us. Even people in the subcontinent talk about the contrast between the on-field demeanour of the two sides. Kiwi cricketers are so relaxed, respectful and gracious, that it's impossible not to like them. Australia has always been patronizing towards NZ (underarm incident, sending second rate teams for trans-tasman contests etc) and we need to stop putting up with any domineering attitudes. How about recommending someone like Richard Hadlee, a gentleman with an immaculate track record, fantastic international reputation and magnificent cricketing brain?

  • Mehmet1453 on May 27, 2010, 2:25 GMT

    The problem with Howard is that he is a partisan character that is either loved or despised, you need only look at the posts regarding this article to see that. Howard should not have been appointed for that reason alone. In the long run these strong feelings will come back to bite him on the arse. When ever Howard has to make a controversial decision, that issue will be amplified because of his history and will no doubt ferment bitterness.

  • robbie57 on May 27, 2010, 2:17 GMT

    I am Australian, and I am ashamed that ACA have managed to convince NZ to put forward this nomination. Yes, he ruled when Australia boomed as the world economy boomed, but in the process the country underwent a massive shift to conservatism, lack of compassion and intolerance towards other races. Even the current Liberal party now distancesitself from the policies of this politician who 'dog whistles' to stir up what he believes the country should believe in. He has also shown strong bias against players from other countries when he should have had a neutral opinion, irrespective of what we feel is right or wrong. It is amazing that ACA could not find a better person (there are many) and more amazing that NZ accepted (how much 'back scratching was promised?). He ruled with what he believes people should have and he got this as PM because of a good economy, poor opposition and 'relaxed and comfortable NIMBY Australians who now regret it. Vote against this man for the good of cricket

  • Alexk400 on May 27, 2010, 1:22 GMT

    Howard is sort of republican. Kinda like bush. You know republican ideas always unintended consequences.

    After implementing ideas only they see the problem. Like in Iraq invasion. Their thinking is simplistic like a child brain.

    It helps sometime to make some form of decision instead of standing in the middle forever. But i think if howard embrace srilanka especially apologise to murlidharan , he can make changes that can benefit ICC. But if he wants to change like a cowboy , he may split ICC.

    He is kinda idiot in one way.

  • Bigskyrocket on May 27, 2010, 1:19 GMT

    John Howard ruled himself out many years ago when he called Murali a "chucker". His short man bully boy approach would be harmful and divisive to world cricket. I love the game of cricket too much to wish this nasty little man on it. He divided Australia for his own poltical gain, cricket can do without his type. Nominate John Anderson, he is good man.

  • wanderer1 on May 27, 2010, 1:12 GMT

    Politicians destroying cricket... NEVER! And it comes as no surprise that someone like Ijaz Butt would know John Howard personally. What's the old saying "Birds of a feather flock together"; they also tend to die together as well. Cricket most certainly does NOT need John Howard, please do us all a favour and get one of those ex-international politician roles that would ironically fit your past; I'm thinking 'Peace Ambassador to Africa' or some such contrived nonsense would be offered to John.

  • on May 27, 2010, 1:04 GMT

    I strongly oppose Mr. Howard as ICC President. When Mr. Howard was PM of Australia he blindly followed USA'a war against the Iraqi people. Now by all accounts that war was fabricated to placate Israel. In short, that War has resulted in over 1 million Iraqi's are dead, over 3 million are displaced. Mr. Howard is directly responsible for the genocide of Iraqi's he has to bear the moral responsibility for that. He has not used good judgment and prudence in his tenure as PM of Australia in leading Australia into wars against the Non-White people of Iraq and Afghanistan. He also supported the existence of Guantanamo-Bay torture jail without and conditions.

    I am also opposed to Mr. Howard as ICC president, because I feel that he is racially biased. He has demonstrated that by conducting raids against people of color migrating to and residing in Australia. He showed lack of good judgment and candor when he criticized the governments of Indonesia and Zimbabwe in most condescending manner.

  • beejaytee on May 27, 2010, 1:00 GMT

    It seems fairly obvious that John Anderson should have got the Aus/NZ nomination. Far better qualified, by any marker. He didn't. Presumably this is because NZC has little power in the relationship, and Howard has some considerable pull at the ACB. Whatever your political leanings, surely everybody can see that Howard has taken racist (or at the very least, Anglo-centric) positions on each and every issue that arose in international cricket during his tenure as PM. That he had no place in any of these discussions phased him not one jot. His input was invariably myopic, disruptive and unhelpful. Forget everything else, and focus on his impact on international cricket.

