ICC news June 30, 2010

Howard fails in ICC vice-president bid

143

The ICC has demanded another vice-presidency candidate after John Howard's nomination was rejected by its executive board in Singapore. A move which began with members from six countries signalling their intention to block the appointment on Tuesday turned into an official rejection of Australia's former prime minister today.

The ICC confirmed the decision this afternoon following an executive meeting that was supposed to formalise Howard's election. No vote was taken and Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket were asked to re-nominate a candidate by August 31.

The ICC said in a statement: "Following lengthy consideration it was recognised that the nomination put forward by Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket did not have sufficient support within the ICC board."

Cricket Australia's chairman Jack Clarke and his New Zealand Cricket counterpart Alan Isaac said in a joint statement they were "deeply disappointed" after supplying "the best possible candidate". "We jointly nominated Mr Howard as he possesses significant leadership and administrative skills," they said. "We believe cricket needs to continue to seek excellence and dispassionate independence in the game's global governance.

"We were delighted that the most senior world figure ever considered for this role agreed to accept the nomination. We remain convinced it is reasonable for his nomination to be supported by the ICC executive board and we are deeply disappointed by the position taken."

Initial rumblings from Zimbabwe and South Africa in April became an all-conquering alliance when India signed up along with their subcontinent neighbours this week. It leaves the ICC without a deputy to be paraded alongside India's Sharad Pawar when he takes over the presidency from David Morgan this week.

The position taken by the six board members on Tuesday night was believed to be an attempt to force Howard to withdraw his nomination before the meeting. Howard remained in the race but lost the one-man raffle at the Raffles convention centre, ending the 70-year-old's cricket administration career before it was allowed to begin.

Seven votes were required to seal the deal but Australia, New Zealand and England were the only supporters of Howard before the meeting among the game's 10 major countries. The six members signed a letter on Tuesday effectively stopping the appointment, but Zimbabwe, the most strident back-room protestor of Howard's nomination, was not one of them.

During Howard's 11-year term as prime minister he was critical of Robert Mugabe's regime and was responsible for banning the team from touring the country in 2007. Howard visited Zimbabwe cricket officials last week in an unsuccessful effort to smooth relations with the board. Once India turned from Howard there was no chance of him gaining enough support, with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh believed to have sided with their all-powerful neighbour.

Howard was the joint nomination of Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket for the role as part of the rotational system employed by the ICC. Under the regulations, Howard would have assumed the presidency in 2012 after Pawar's two-year term.

While the two countries have remained committed to Howard, his selection was complicated by New Zealand's wish to choose Sir John Anderson, its long-term respected administrator. An independent committee was charged with breaking the deadlock and once Howard emerged as the winner the boards were publicly united. However, the delay provided fuel for the opponents to question whether New Zealand had been out-muscled by Australia.

Confirmation of Howard's role - he was nominated in March - was expected in April, but Zimbabwe raised their concerns through South African officials outside an ICC meeting in Dubai. The issue dragged on and Clarke and his chief executive James Sutherland were still lobbying for support over the past couple of days.

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Mahesh_AV on July 5, 2010, 14:11 GMT

    I do not know what the so called "Indian Corruption" have to do with this. If this is Indian corruption, it is also the corruption of South Africa, West Indies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangaladesh and Zimbabwe!! Get your facts right. It is not fair to blame India for this defeat. Halfacow had better get his/her words out of the right side of the half!!

  • halfacow on July 2, 2010, 17:17 GMT

    What a joke. Cricket is dead. Indian corruption reigns supreme again.

  • on July 2, 2010, 9:30 GMT

    WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND AND SOON IT WILL BE ENGLAND'S TURN...TIC,TOC,TIC,TOC....

  • on July 2, 2010, 9:03 GMT

    Any official nominated by a country for the Chairmanship of ICC, should have handled Cricket Administration in the respective country at a higher level. If not the appointment of a person not handled cricket directly, at this juncture will create a precedent, and if the other countries follow suit in the future, it will be the end of the ICC.

  • bowzer on July 2, 2010, 7:12 GMT

    Lets cut to the chase. John Howard's past has caught up with him. If this is the attitude other countries have towards him, he would have been more divisive for the game, when his role is to bring the game together. So, for the good of cricket. like it or not, the just isnot the right person. He needs to go and get some advice from Steve Waugh, do more charity work, promote the game. Then come back and maybe other countries will reconsider. At this stage, John Howards past is all the other counties have to go on by.

  • on July 2, 2010, 4:39 GMT

    As a distant view - John Howard's rejection carries an air of paritsanship and unfortunate for a man with considerable stature - if I understand he is also a cricket enthusiast. I think he could have made a good combination with the Indian President in rising obove while cricket is mired with some intristic problems that has a toll on the game if moreso individual talent.

    As unfortunate, this may not go without sour taste and familier sembelance of East -V- West. Can be resolved still bringing him in?

  • jillpreston on July 2, 2010, 3:24 GMT

    And then there was a time in the Australian Parliament when JH had 7 votes, and Labor had 3. JH stepped down and let Labor choose the primeminister, because 3 is greater than 7.

  • TinyPop on July 1, 2010, 14:52 GMT

    I wonder if Peter English, Hague, Speed, Clarke et al wuld shower BCCI with compliments if BCCI had chosen to be neutral or in favour of Howard. It is true BCCI is a financial giant, there may be a lot of discrepancies. But surely you know that theye were not exhibiting their muscle power against CA. Clearly Howard was disliked by at least half of the member countries. Do you think he would have been a popular President. Come on CA grow up. Get somebody who would be welcomed and respected, he will be voted in. CLEARLY YOU HAVE A HIDDEN AGENDA IN PRESSING FOR HOWARD, or else you are too childish and arrogant......

  • 78aj on July 1, 2010, 11:02 GMT

    John Howard was only echoing what all australians and many others thought about Murali.... he actually was thwarting the rules, that's why they were changed if you recall. Also anyone who actually supported the Mugabe regime are the ones you should be lambasting, not Howard. John Howard stood up for what is right at the time, alot of others did'nt have the guts. Where did all these racism claims come from? you guys are making it up, please stop spreading such lies. Howard is a very honorable man and will stand up for cricket on the world stage, some of the sub continent administrators are very scared of him because they have something to hide, Howard would only do things in the greater interest of cricket, not for himself unlike many we see today. If cricket is what you love then Howard is the man, if you want to continue too see corruption, bribery and matchfixing in cricket then continue with your ranting.

  • on July 1, 2010, 6:58 GMT

    Lets show Australia we need someone else, goto http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=136170009734294&ref=ts and show your support for a differant candidate than howard.

  • Mahesh_AV on July 5, 2010, 14:11 GMT

    I do not know what the so called "Indian Corruption" have to do with this. If this is Indian corruption, it is also the corruption of South Africa, West Indies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangaladesh and Zimbabwe!! Get your facts right. It is not fair to blame India for this defeat. Halfacow had better get his/her words out of the right side of the half!!

  • halfacow on July 2, 2010, 17:17 GMT

    What a joke. Cricket is dead. Indian corruption reigns supreme again.

  • on July 2, 2010, 9:30 GMT

    WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND AND SOON IT WILL BE ENGLAND'S TURN...TIC,TOC,TIC,TOC....

  • on July 2, 2010, 9:03 GMT

    Any official nominated by a country for the Chairmanship of ICC, should have handled Cricket Administration in the respective country at a higher level. If not the appointment of a person not handled cricket directly, at this juncture will create a precedent, and if the other countries follow suit in the future, it will be the end of the ICC.