  • Meety on May 27, 2010, 0:55 GMT

    @Alexk400 - I did not vote for Howard but what basis to you claim him to be a racist? The race card is pretty weak without a solid case. @ jimm4376 - every single person on that board has used some form of politics to get there, it is a reality that exists in all corporate bodies governing sport around the world, look at the politics involved in the IOC! @Jim Davis - LOL @Sampacker - agreed @Munsta101 - kiwis god given right NOT to agree with anything Australia suggests LOL! @Eightball - the ICC could block it one way or another, agree with the cosy relationship - financially. @MichaelJMupereki - I wonder do you support Mugabe? It is widely reported that opponents of his regime end up dead, white farmers were murdered in a state sanctioned campaign, and ICC funds have been diverted from the Cricket Administration. I would of thought if these things are true, something sort of stand needed to be made?

  • Meety on May 27, 2010, 0:42 GMT

    Please note that I think Murali was/is great for World Cricket, but plenty of cricketers with better actions have been barred for "chucking" in the past. Also I think Murali is one of the nicest persons in cricket. @Thirucumaran Ratnavadivel - maybe a career cricket may of made a better choice, but he will not be worse than the rabble that have been on the Board previously. Also the term Cricket Tragic, is meant to describe someone who is hopeless at playing cricket but has a deep PASSION & KNOWLEDGE of the game. This term does not mean they would be precluded from being a good ICC President. @ Thubelihle Sbusiso Zondi - the head of state of Zimbabwe has been accused of genocide, and won't relinquish his power. He seems to me to be a former hero of certain causes a long time ago but has since committed attrocities against humanity. Not sure if I sport should be used to make a political statement, but most Australian cricketers did not want to play their due to ethical reasons. TBC

  • Meety on May 27, 2010, 0:32 GMT

    A lot of misguided comments here. @Zeus00 - Howard received an international humanitarian award for when the Govt helped East Timor & the Solomon Islands from civil war. @Majr - not sure if it is poor choice of words but how do you " betrayed his prejudiced make up by his taking positions on tricky cricketing issues"? Are you saying that you should say one thing if you think another? @BKamalJeet - Australia is one of the few countries in the world that hasn't been crippled by the GFC - largely due to his term in government. Also what are you thinking saying "This ICC position should remain with the most powerful and richest cricket board."? This reeks of arrogance! The richest Board is also the most corrupt Board outside of Zimbabwe! @lugujaga - technically Howard was correct, Murali had an illegal action until redifined by the ICC. Howard held a view point that a lot of purist lovers of cricket held, Murali had an action that in the least was suspect, TBC on this point!!!!!!

  • Rooboy on May 27, 2010, 0:25 GMT

    So many ignorant and just plain wrong comments here. It would be wonderful if people were capable of doing some research and searching for facts themselves, rather than just believe everything that agenda driven sections of the media feed them. @bonner-'Much of Australia is still hurting from the Howard years'-do you mean all those Australians with houses and jobs thanks to the low interest rates and a buoyant economy during the Howard years?! And I am so sick of complaints about Howard calling murali a chucker. Firstly, IT'S AN OPINION AND HE'S ENTITLED TO IT. Lots of people in the cricket world think murali's a chucker. Secondly, he was asked the question by a journalist. Should he have lied? Should he have ignored the journalist? He responded honestly with his opinion to a question posed of him, why do people want to crucify him for that?! It is not an offence in Australia to have an opinion and share it openly and honestly, it says a lot about the people who have a problem with it.

  • takenaback on May 26, 2010, 23:50 GMT

    lol bonner. You refer to Australia still hurting from the Howard years, are you serious? Some of the most prosperous years this country has ever seen, obviously a Labour Party crony. I'm with you PottedLambShanks, cricket does need someone with strong leadership. My question to all you knockers is do you think we need change? I think we all agree the ICC needs change, so give him a chance and bag his legacy afterwards if you must.

  • GEBF on May 26, 2010, 20:54 GMT

    Dear All,

    John Howard is a Very poor choice, as he carries a heavy load of Excess Baggage as in his previous lilfe; 1. He manipulated cunningly and got rid of his Party Leader one Dr. John Hewson and after several years in the hiding became the PM 2. Shrewdly prevented his Deputy Peter Costello ( His treasure for Over 3 terms ) from being the PM, it is a known that the Howards have not invited Mr & Mrs Costello for Dinner at their Lodge, wheras most of the Politicians and alike were guests.3. Remember his unfounded comments regarding Murali to support Shane Warne , he is biased and has No credibility in my humble opinion.( The Best Aussie is Ian Chappel , the straight shooter or Steve Waugh ) Rules: 1.Select Someone Who Has Given His Heart & Soul To Cricket 2.A Good Communicator & Negotiator 3.Person Who Respects Africans,Muslims,Sri Lankans,& Others Alike

    Benil Fernando ( Sydney NSW Australia/ 27th May2010 ) ---- Happy Vesak !

  • Nitesh.Chandra on May 26, 2010, 20:35 GMT

    Howard and Pawar - both should be stopped in their tracks. Let former cricketers run the game and even the individual nations' cricket boards with the help of professionals, surely not career politicians. I know I am dreaming, but then that's the least one can do!

  • DamieninFrance on May 26, 2010, 20:01 GMT

    Let me start by saying that I am Australian, so that you all know my bias. Can I also state that Howard was not popular during his tenure, but as a politician he did a very good job of doing enough when it mattered. He was also successful in getting the job done. I never voted for him, but I admire what he was able to achieve. His party lost the election when the power went to his head and he tried to do too much, too quickly. When he had to manage a lot of different interests at the same time, he was very good at achieving a workable (if never ideal) solution. In that regard, he would never have the support of all other members of the ICC. I personally think he would make a good leader of this inept organisation. To BKamalJeet: U said Howard would ruin the game; the wealth and power of BCCI should control the cricket world and Howard would just be a puppet for them anyway. So... Howard would ruin cricket because he'd be acting on behalf of the BCCI? They don't need Howard for that.

  • on May 26, 2010, 19:39 GMT

    I respect the views of everyone here, but from what I have seen it is a very subcontinental view point. I am sure that much vitriol will result from this post, but I hope that everyone can see that New Zealand is in a position where it has very few partners in international cricket, and though it might not find Johhny Howard as the best patron, who else will represent NZ o the international stage? NZ cricket has very few ways inwhich to pull young Kiwis to play cricket instead of rugby or rugby league, and with the absolutely curropt BCCI refusing to give us significant tours, nor the English Cricket Board perpared to give us full tours, we have very little option. I am sure that there are more qualified executives in NZ who would be prepared to represent us, but the fact remains that Johnny is an internationally recognised statesmen that understands the interplay between the Austrialasia region and Asian region. Argue as you will, but please propose some one else to fill the void!?

  • Uranium on May 26, 2010, 18:39 GMT

    His lack of administrative experience in cricket is a HUGE advantage. Let me explain: the problem with the current cricket administrators is that their careers and identities are tied to cricket. They are afraid of change. The beauty of having Howard is that he doesn't need this role - His legacy (like or hate it) has already been made in a different, much more important sphere. Howard will not be afraid to make the tough decisions that cricket needs to stamp out the comatose stagnancy and incompetence that has plagued the game for far too long. If we want cricket to spread beyond the commonwealth sphere then Howard is a great start. I'd love to see Howard in the role.

  • PottedLambShanks on May 26, 2010, 18:21 GMT

    Cricket desperately needs Howard. It needs somebody who will speak up for the fans who are sick and tired of corruption and cheating being swept under the carpet, and who won't be scared of taking the Asian bloc. Test cricket most definitely needs John Howard so let's all get behind him and support him.

  • 12thman on May 26, 2010, 18:20 GMT

    Please do not elect or nominate him. I am Australian and he is the biggest racist and swollen head who was kicked out at the last election by the Australian public. So please pick someone else.

  • mfis07 on May 26, 2010, 18:08 GMT

    I can't believe someone like Howard got nominated for ICC presidency. He is highely controversial and to some extend racist. I'd be highly unfortunate and destructive to have him lead the ICC. Horrible, horrible personality!!

  • RKB21 on May 26, 2010, 17:57 GMT

    John Howard's views have been out of sync with the changing world. As a career politician, he may be able to disguise his old-time views for now until he becomes ICC's President in 2012. I sincerely hope that there are some more cricket boards willing to stand against his candidacy.

  • bonner on May 26, 2010, 17:42 GMT

    Much of Australia is still hurting from the Howard years. I, as a Cricket lover and as an Australian, sincerely hope that the ICC does NOT proceed with this cynical appointment. Howard's credentials and his credibility must surely disqualify him from this position.