  • bowzer on July 2, 2010, 7:12 GMT

    Lets cut to the chase. John Howard's past has caught up with him. If this is the attitude other countries have towards him, he would have been more divisive for the game, when his role is to bring the game together. So, for the good of cricket. like it or not, the just isnot the right person. He needs to go and get some advice from Steve Waugh, do more charity work, promote the game. Then come back and maybe other countries will reconsider. At this stage, John Howards past is all the other counties have to go on by.

  • on July 2, 2010, 4:39 GMT

    As a distant view - John Howard's rejection carries an air of paritsanship and unfortunate for a man with considerable stature - if I understand he is also a cricket enthusiast. I think he could have made a good combination with the Indian President in rising obove while cricket is mired with some intristic problems that has a toll on the game if moreso individual talent.

    As unfortunate, this may not go without sour taste and familier sembelance of East -V- West. Can be resolved still bringing him in?

  • jillpreston on July 2, 2010, 3:24 GMT

    And then there was a time in the Australian Parliament when JH had 7 votes, and Labor had 3. JH stepped down and let Labor choose the primeminister, because 3 is greater than 7.

  • TinyPop on July 1, 2010, 14:52 GMT

    I wonder if Peter English, Hague, Speed, Clarke et al wuld shower BCCI with compliments if BCCI had chosen to be neutral or in favour of Howard. It is true BCCI is a financial giant, there may be a lot of discrepancies. But surely you know that theye were not exhibiting their muscle power against CA. Clearly Howard was disliked by at least half of the member countries. Do you think he would have been a popular President. Come on CA grow up. Get somebody who would be welcomed and respected, he will be voted in. CLEARLY YOU HAVE A HIDDEN AGENDA IN PRESSING FOR HOWARD, or else you are too childish and arrogant......

  • 78aj on July 1, 2010, 11:02 GMT

    John Howard was only echoing what all australians and many others thought about Murali.... he actually was thwarting the rules, that's why they were changed if you recall. Also anyone who actually supported the Mugabe regime are the ones you should be lambasting, not Howard. John Howard stood up for what is right at the time, alot of others did'nt have the guts. Where did all these racism claims come from? you guys are making it up, please stop spreading such lies. Howard is a very honorable man and will stand up for cricket on the world stage, some of the sub continent administrators are very scared of him because they have something to hide, Howard would only do things in the greater interest of cricket, not for himself unlike many we see today. If cricket is what you love then Howard is the man, if you want to continue too see corruption, bribery and matchfixing in cricket then continue with your ranting.

  • on July 1, 2010, 6:58 GMT

    Lets show Australia we need someone else, goto http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=136170009734294&ref=ts and show your support for a differant candidate than howard.

  • on July 1, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    john is apolitica;l , its high tym we seperate politrics from sports. look how bad he hs damaged the zimbwean cricken,denying it game play, surely we nid to halt his appointment b4 he causes a stir in this beautful game. tough luck mr howard, try your luck somewhere,maybe rugby will do, u beta start going for it now, by 2012 u wil b da man at da helm!!!

  • eminem on July 1, 2010, 4:52 GMT

    I am intrigued to understand why CA should project Mr.Howard so vehemently when you have stalwarts like the rugged Alan Border, the visionary Steven Waugh or for that matter any administrator in CA current or past. The answer would be that there is a political agenda already in place for Mr.Howard, and with Mr.Howards political prowess he will be able to put people in their places (if you know what I mean, read "The Asia Block") and get things back in order (read "back to the good ole days"). So the very idea of having Mr.Howard be pushed so hard is in itself a politically motivated idea, so why doesnt Mr.Speed or CA understand and accept that on the same lines that Mr.Howard was voted out was also political. If this hypothsis is false then CA would have already backed the post with another person which it did not do because it knows that there isnt anyone as good as Mr.Howard to do the job, neither it wants to hand over reins to Mr.Anderson in which case CA wouldnt have full control

  • M-S-R on July 1, 2010, 3:52 GMT

    Oh love it! quoting Qad786786:

    "It is a great decision, Howard along with Blair & Bush is a war criminal who backed ilegal war resulting in death of 1/2 a million people. Thats like Pakistan and Bangladesh puting forward Osama Bin Laden, as it happens if a Westerner kills thousands he is a hero and liberator, fact is Like Bin Laden Howard is a criminal who should be behind bars not running the great game of Cricket. As for India ruling the roost well money talks (just like Aus & England use to do the same, remember when they found Windies too hot to handle in the 80's 1 bumper per over was introduced by Eng & Aus, what goes round comes round, get used to it."

  • braindead_rocker on July 1, 2010, 3:41 GMT

    Sir John Anderson must be laughing now...Give him the job I say...and this isn't racism...Any other deserving candidate from Aus,NZ will be voted in.

  • Chanaka on July 1, 2010, 3:13 GMT

    Malcolm Speed states that the ICC requires a strong leader. Very true. John Howard is not the man. He is not a leader.He is a politician rejected by his country and even his own constituency. So why does the ICC want him? It appears that Australia needs him more than the ICC so that they can continue ignoring the needs of countries like SL, Bangladesh and Zim. ICC needs a strong leader who is sincere and will foster cricketing interests of ALL countries.

  • Marcio on July 1, 2010, 3:12 GMT

    Murali's action lies at the borderline of bowling and throwing, and anyone who has ever seen him bowl knows it. Since when is it a crime to come down on the side of the latter? It has nothing to do with the current appointment. Get over it. It seems being white is a real issue these days. Oh, the irony of it all!

  • jillpreston on July 1, 2010, 2:49 GMT

    Jack Clarke is 'deeply disappointed' after supplying the 'best possible candidate'. Does he mean that the rest of Australia is worse than John Howard? As an Australian I cannot accept that insult. Most Australians are fair, broad minded, and far from bigotry, at least the ones who live around me. We try 'to do good unto others', if John did the same, I'm sure he would have been more acceptable.

  • catalyst213 on July 1, 2010, 1:30 GMT

    John Howard, you don't give Citizenship of Australia to people only because they love the beaches, there are certain requirements such as skills and education. You only love Cricket (Australia). No disrespect, but i think u got a better chance opposing Julia Gillard in the next election.

  • _NEUTRAL_Fan_ on July 1, 2010, 1:08 GMT

    Frankly...The ICC has proven for sometime to be a fairly incompetent board n does not properly deal with many issues in the manner that a governing body should. I doubt that this will change NO MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT. As far as I'm concerned, the nominations r just a matter of ritual i.e. my turn to hav a figure head now n u'r turn 2 have a figure head tommorow. I have my suspicions that this is the reason why NZ n Aus r upset...they're turn jus got messed up, n the ritual is broken. What needs to be contested is the entire ICC structure,manifesto and overall policy, more so than who ever is nominated.

  • AndrewFromOz on July 1, 2010, 1:00 GMT

    What a mess! John Howard was an obviously poor choice of candidate - really dumb move by CA. Now BCCI have used the opportunity to turn the ICC into a small branch office of BCCI.

  • Fauzer on July 1, 2010, 0:52 GMT

    why is it that so many people are just so alergic to little johnny, that they have banded to oppose him wth various logical and sometimes not so logical reasons??

    he won't get it, or at leaset he will carry on as if he doesn't get it. he will tell that the majority is wrong. what nerves???

  • spinner56 on June 30, 2010, 22:03 GMT

    It's a good thing that Howard has been blocked from becoming ICC President. He would be continually tripping over his massive ego; it was that ego which led the Liberal Party here to disaster with Howard even being thrown out of his own seat. The New Zealander Sir John Anderson sounds like the person who should have been nominated in the first place - a cricket administrator - Howard is a cricket nobody.

  • Scgboy on June 30, 2010, 20:48 GMT

    well, I guess that two wrongs do indeed make a right don't they.

    That's my take on the situation.revenge is sweet isn't it , taking the higher moral ground and doing whats right isn't so fashionable i guess.We all know who has egg on their faces and it isn't NZ or Australia either.

    I guess the good old do unto others , doesn't apply in some parts of the world.

  • SettingSun on June 30, 2010, 19:41 GMT

    @scoobydoo11235 - I quote - "...as other sports are much more friendly and issues of race and ethnicity have been completely eradicated, like football." Really? I challenge you to watch as much Europa League and Champions League football as you can next season just so you can see how very, VERY wrong you are about racism being eradicated from football. What a completely bizarre thing to say. Believe me, cricket is far, far less institutionally racist than football is.

  • mansalan on June 30, 2010, 19:09 GMT

    God is great! This neo-con doesn't deserve to hold this esteemed position!!

  • Jarr30 on June 30, 2010, 18:47 GMT

    If John Howard's wife become pregnant at the age of 70,BCCI will be blamed. If Izaz Butt does a Flip_flop, It's BCCI's fault. If CA appoints Howard's nomination,it's BCCI's fault.

  • manoj.c on June 30, 2010, 18:19 GMT

    Thank god..he is removed..

  • BDKu on June 30, 2010, 18:19 GMT

    You can simply say that John Howard was bitten by his own mouth. Its time the Aussies learn that bad mouthing does not pay rich dividents whether on or off the field. I am sorry Mr. Howard you have been CHUCKED OUT

  • Sri_Lanka_Forever on June 30, 2010, 17:59 GMT

    This might just be the best thing that has happened to cricket in recent times. Mr. Howard never seemed to unite the cricketing world, but dividing it further into pieces when he intentionally called Murali a "Chucker" and tried to push Zimbabwe deep into a darkness & wilderness. Especially in Murali's case, it was something which he had nothing to do with. But he publicly labelled Murali a "Chucker" again & again even when Murali had proved he's not so. He earned the wrath of cricket lovers around the world with his dubious CV and it was pretty obvious that a man with such dubious distinctions, would never live up to the expectations of a post as high as vice-presidency of the cricket's international governing body would demand.

  • jillpreston on June 30, 2010, 17:49 GMT

    John Howard's characterization of Murali's bowling action was not supported by an objective evaluation by the relevant official cricketing body.

    Since then, did Mr Howard apologize to Murali for publicly labeling Murali as something that Murali was not?

    Everyone makes mistakes, but a gentleman will own up to his mistakes, especially if he realized the mistake.

    What we need as the head of the cricketing world is not a divisive personality.

    Can anyone in favor of John Howard, or John Howard himself explain why the apology to Murali is so late in coming?

  • bharath74 on June 30, 2010, 17:22 GMT

    It was very clear that Zim,SA,& WI were not happy vt Howard even before the election, y did they nominate him. NZ should have proposed somebody like Richard Hadlee, John Wright or Martin Crowe. Payers like these are not only loved and respected by everyone but also can win the election to remove the differences between ICC members. We already have one corrupt politician do we really need another?

  • SettingSun on June 30, 2010, 16:45 GMT

    Publicly calls one of the game's greatest players a cheat. Refuses to denounce apartheid and calls Mandela a terrorist. Goes cap-in-hand to Zimbabwe for support despite his prior run-ins with Mugabe. And yet people are still supporting this man. Tremendous!

  • Fyfie on June 30, 2010, 16:28 GMT

    (contd.) The reasons of the other five nations to oppose the nomination need to be made public. At the moment it appears to be the BCCI throwing a bone to two of its allies just because it can, then flexing its muscles to make the other four follow suit. This is the major problem with cricket's governing body, and it will continue to cripple the game unless the ICC becomes a better organisation.

    All that said, Sir John Anderson (if he is still interested) is still an outstanding candidate deserving of such a role in cricket due to the good, hard work he has previously done for the game. Here's hoping he can still be the kind of leader the ICC needs, and that Howard could very well have been.

  • Fyfie on June 30, 2010, 16:25 GMT

    This is bad for cricket in so many ways.

    It's ironic some people say that politics and cricket should be separated and that Howard is a divisive character. The ICC is overly political, and the BCCI is a divisive entity in the eyes of the most important people in the cricketing world, the fans. A politician is exactly what cricket needed, the imbalance of power towards the BCCI and over-emphasis on making money need to be addressed. By being a "cricket tragic" as opposed to an administrator, Howard was at an advantage, by being a fan, he should have the best interests of the game at heart. Cricket administrators are all too happy to toe the line, damage the game and watch the money roll in. If cricket is to prosper in the future, things have to change significantly, and soon, and it is unlikely such a change is going to come from within cricket circles. Howard's political experience would have been beneficial in creating such change.

  • JimDavis on June 30, 2010, 16:19 GMT

    I love the fact the rest of the world said No to Little John. But it dismays me that the initial reason given for the backlash (his stance on Zimbabwe) was one of the few decisions he ever made that I agree with. Hopefully the real Sir John still would like the post.

  • scoobydoo11235 on June 30, 2010, 15:36 GMT

    In fact, reading these comments make me sad, and tells me that cricket fans from all countries have a long way to go to put aside their prejudices and not see the game of cricket through a filter of "East vs West" or "Black vs White". This is one of the main reasons why I along with many other former cricket fans have gone off the game completely. In fact, I doubt I'm going to bother following any cricket from now on, as other sports are much more friendly and issues of race and ethnicity have been completely eradicated, like football.

  • SSundara on June 30, 2010, 15:27 GMT

    Rather than lamenting on the rejection, why dont the strong supportors see why 70% of the members were against the nomination. The majority feel its a WRONG nomination and it has nothing to do with that it is from CA and NZC. The ECB is just lobbying and wants to create a 'DIVIDE and rule' policy between the other members and thats what is just happening. Will the ENGLISH ever change they way they project the happenings? Time for them to change, stop blaming the BCCI for everything that goes against their wishes. Not to be surprised if we see an article indicating Clarke's marriage broke due to the financially strong BCCI!!!

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 30, 2010, 15:26 GMT

    All I can get out of this is expect some money to go to Bangladesh, more matches will be scheduled between India and Sri Lanka in the near future, and expect Pakistan and India to normalise cricketing relations within the next 6 months. Pakistan vs India series 2011 guaranteed. :wink: :wink: *nudge, nudge* And that folks is how politics works. Dirty business indeed.

  • Dannysen on June 30, 2010, 15:12 GMT

    Before calling yourself "Australasia editor of Cricinfo" please get your facts right. It was Zimbabwe, SA and Sri Lanka initiated the protest way before India was even thinking of it. Suggesting Sri Lanka and rest followed India is baseless. This is bad reporting

  • scoobydoo11235 on June 30, 2010, 14:56 GMT

    Marshall Ross displays the type of irritating prejudice that some Western cricket fans display. So it's all India's fault that this happened? Note that 6 members rejected his nomination, after original rumblings of discontent by Zim and SA. SL have had problems with Howard after his comments against Murali, Pakistan were annoyed after Australia didn't tour (although apparently that wasn't anything to do with Howard) so to make this out as if India bullied all the other nations to follow their opinion is ridiculous, and betrays the prejudice that some Westerners have against the sub continent teams, where everything is India/Pakistan/SL fault. Why don't you open your eyes and give a more nuanced opinion. If you want to blame the BCCI, fine, I have no love for the corrupt politicians on board, but you specify that India is ruining world cricket, which is a typically biased and prejudiced remark which explains why cricket is such a divided sport.