  • Stevo_ on May 26, 2010, 17:33 GMT

    I don't think some people here know what a cricket-tragic is; Check Lesson Four on this page http://www.ourbrisbane.com/lifestyle/health-sport-and-fitness/dummies-guide-to-cricket

  • klempie on May 26, 2010, 17:30 GMT

    @Thubelile Zondi. The rest of the world wished that South African cricket suffer for the deeds of its government. How is that any different or are you of the opinion that it is a case of one set of rules for natives and another for "settlers"?

  • seamersbeamers on May 26, 2010, 17:28 GMT

    Howard is a consumate politician, a brilliant administrator and under his (long) tenure Australia was an extremely affluent and well-run country (BKarmalJeet, you're talking utter rubbish). He is a pragmatist who got a lot of bad press internationally for his stances on some sensitive issues, despite the fact that he was often proved right in the long run - or at least his decisions were certainly shown to be in the best interests of the people he was there to serve. I think he'll do the same for cricket, and see himself as a representative of cricket fans around the world. Right now what the ICC needs is administrators who have a global perspective, understand how to use power firmly but judiciously, understand the difference between money and fair play (which the BCCI don't seem to be able to do) and can balance a bank account. Howard fits the bill. The best man for the job.

  • EightBall on May 26, 2010, 17:25 GMT

    I don't think India (the BCCI) will or can block Howard. They have too cosy a relationship with Cricket Australia that is mutually (financially) beneficial.

  • 6pack on May 26, 2010, 17:19 GMT

    Have to agree that Howard's biases are well documented. As President of ICC you would expect to see someone broadminded who can understand multiple perspectives, not someone who sees clear lines of divisions between 'us' and 'them' - and the 'us' here denotes elitism, western logic etc. You'd expect someone of integrity to fill this position.... Howard should retire and quietly move to the outback or wherever he will be revered!

  • MichaelJMupereki on May 26, 2010, 17:09 GMT

    As a Zimbabwean, i would strongly agree that Howard must never set foot in that office. He trumped up issues for our team and blocked Australia's team from touring Zimbabwe, and now when he heads the ICC, i wonder what he will say now.

    This guy is a politician, and Politicians must stay there, in Politics.They said that Zim Politicis was being punished because of BOB, even though he was not directly involved in Cricket, now he turns around and says let me head the ICC.No no no no.

    There are so many apolitical cricket fans in Zimbabwe who did not understand why a sport was being dragged into Politics, which in all fairness where between a few politicians in Zimbabwe and a few Politicians in the UK, which was blown out of proportion.

    No to Howard, he must try and seek some political office, not Cricket.NO NO NO

  • Zahidsaltin on May 26, 2010, 17:06 GMT

    Howard will be a perfect choice. When an indian politition can become ICC president then why not Howard. Having ex prime minister of Australia as ICC man, in itself is a good publicity of the game in countries with lesser knowledge about the game. He is a better man to spread cricket in USA and some European countries.

  • Patlolla on May 26, 2010, 16:58 GMT

    even pawar should not be allowed the boss of ICC....he is a politician and in no means to hold a position such as the boss of icc...i would recommend a former player from every county who understands cricket as well as administration...

  • Sampacker on May 26, 2010, 16:52 GMT

    I'm massively pro-Howard. He was an awesome PM, and I hate this idea that ex-players are the only ones who can do anything when it comes to the non-playing side of cricket. This is from a Brit, so maybe Howard's overseas record isn't all that bad. Plus the "intelligensia" should not be the people we all bow down to. They tend to be people who harp on non-stop about morals etc yet contradict everything they say . E.g Al Gore, Michael Moore.

  • jimm4376 on May 26, 2010, 16:21 GMT

    Wondering how Howard got nominated over Anderson in first place...Aus and NZ shamelessly try to level the ICC a political organisation...during his tenure as a long time PM he rarely had best foreign policies...there would always be a risk he could mix up sport and politics and cricket would suffer most in that case...

  • Homer2007 on May 26, 2010, 16:15 GMT

    If the Howard nomination is the catalyst for a Project Snow sort of split in world Cricket leading to the destruction of the ICC in its current form, it will be the best thing to happen to world Cricket. Just about everything that is wrong with world cricket can be traced back to the ICC's ineptitude.Designer pitches, bore-a-thons, badly organized tourneys, excessive oversight when unnecessary, too little oversight when oversight is called for, factionalism, leaks, jobs for the boys, no accountability - the ICC is responsible for all this and more. And it will be best that the ICC is re-formed and reconstituted to take its rightful place as the overseer of world cricket and not a pseudo United Nations. More power to John Howard then - may his tribe increase.