  • scoobydoo11235 on June 30, 2010, 14:56 GMT

    Marshall Ross displays the type of irritating prejudice that some Western cricket fans display. So it's all India's fault that this happened? Note that 6 members rejected his nomination, after original rumblings of discontent by Zim and SA. SL have had problems with Howard after his comments against Murali, Pakistan were annoyed after Australia didn't tour (although apparently that wasn't anything to do with Howard) so to make this out as if India bullied all the other nations to follow their opinion is ridiculous, and betrays the prejudice that some Westerners have against the sub continent teams, where everything is India/Pakistan/SL fault. Why don't you open your eyes and give a more nuanced opinion. If you want to blame the BCCI, fine, I have no love for the corrupt politicians on board, but you specify that India is ruining world cricket, which is a typically biased and prejudiced remark which explains why cricket is such a divided sport.

  • SSundara on June 30, 2010, 14:54 GMT

    Cricket has grown well in popularity and reach much more in the last 1 or 2 decades, that credit should be attributed to the asian block. The asian teams have been dominating since then, it was Pakistan in 92, Srilanka in 96,India in 03, Srilanka in 2006 in the world cup finals, ofcourse with Australia in the Finals most of the times. When the Asian teams can draw such big crowds and aid in the growth and popularity of the game, why not give them the credit. It was wrong for Aus to nominate a controversial name when there were so many other good options, did they do that JUST TO proove some point ? I felt nominating his name was a controversy and not it being turned down (naturally) by the other members.

  • Sidath346 on June 30, 2010, 14:44 GMT

    Excellent...well done Asia and Africa for going against this Howard. He does nothing but criticize others ( specially non-whites ) and we don't want some one who is nothing but a discriminator. This decision goes on to show how much he is hated by the cricketing community....Good job done.

  • ZEUS00 on June 30, 2010, 14:39 GMT

    Great to see some Aussies taking an objective view of the situation. It is very easy and simplistic to dismiss this as "yet another example of the East/West divide blah blah". CA made a monumental blooper by putting forward Howard's nomination. Then we Kiwis exacerbated the situation by endorsing him, as well. (Even Merv Hughes would've been a more popular option!) This is such a high profile post that only a candidate with a clean, strong and uncontroversial track record, is likely to be successful. Better not to get elected now, than be unceremoniously sacked later.Richard Hadlee would be a magnificent choice for this position.

  • sitaram58 on June 30, 2010, 14:34 GMT

    The Empire must strike back!!!!

    Australia, England, NZ and the West Indies must back off from playing against the BCCI. The Empre can surivie (and thrive) with the Ashes, the Trans Tasman rivalry and the traditional West Indies V Australia and Windies V England rivalries. Revenues may initially be lost but TV viewers will soon tire of watching the BCCI play against SL, SA, Zim and Bangladesh. The Empire can woo Pakistan away from the BCCI very easily.

    Its time for the Empire to stop whinging, organize and retaliate. First they should boycott the world cup and the IPL and the champions trophy. Battle lines must be drawn or else the BCCI will be dictating where, when, who and what type of cricket must be played.

  • andrew-schulz on June 30, 2010, 14:29 GMT

    Great comment Gizza. Can you show me an ex-leader of any country who is controversy-free? A sad day for cricket, as if we needed to be reminded that much of the power is completely in the wrong hands.

  • Bang_La on June 30, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    Very few of the commentators mention that Howard has been a controversial person who showed his strong bigotry character in the past. Why did ACB send him as the nominee (also bullying NZ to support)? We do NOT want failed politicians to further trouble the goal of ICC, cricket. We suspect there was a plan behind this nomination in the first place.

  • senrohit on June 30, 2010, 14:12 GMT

    Any moron who thought Iraq war was a good idea lacks judgement and am glad he has nothing to do with cricket.. and Australians - please stop blaming India for everything from ozone layer depletion to your nominee getting only 3 supporters out of 10. Any responsibility on CA for nominating a candidate that 7 out of 10 test playing nations did not support? Th notion that India didnt want Howard or that other 6 are blinding following India is perhaps disrespecting the other 6.. In that notion is England blindly supporting ANZ group due to some quidproquo? Guys 7/10 against is a landslide.. the politician in Howard should be familiar with that...

  • Bang_La on June 30, 2010, 14:11 GMT

    @johnpravinking, very well cited. Its so true and they must accept the reality and wake up in real world! I must say BCCI still very generous not to block Australia tours to India, well money is one reason though!

  • Hodra99 on June 30, 2010, 14:01 GMT

    International Cricket has now become not a game of country vs country, but unfortunately colour vs colour......it is a sad day.

  • bonaku on June 30, 2010, 13:59 GMT

    If 7 is the magic number, Mr Howard got it.. only differnce is it starts with 'N' and ends with 'O'

  • HamsterSteve on June 30, 2010, 13:58 GMT

    The ICC have missed out. Apparently, the only suitable candidates are those who pay homage to New Delhi. I never voted for the guy, but he was an excellent leader, adminstrator and manager, and has a genuine love for the game. How many Indian cricket administrators are former elite or sub-elite players ? That's what being a cricket person really is, not being a pen-pusher for decades. So what is this rubbish about him being a "non-cricket" person being a reason for excluding him. It is such a shame that the Indian domination of cricket continues - as it does on this site. Let's face it, he called Murali a chucker, and many fans believe that he is, despite the tests. Just have a look at the vision of his action when he bowls the doosra and tell me it isn't so. He called Mugabe a despot, and he was right. And he was right to stop the Australian team touring Zimbabwe - I have been there, and as great and generous as the people are, it is a violent and dangerous place for westerners

  • on June 30, 2010, 13:57 GMT

    Got me beat why Howard even bothered running for this. So he called Murali a chucker. Wow, him and about 100 million others. Who else thought it was a waste of time. The guys that run cricket nowadays want some servile sycophant at the top that don't make a fuss when the people in charge throw their toys out of the pram.

  • AndyFlowerFan on June 30, 2010, 13:49 GMT

    Howard deserved it, he went about insulting people now he wanted thier vote, what a joke he is

  • Hodra99 on June 30, 2010, 13:47 GMT

    What a disgrace! The ICC should hang their heads in shame. Their decision is an insult to all Australians and Kiwis. If Australia, New Zealand or England had blocked an Asian Nominee there would be screams from the Asian block of racism etc. I am sick of the Asian/African countries ruining this great game. The BCCI is nothing more than a power money hungry and corrupt 'organisation', who unfortunately now run the game under the guise of the "ICC". Australia, New Zealand and England should form their own 'ICC' and get cricket back to being cricket again, without all the political rubbish and not being bullied by the Asian countries.

  • Januka on June 30, 2010, 13:44 GMT

    The pre-conceived idea of Howard being a great leader is based on 2 reasons; (1) He was Australia's prime minister. (2) Inability of NZ cricket to field their own candidate.

    In my opinion none of these reasons qualify the pre-conceived conclusion. Why? (1) I don't think developed countries like Asutralia need great leaders to run their countries because these countries have well set, less chaotic political systems already in place. As long as you stick to the "rules" and be a routine administrator you can easily be considered a "great" leader. Therefore, based on how Howard governed his country for which, the rules/resources are already in place, one cannot say that he will be great at ICC too because diversity in ICC as a system is very different from that in AUS gov. In the past Howard has shown poor judgement in absorbing this diversity. ex. his stand on Zim cricket, Muttiah etc.

    (2) We all know that what NZ is doing for AUS is the same thing that Canada does for the US!

  • on June 30, 2010, 13:43 GMT

    ahh finally no Howard for cricket!!!! ICC don't want politicians at all,specially Howard who always work against Asian cricketers!! Im really happy about CSA ,who supported Asians along with Zim!!

  • Doconcall on June 30, 2010, 13:33 GMT

    Why single out India for everything. I know that India is the money power now, but wasn't Aus and Eng money power until now? Did we ever complain about your power and its misuse. Who has cancelled most number of tours until now? The answer is Australia. Who did not play in SL in the 1996 worldcup. Surprise, it was again Austalia. I support the member's voting to block Howards' nomination. Even though he was not directly associated with CA, he was involved in lot of controversies. I would hope that being a PM of a country, he should take a diplomatic stance rather than bluntly calling Murali a "chucker". What would you expect of this guy when he takes the highest position in cricket administration. The fact is that SA and WI, who are not Indian allies, also felt the same way.

  • plsn on June 30, 2010, 13:23 GMT

    Aussie whingers, stop it now. You discarded him because you found him unfit to lead your own country. How do you expect other countries to be led by this nincompoop? Bring on Sir John - not just any johnny- come -lately! He will be welcomed unopposed. And stop insulting countries, saying that they follow some other country's lead. In fact they are the countries which are living in the mainstream of civilization, not in some remote countinent/country.

  • r1m2 on June 30, 2010, 13:14 GMT

    This is great news. But the cricket world and the world at large, should be wary of England, Australia and New Zealand for their support of a racist. Why did they support Howard despite knowing his racist past? It is given that these countries would never support Robert Mugabe for example for this position, and they will claim Mugabe is racist. Howard and Mugabe are two different fishes from the same pond. But these trio of "white" nations would support one over the other. The world should take note. This is not by accident.

  • leftovers on June 30, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    my cricket loving friend eyballfallenout does not look beyond intelligence and being natural leader, the guy almost destroyed Murali who went on to become the highest wicket taker in both forms of the game, you call this being extremely passionate about cricket? I would like to know why none of the Aust/NZ/Eng players were called chuckers......Appointing Howard at the ICC would be similar to awarding Hitler for Nobel Peace Prize!!!

    Australia/New Zealand should have nominated someone with a clean record and with able administrative capacity to unite world cricket. Mr. Howard fell too low in the eyes of the Asian and African continents....he will never be supported.

  • lesslowe on June 30, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    good riddance to bad rubbish Howard !!! you have ruined everything you touched so why turn now to cricket ?? please stay away from our beloved game ! please...

  • on June 30, 2010, 12:53 GMT

    I am bemused by John Howard's nomination. New Zealand had to have been bullied into this. Their decision to support this devisive nomination is disappointing. The English dont surprise me. John Howard in such an important position would have been a step back for the ICC. He would have been in position to eventually become President of the ICC.

    I shudder at the thought.

    I hope any new nomination is more sensible and sensitive and will be made with the knowledge that the individual will be representing an organization that is serving a multiethnic, multicultural constituency.

  • Z.Saleem on June 30, 2010, 12:52 GMT

    excellent decision!!!! Really happy that he didn't get the job :-D

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 30, 2010, 12:49 GMT

    I only blame CA. They should have first rejected Howard. CA knows that Howard would be problem because of his comments before. CA messed it up and both Howard & CA should be ashamed. I believe CA learnt a lesson.

  • jkaussie on June 30, 2010, 12:49 GMT

    All of you lauding the changing of the guard and the Asian bloc power...repeating the behaviour meted out in the long dim past by the colonial powers makes you just as bad as they were. It would have been hoped that this bloc took the chance to actually make the ICC and their respective boards an example of the way the game should be run and not guilty of the very behaviour they hated in the past. Those of you celebrating this decision as a victory against racism, you are guilty of a serious crime...masking personal and political agendas behind the decision under the guise of rascism...OPEN YOUR EYES! Zimbabwe and South Africa along with India don't give a rats arse about racism, this is about protecting their deals. By using the racist argument they dilute it, every time somebody disagrees with them they cry racist! This makes true racist claims harder to believe and less credible. Racism means being predujiced based on ethnicity: Zim, India & SAF - u meet the definition

  • on June 30, 2010, 12:47 GMT

    wow..great decision by ICC...Howard deserved that kind of insult after insulting murli and Zimbabwe..specially cricket when he banned ZIM to travel to Australia for cricket...

  • Qad786786 on June 30, 2010, 12:47 GMT

    It is a great decision, Howard along with Blair & Bush is a war criminal who backed ilegal war resulting in death of 1/2 a million people. Thats like Pakistan and Bangladesh puting forward Osama Bin Laden, as it happens if a Westerner kills thousands he is a hero and liberator, fact is Like Bin Laden Howard is a criminal who should be behind bars not running the great game of Cricket. As for India ruling the roost well money talks (just like Aus & England use to do the same, remember when they found Windies too hot to handle in the 80's 1 bumper per over was introduced by Eng & Aus, what goes round comes round, get used to it.

  • on June 30, 2010, 12:41 GMT

    @ Marshall Ross, Howard's prior comments regarding Murali should be reason enough to not have him, here's a man who has bred discontent before having anything to do with the ICC. No matter who is chosen, they must be approved by the rest. India's not ruining world cricket, watch what you say. It's the administrators, who're not just Indian but from other places as well. And they're ALL succumbing to money. Australia included. If anything it's the people of India and the sub continent who are responsible for keeping this game alive. It's time we played less ODI cricket, made internationals and Test Tours on a seasonal basis, and played more weekend T20 at local levels. Grow the game, not the pocket, to feed the player deficit. We want our game back, not a damned circus for us to criticize every so often.

  • Gupta.Ankur on June 30, 2010, 12:40 GMT

    I am delighted at this news as it is clear from history that Howard sees Asian teams in a different light....

    However, it will still be a difficult time for Asian teams considering what Malcolm Grey and Speed did for the asian bloc....

    I can already see Aus,Eng,NZ players getting away even more when a new person is elected next year...

  • zkaleem on June 30, 2010, 12:40 GMT

    Howard got exactly what he deserved. But the joint statement from CA's chair Jack Clarke and his New Zealand counterpart Alan Isaac is even more disgraceful and offensive: "We jointly nominated Mr Howard as he possesses significant leadership and administrative skills. We believe cricket needs to continue to seek excellence and dispassionate independence in the game's global governance". Leadership skills? So how did he end up with dirt on his face despite his leadership skills? As for seeking dispassionate independence, his bias is so well documented in his political statements in the past that the joint statement reads like a bad joke. He would have been Australia's Darrel Hair version in management role. His decision to reportedly go to Zimbabwe to beg for support despite what he repeatedly said about Mugabe exposed his desperation and hypocrisy and I say this despite my disgust and contempt for Mugabe himself.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 30, 2010, 12:37 GMT

    Howard, who was Australian prime minister from March 1996 to December 2007, was "extremely disappointed and extremely upset" at the decision, Clarke said.

    Ha Ha HA. Now Howard feels it. What about when he made the comments about Murali. When he stopped to tour ZIM. Murali & ZIM cricketers also felt it the same way Howard now feels. This is good leson for everybody who are critical of sports. Howard didn't feel it before.

    Politicians should stay away from Sports. Howard made Cricket Aus shame by forwarding himself for the position for which Sir Anderson decerved.

  • Bang_La on June 30, 2010, 12:35 GMT

    @Michael Jones: Very mature cricketing analysis. Thank you. ICC is for cricket and to help cricket prosper, not to refuge the political crooks.

  • on June 30, 2010, 12:30 GMT

    John Howard never deserved to be at this post. No wonder 7 out of 10 boards did not want him either.

  • Ozcricketwriter on June 30, 2010, 12:29 GMT

    Cricket and politics shouldn't mix. Appointing a former Prime Minister is really, seriously, stupid. Only half of the people in Australia liked him, and at the last election he was voted out overwhelmingly. The amount of people he upset around the world was huge. Just not a good idea. I hope that they appoint cricket people, not politicians, in the future.