  • Munsta101 on May 26, 2010, 15:57 GMT

    Us Kiwis never wanted this joker in anyway. Hope he gets the boot.

  • JimDavis on May 26, 2010, 15:56 GMT

    If being ICC President means John Howard has leave Australia and go live in Dubai then please please please vote yes to him becoming President!

  • wiiCricket on May 26, 2010, 15:54 GMT

    Welcome Howard. It would be awesome to see Cricket crawling for it's survival.

  • j.r.mckeown on May 26, 2010, 15:42 GMT

    Guys, the term CRICKET TRAGIC means that he LOVES cricket, NOT that he has no idea about cricket. He has always been a fan and has a deep passion for and knowledge of the game.

  • howizzat on May 26, 2010, 15:31 GMT

    Why Sports should be run by a Politician? Is it the basic qualification? Are governing a nation and governing sports on par? Because in our country each and every sports body is headed by a politician. But unfortunately the result is a big Zero.

  • on May 26, 2010, 15:18 GMT

    I doubt John Howard will get the post after his comments about Muralitharan when Sri Lanka toured Down Under a few years ago. The Asian bloc will definitely block his nomination and rightly so. I would hate to see a fool like Howard become the president of the ICC and tarnishing our precious game. What on earth were the Australian administration thinking when they chose this clown?

  • Jmoney90 on May 26, 2010, 15:18 GMT

    Hah, most of the people commenting here have no idea what they are talking about. Repugnant individual? A little drastic considering you probably don't even come from Australia and have seen very limited things from him. He in general seems like an honest guy, he managed to run this country pretty well for over 10 years, I don't see why he cannot run the ICC as well as anyone else, especially considering his passion for the game.

  • Alexk400 on May 26, 2010, 15:14 GMT

    Howard is still a racist. He is a cowboy who will split ICC. Howard is a bad idea.

  • on May 26, 2010, 14:55 GMT

    Well within their rights, especially Zimbabwe, since Howard was staunch in his wish that Zimbabwe cricket suffer for the deeds of it's Head Of State.

    I'm surprised as this nomination, the last thing world cricket needs is another bureaucrat who doesn't have every cricket playing nations needs at heart. Australia and NZ have plenty of former players, why not nominate one of them?

  • on May 26, 2010, 14:03 GMT

    If John Howard is a self-confessed cricket tragic, how, may I ask, is he fit to lead world cricket's governing body? True, the ICC is pretty much defunct, but you still have to have a person who knows cricket or has been involved in the governing of his country's cricket to head the ICC. Sir John Anderson, a NZ guy, is much better suited considering he's NZ's rep for the ICC and has been the chairman of the NZ cricket board for 15 years. For once, I'm supporting the BCCI on this (i.e. if the BCCI decides to go against Howard).

  • lugujaga on May 26, 2010, 14:01 GMT

    John Howard has made some statements in the the past cocerning Muralideran which suggest that he is bias agianst certain cricketers . He will not be a good candidate for this position,in my opinion he will cause more problems than he solve for the ICC . In the best interest of world cricket he should not be considered for this position.

  • BKamalJeet on May 26, 2010, 14:00 GMT

    This man has nothing better to do. With no knowledge of the game he is all set to ruin this beautiful game just as he ruined his own country when he was the PM.

    India, Pak, SL, Bangladesh need to come together and block his candidature. This ICC position should remain with the most powerful and richest cricket board. Also if he becomes the ICC head he would be dancing to the BCCI's tunes. May be he is looking to earn some big bucks so wont mind that.

  • on May 26, 2010, 13:31 GMT

    BCCI should vote against this man for the greater good of cricket... if he is allowed to come to ICC then there will be a serious repurcussions on the cause of development of cricket in under developed countries which have a lot of potential

  • anuajm on May 26, 2010, 13:21 GMT

    And what about Pawar? Howcome he is going to be the ICC president..Such a waste!!