  • Bang_La on June 30, 2010, 12:29 GMT

    @NISH67 : Very true. Howard was not only kicked out by his countrymen from the PM chair but also lost his seat in parliament. They don't see this and lecture on democracy! A rejected person picked up for malified intention got exactly what he deserves.

  • on June 30, 2010, 12:28 GMT

    I would say that Howard did not do himself any good by making such biased and baseless remarks about Murali and also many have forgotten that this guy also said something abt Sachin's bad-umpiring-dismissal in Aus.

    So it was obvious that he wud have been, lets say, not the best administrator. Also if he was selected, he wud not have got any support from the Subcontinent/Zim guys. So better he was not selected.

    Good to see Asians unite for some cause atleast. Hope they also unite for certain things like biased umpiring against asians in matches, better handling of T20 and better pitches for Subcontinent teams to match those in Aus, Eng etc.

  • Gizza on June 30, 2010, 12:17 GMT

    Shahriar Newaz, Kris Hansen, ElGerrardo and Marshall Ross, if you read the article you would have noted that 7 countries rejected Howard, of which India is only one. Normally India's "allies" follow India. But here it was clear that India followed its allies. Zimbabwe, South Africa and Sri Lanka were the most concerned. Note that even the Windies, who generally follow England, Australia and New Zealand decided to reject his application. Hmm, I wonder why? The skin colour of the majority in Caribbean must only be coincidental.

    NZ's initial choice of a businessman with some experience cricket experience would not have been rejected. Heck, if Australia nominate someone similar who is controversy free unlike Howard, he would have succeeded too. Go to an Aussie news site covering the issue (The Australian, SMH, The Age, etc.) and you will see at least 40% of the comments as strongly anti-Howard. We neither need divisive people running the ICC nor a monotonous, cliché blaming of India.

  • bonner on June 30, 2010, 12:10 GMT

    I couldn't imagine CA forwarding a more controversial nominee than Howard. How about nominating Bruce Ruxton or Kevin Bloody Wilson? - they are slightly less offensive to the non-Anglo world. The cricketing community got this one right imho.

  • lugujaga on June 30, 2010, 12:06 GMT

    this is one of the best decisions the icc has ever made based on common sense. lets hope all their other actions are as well thought out as this was.

  • ahsanijaz on June 30, 2010, 12:00 GMT

    world cricket is better with out people like him controlling it!!

  • johnpravinking on June 30, 2010, 11:54 GMT

    Even though every region can choose a candidate of their liking that candidate must also be supported by the other countries and any issue raised by any member countries has to be clarified.

    Cricketing money (through TV rights & Ads) has been mainly generated by India as the following for it is higher than anywhere else in the world. If that's the case I don't see any reason why BCCI has to behave differently.

    Cricket Australia's tour to India during the late 80s was put to jeopardy as Ozzie cricketers didn't want to play citing health concerns and now they would love to tour India every 6 months because of the interest shown by the people all around the word and cricketers in Australia would rather play in the IPL than anywhere else.

    Things have changed and I think ECB, CA and NZCA should live with it. The power has well and truly changed from the old block. Nothing wrong with it.

  • on June 30, 2010, 11:38 GMT

    Now those distractors that accused the Zim board of blocking Howard's nomination have been put to shame. Zim did was not part of the siz that moved a motion for him to be withdrawn as a candidate. Again the Media has wrongly turnished the image of the Zim board accussing it of ochestrating Howard's demisse. If we are too follow that line of arguement it would imply that the Zim board has a lot of support and influence in ICC. We know this to be untrue so why really was Howard's nomination blocked. The simple fact of the matter is he was a poor choice and Australia was trying to be mischiveous by nominating him. Why they would embarass they are own it is quite puzzling. I am certain they had foresight to the fact that he was going to be rejected and yet they played out they card. Zim has exercised etreme diplomacy in the matter, unlike SA which snubbed Howard when he was campaigning Zim gave him a platform to sate his case. Aus,Eng and NZ ought to be ashamed, for THEIR actions

  • dineshmek on June 30, 2010, 11:20 GMT

    It is absurd to say that all the other boards to accept a candidate put forward by the region unopposed, just because it was the case before. In all such previous cases the candidates has experience in running the sport in their countries except may be Eshan Mani. But that is as said, an exception. It is not right to quote a wrong precedent to justify another wrong selection. What if Pakistan tomorrow proposes its former president Pervez Musharaf who also cricket tragic - but virtually out of day -to-day cricket administration- for the job? Mr. Gideon will write a lengthy article, justifiable in its own way ridiculing his candidature. In Sports, Patriotism is to be there on the playing field.

  • kalistar7 on June 30, 2010, 11:16 GMT

    it is really big disappointment not only Howard but also Australian cricket board. In veiw of the destructive criticism of Muttaia Muralitharan Mr. Howard lost the dignity of international cricket community particularly in the sub continent soil. on the other hand he is not correct person to take over this position because he has not been involved in cricket. politics must be taken away .

  • Kovac on June 30, 2010, 11:06 GMT

    It's cricket's loss. Howard would have done a great job. Small minded and petty politics by those opposed. Weak. Puerile. No mind for cricket, just myopic vision.

  • eyballfallenout on June 30, 2010, 11:01 GMT

    I think the icc have missed out here. Regardless of his political standings, you have someone here that is very intelligent a natural leader and extremely passionate about cricket. I dought he would have any agenda but to continue this great game into the futre, he is traditionalist and i hoped he was there to support test cricket, i am a bit disappointed.... Live on TEST cricket.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 30, 2010, 10:56 GMT

    @Marshall Ross, Regions have the opportunity to forward a name when it is their turn. But the person should be accepted by the majority of the all full member countries. I think this is the first time it happenned because of the charactor of Howard. I also strongly believe that Sir Anderson was ther person but AUS outmussled him.

  • on June 30, 2010, 10:43 GMT

    BCCI in cricket is powerful as USA in world politics. Nothing can happen without its consent.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 30, 2010, 10:42 GMT

    @Bulla, If Howard was appointed, then he will divide the cricket world into white & non-white. This is just the charactor. I am sure any Kiwi would be welcomed by any country. His past comments and actions proved that he is a racist. There were a lot of white people at the top job before but non-white countries never opposed. I am sure anybody elese from NZ/AUS would not be opposed.

  • Antir on June 30, 2010, 10:41 GMT

    This is terrible news. Good luck with the whole cooperation and trust between cricketing nations. I am not sure if everyone understands the ramifications of this decision. This makes things worse for the ICC not better. The immaturity shown here by a majority of the ICC members nations makes future decisions made by the board all suspect. Every process from now on can be corrupted at any time. The nomination system has failed and is now a popularity contest based on mutual disrespect.

  • bkraks21 on June 30, 2010, 10:40 GMT

    agree with duncanmoo. people who are saying it was not democracy and India bullied othre nations get your facts right. Sri Lanka was the first to oppose and as an Asian I would not support some racist candidate. I think Aussies are jealous of India's money power. Lets be honest, in the current capitalist age either u generate money and be powerful or shut up. Where were u guys when England and Australia were cricket. Now its Asia.

  • the_blue_android on June 30, 2010, 10:37 GMT

    @ Marshall Ross - IF you want to hate India, you don't need a reason. You would have criticized India no matter what. By the way, why do you think this guy even deserves to be in cricket admin? What are his qualifications? Just that he has lot of time to kill? Just because he is openly racist? You talk as if this guy has been running cricket boards for many years. Pawar is a politician too, a corrupt politician but he still has cricket administration experience for the last 20 years. Everyone knows why Howard didnt get through. This process does not undermine anything. Just because its a rotation policy does not mean you can pick any dimwit who has absolutely no control on what he says and shoots his mouth off at every given opportunity. We do not need guys with bouncer type attitude to run cricket boards.

  • Sitting-on-a-gate on June 30, 2010, 10:36 GMT

    To all those who think India is Big Brother in this case too, some facts. 1. Zim, SL & SA were the first to oppose 2. Pak, WI & Ban joined in 3. India dilly dallied and when it became clear that it has to take a stand, it moved in with its 'friends' on the board.

    Now as far as the man himself is considered, given his colorful comments against Murali and Mandela as well as his opposition to 'multiculturalism', it was optimistic to expect a board that is 3/4th coloured to accept him. With cricket looking to expand to areas that are essentially multicultural (read non-white), Howard would have been at best a liability and at worst an unmitigated disaster. Of course he would have been a good administrator, but good administrators are easier to find that good leaders and Howard unfortunately has shown that he is leader of a few.

    PS - Given the state of the ICC, a Kangaroo would have been accepted much more easily had it been nominated by CA

  • on June 30, 2010, 10:33 GMT

    What goes around, comes around. Not long ago, England and Australia used to dominate the ICC and world cricket and the views of the emerging nations were never counted. Now it is the their turn. Enjoy the fun. Moreover, someone like Howard will be a blot on ICC. It is better that Australia and New Zealand consider some respected administrator who is non-controversial.

  • WestIndianInDA on June 30, 2010, 10:23 GMT

    It is very interesting that I read Howard visited Zimbabwe to try and play politics with them, sad how this things work because right then and then New Zealand also decided that they can now have normal relationship with that same country, all in an effort to have them support Howard, sadly they were not needed to have Howard blocked!! I now hope and look with interest whether they will continue with that promise!! I judge a man's ability based on how well he does in his own business, in Howard's case his country and if he is so good and the best and highest ranked and rated for the job, why then did his own people, country rejected him for Prime Minister? Mr. Howard you seems to have worked hard, according to all reports including Mr. Speed, I therefore suggest you go rest and enjoy your retirement and leave a good life and when the time affords you, yes go watch some cricket.

  • obstreperous on June 30, 2010, 10:22 GMT

    Those of you who thought this was a good outcome are part of the reason why the ICC is a pathetic organisation that pretends to represent the interests of cricket globally. In the past few weeks these pages have overflowed with ill-informed invective fuelled by envy and hostility towards Australia. This appointment was meant to be a formality. The choice of a former politician had precedence and his political skills may well have helped the ICC to lift its game. Now the process is busted and a new precedence has been set: don't appoint anyone the Asian members don't like.

  • parakum on June 30, 2010, 10:21 GMT

    I have lived in Australia for 20 years, and I can warrant that Howard is one of the sneakiest politicians who is ready to play any 'card' (including race and fear cards) to stay in power. I was glad when he got voted out (he lost his seat) and I am glad he didn't get elected to the ICC vice presidency. And let me assure that a majority of Australians are happy he lost too - The Age newspaper conducted a poll and a clear majority hoped he wouldn't get the position. Let's keep politicians out of cricket - specially sneaky characters like Howard!

  • Balavara on June 30, 2010, 10:18 GMT

    I am not sure if cricket fans outside Australia had any ideas about Mr. Howard and what he stood for. Firstly,he was an ardent supporter of Apartheid (he was against any sanctions and his policy when he was the leader of the opposition was to remove all boycotts), was responsible for Pauline Hanson's outbursts against Asians and a multi-racial Australia (he gave her enough Oxygen), played the race card in the 2001 elections (when a boatload of refugees came to Australia, he whipped up racist feelings of his constituency) and used Mohammed Hannef incident to show that he is tough on terrorists (another code word for whipping up anti-Asian sentiments). He would stop at nothing to get what he wanted. For Howard to lead a multi-racial organization would have been a retrograde step.

  • rustin on June 30, 2010, 10:18 GMT

    What a load of rubbish! BCCI was in FAVOUR OF howard all along till recently it decided to side with its already opposed neighbours. IT was Sri Lanka, Pakistan, ZIM and SA. BCCI(as much as I dislike them) were the last to join!!! Lastly, I read that earlier on this site!

  • AndyFlowerFan on June 30, 2010, 10:17 GMT

    This guy once called Mandela a terrorist and expects us South Africans to support his candidature, hell no. one day he is saying Zimbabwe is a dangerous place next thing he is there asking for thier help , what a sad old man he is

  • crashbang on June 30, 2010, 10:17 GMT

    I am Australian, and i am happy that he lost out on the selection, do not know what people were thinking when they put his name forward, as he has never had any real dealings in cricket and as far as playing cricket, he could not, was hopeless, not even in the back yard, so great decision i applaud it .

  • NeutralView13 on June 30, 2010, 10:13 GMT

    WOW!! how come India is responsible for this... It was Zimbabwe and S.Africa that started all this... Before rotation policy was there all was done by simple election.. and when they saw India gaining power(financially) then they made it to be rotation system.. How about that??? As far as i know when England and Australians were financial power houses, then they did nothing to promote cricket around the world.. But now as Asia is hub now the cricket is spreading more than ever... Earlier Icc was there but all power was with English men, it was when Jagmohan Dalmia came into picture that ICC true powers were known...

  • Wakeybeancounter on June 30, 2010, 10:10 GMT

    Thank heavens. Another has been politician attempting to muscle in on a money spinning meal ticket.

  • hattima on June 30, 2010, 9:52 GMT

    Actually it sets a good precedence, that not every Tom Dick and Harry could become an ICC president. Not only Howard has no connection with cricket administration, the way he has acted before makes him thoroughly unworthy of this post. Further, the move to block him was initiated by South Africa and Sri Lanka; Pawar was actually supporting him intially, look at the Cricinfo archives. They who are saying that it means more power to BCCI are far from being correct. Also, it seems that ACB arm-twisted New Zealand to agree to his candidacy, so the truth is that the better senses have prevailed in rejecting him.

  • on June 30, 2010, 9:51 GMT

    Great News! Mr. Howard should have taken his name back when his selection was objected by two countries. i am happy with icc decision about his selection. Truly he doesn't have any knowledge about cricket, his past remarks are like a illiterate person accusing world class bowler like Murli of chucking and lot of other baseless remarks. In no way he deserves this place. He should just watch cricket and try to understand the game. I wonder why he still tried to stick around and burry his old remarks. Hmmm? hahaha Going Zimbabwe didn't worked for him. Hehehehe

  • Mutukisna on June 30, 2010, 9:50 GMT

    Great News! The decision not to unleash this loose canon on World Cricket needs to be applauded. If he had been appointed we would have seen the almost certain divsion of ICC into two factions. A great day for World Cricket!

  • on June 30, 2010, 9:47 GMT

    Thanks for coming Johnny! He would have divided the cricket world for sure. The proof is in the pudding with his past record in Australian politics and narrow minded comments. Cricket needs a leader from within. The ACB argument of having a world leader to govern cricket is not a good one. Politics and sports should never be mixed. Well done ICC, now to elect Sir John Anderson.

  • on June 30, 2010, 9:47 GMT

    Well....John Howard was critical to Murali, Spoken against Zimbabwe openly and did not allow Australian Team to travel to Zimbabwe in 2007 when he was in power - now suddenly for the sake of gaining an important ICC position, he did not mind travelling to Zimbabwe......this is a way out of proportion - don't you think?