  • Percy_Fender on May 26, 2010, 13:13 GMT

    Howard has no business heading the ICC. He is as parochial as the many we have had occasion to see at the Sydney hill. As Prime Minister, betrayed his prejudiced make up by his taking positions on tricky cricketing issues. It would have made no difference if he had held his counsel. I am not surprised that his nomination is not going to be the cake walk it was earlier expected to be. Sharad Pawar can of course help his cause and is the type who will. That is my regret and I am sure many people feel that way. John Howard must not be in the ICC.

  • ZEUS00 on May 26, 2010, 13:04 GMT

    I still can't get over us Kiwis supporting Howard's nomination. He is not only a cricket-tragic but a tragedy personified in every conceivable dimension! When he was PM, Australia was the only country he was popular in, his international perception has always been so poor, particularly amongst the intelligensia. Can't imagine any of the subcontinental boards sticking up for him either. The ICC should look for a candidate who is strong, well-spoken and uncompromising, Howard unfortunately does not fit the boot.

  • on May 26, 2010, 12:53 GMT

    Mixing politics with politics. Not good.

  • emuexport on May 26, 2010, 12:51 GMT

    Criticising Zimbabwe should be a prerequiste for an administrative role in the ICC.

  • SettingSun on May 26, 2010, 12:42 GMT

    I sincerely hope that other boards join South Africa and Zimbabwe in their opposition to Howard. He is a thoroughly repugnant individual and I don't want the sport I love being run by his sort.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • SettingSun on May 26, 2010, 12:42 GMT

    I sincerely hope that other boards join South Africa and Zimbabwe in their opposition to Howard. He is a thoroughly repugnant individual and I don't want the sport I love being run by his sort.

  • emuexport on May 26, 2010, 12:51 GMT

    Criticising Zimbabwe should be a prerequiste for an administrative role in the ICC.

  • on May 26, 2010, 12:53 GMT

    Mixing politics with politics. Not good.

  • ZEUS00 on May 26, 2010, 13:04 GMT

    I still can't get over us Kiwis supporting Howard's nomination. He is not only a cricket-tragic but a tragedy personified in every conceivable dimension! When he was PM, Australia was the only country he was popular in, his international perception has always been so poor, particularly amongst the intelligensia. Can't imagine any of the subcontinental boards sticking up for him either. The ICC should look for a candidate who is strong, well-spoken and uncompromising, Howard unfortunately does not fit the boot.

  • Percy_Fender on May 26, 2010, 13:13 GMT

    Howard has no business heading the ICC. He is as parochial as the many we have had occasion to see at the Sydney hill. As Prime Minister, betrayed his prejudiced make up by his taking positions on tricky cricketing issues. It would have made no difference if he had held his counsel. I am not surprised that his nomination is not going to be the cake walk it was earlier expected to be. Sharad Pawar can of course help his cause and is the type who will. That is my regret and I am sure many people feel that way. John Howard must not be in the ICC.

  • anuajm on May 26, 2010, 13:21 GMT

    And what about Pawar? Howcome he is going to be the ICC president..Such a waste!!

  • on May 26, 2010, 13:31 GMT

    BCCI should vote against this man for the greater good of cricket... if he is allowed to come to ICC then there will be a serious repurcussions on the cause of development of cricket in under developed countries which have a lot of potential

  • BKamalJeet on May 26, 2010, 14:00 GMT

    This man has nothing better to do. With no knowledge of the game he is all set to ruin this beautiful game just as he ruined his own country when he was the PM.

    India, Pak, SL, Bangladesh need to come together and block his candidature. This ICC position should remain with the most powerful and richest cricket board. Also if he becomes the ICC head he would be dancing to the BCCI's tunes. May be he is looking to earn some big bucks so wont mind that.

  • lugujaga on May 26, 2010, 14:01 GMT

    John Howard has made some statements in the the past cocerning Muralideran which suggest that he is bias agianst certain cricketers . He will not be a good candidate for this position,in my opinion he will cause more problems than he solve for the ICC . In the best interest of world cricket he should not be considered for this position.

  • on May 26, 2010, 14:03 GMT

    If John Howard is a self-confessed cricket tragic, how, may I ask, is he fit to lead world cricket's governing body? True, the ICC is pretty much defunct, but you still have to have a person who knows cricket or has been involved in the governing of his country's cricket to head the ICC. Sir John Anderson, a NZ guy, is much better suited considering he's NZ's rep for the ICC and has been the chairman of the NZ cricket board for 15 years. For once, I'm supporting the BCCI on this (i.e. if the BCCI decides to go against Howard).