  • on June 30, 2010, 9:39 GMT

    Whether you like Howard or not (I don't, for the record), there is no denying he was a divisive character in politics (it seemed, so often, that "divide and rule" was his underlying mantra), as this vote has shown. I'm pretty sure Anderson wouldn't have received the same resistance, and nor would have most other Australian or New Zealand cricket administrators/former administrators.

  • mojojesus on June 30, 2010, 9:37 GMT

    Finally.... Sense Prevails !!! .......

  • RajDaw on June 30, 2010, 9:26 GMT

    Great news! Those who cry democracy and think the rotation system is 'bullied' by India, need to take a step back. True rotaion would mean it would have been NZ's turn. How come Australia who just had Malcom Gray as President just a while ago muscle in over NZ's claim. Even Pakistan have had their President (Ehsan Mani). John Anderson is not a dud! He is man of great skill and above all Integrity, unlike the dumped character. Well done to the six countries!Hope John Anderson's nomination is put forward quickly before Kevin Rudd is muscled in!

  • Chris_Howard on June 30, 2010, 9:25 GMT

    Howard should never have been the candidate in the first place. Australia used its might to force New Zealand to accept him. Now, in the greatest irony, the same has been done to them by India et al. Beautiful.

  • on June 30, 2010, 9:24 GMT

    I would expect that most people watch cricket, to borrow from WG Grace, to watch the cricketers and not those who run the sport. Howard's nomination and failure might be proof of the political nature of how cricket is run, but that it should make headline news on Cricinfo is a bit strange. It is probably proof that when it comes to reporting on cricket as well, there is as much politics as there has always been at the ICC. Maybe people should separate the politics of the ICC from the cricket.

  • KhuMir on June 30, 2010, 9:18 GMT

    And I suppose that they's rather that we had Robert Mugabe or Lalit Modi is our next ICC president?

  • on June 30, 2010, 9:17 GMT

    Howard was a divisive Prime Minister of Australia. The ICC needs cohesion, not people like Howard to lead it. Well done the ICC executive board which refused to be bullied by Australia into accepting someone who would undermine their structure.

  • on June 30, 2010, 9:17 GMT

    @marshall the rotation is still on as they can as they can renominate another candidate. @Shariar. I don't think you understand the word of democracy. In democracy People has the right to choose the candidate.

  • RanjitW on June 30, 2010, 9:12 GMT

    Sri Lanka opposed from the outset and it did not depend on India;s decision. The author is incorrect in saying that India forced the rest of the countries in the 'sub continent' to oppose.

  • RanjitW on June 30, 2010, 9:09 GMT

    Am I glad that Howard did not get elected ? What a relief? He openly was regarded in Australia as a racist. He got involved in International Cricket and commented on Murali's action making him refuse to go to Australia where under Howard's time Muttiah was bullied by the fans and no action was taken prevent it. Howard commented on Mugabe politics and banned on Zimbabwe coming to Australia. He is such an egoist who did not want to withdraw his candidacy with respect instead decided to go talk to Zimbabwe, without shame, which country he himself prevented from coming to Australia to play cricket. What else do we need to brand him as a racist? If he got elected we could have seen a continuation of his racist policy in International Cricket and that would have started the end of the game.

  • on June 30, 2010, 9:06 GMT

    great news.this man called murali a chucker how can he even be a member of ICC???he's so biased as well.not bi-partisan.

  • jagatr on June 30, 2010, 9:00 GMT

    YES YES YES YES YES YES YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSs!!!

  • bkraks21 on June 30, 2010, 8:45 GMT

    This is great news. We need neutral people to Run ICC not someone like Howard who is biased as proved from his remarks about Murli.

  • on June 30, 2010, 8:40 GMT

    i might be wrong on this but according to my info, Pakistan didnt oppose hiss appointment.

  • on June 30, 2010, 8:36 GMT

    Look at it from the BCCI point of view, its easier to bully New Zealand than Australia with a former Prime Minister. Tactically it was a good move by their board to maintain their advantage. Its the minor country boards I don't understand, the best thing for them is to see BCCI fighting the ACB & ECB for 2 years as it will give their support for what ever fights which arise over those 2 years more power which they can trade to get what they want.

  • on June 30, 2010, 8:30 GMT

    What a childish precedent to set....... every other appointment has been played out as to the wishes of the area in which it was their rotation. This undermines the complete point of the rotation, as even when it is not the turn of certain regions (or even whether the regions are test nations) they pick and choose who they want as OTHERS representitive?

    If I was australia I would reject all of the fatcat money hungry candidates put forward by the country ruining world cricket after already taking it to its knees: India.

  • bkraks21 on June 30, 2010, 8:29 GMT

    This is great news. We need neutral people to Run ICC not someone like Howard who is biased as proved from his remarks about Murli.

  • ElGerrardo on June 30, 2010, 8:27 GMT

    Joke. Once again the ICC proves itself to be a complete and utter waste of space. Instead of perhaps gaining someone who may be able to whip them into shape, they've acted like little children. It was NZ and AUS turn to nominate someone and their nomination is supposed to be a formality like it has been every other time. At least on the positive side no one looks to the ICC for guidance or takes any notice of them, so in reality the only thing lost is the opportunity for the ICC to be a real governing body. Joke.

  • NISH67 on June 30, 2010, 8:27 GMT

    A victory for democracy ! An unsuitable candidate's application nipped in the bud . Howard is someone who has been rejected by the Australian public for his outrageous views and it was truly surprising that a failed politician was put forward by the ACB as its candidate !

  • SettingSun on June 30, 2010, 8:26 GMT

    I'm sure there's a Bananarama song that fits this splendid news perfectly.

  • on June 30, 2010, 8:18 GMT

    A slap in the face of democracy again :D No matter what you do ,the power is in India's hand

  • duncanmoo on June 30, 2010, 8:14 GMT

    The argument that all these countries stood against Howard's nomination as a result of his being critical of Robert Mugabe's regime is shallow reporting indeed. How about digging a little deeper into Australian politics and race relations and policies to find the real reason.

  • Parthipan on June 30, 2010, 8:13 GMT

    Whatever it is, the cancellation of Howard's nomination is right. It is nice that all the sub continent boards joined hands against his nomination. I, like many others have a feeling that Australia out-muscled NZ to support the nomination of Howard and they surely deserved this. Sir John Anderson will be fitting person for the post, as he is involved in cricket administration and is well known and distinguished at that. Hope the common sense prevails now...

  • Manningham on June 30, 2010, 8:09 GMT

    THIS IS THE BEST THING FOR INTERNATIONAL CRICKET - IT WAS A FOOLISH IDEA TO PUT HIM FORWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE!

  • on June 30, 2010, 8:09 GMT

    Good news. Appointing John Howard would politicise the sport more than it already is. The ICC needs a clear focus on the game rather than political divisions to help restore aspects of the sport that have suffered under the recent 20/20 phenomenon. John Anderson has spent a life time helping build and develop cricket in a country where cricket is not the number one sport so hopefully will be a more suitable selection. The most important question that will need answering is whether he has the ability to stand up to the fiscal power that the BCCI seems to be exerting on the sport. I constantly hear administrators of the game talking about how cricket needs to 'evolve' and 'grow'. Why is that? Virtually all the great moments that are the reason so many people love the game have occurred in closely fought test matches between the traditional cricket nations. Embrace the past and the golden age of cricket not the dollars of 20/20. Peace.

  • on June 30, 2010, 8:08 GMT

    John Howard should have withdrawn from the race to avoid embarresment to Australian aspiration.His personal prejudice towards Zimbabwe,Murlidaran and his uncalled for comments on cricket in Asian sub continent led to hardening of stand on his nomination.Sports and poliitcs should be kept apart-John Howard did exactly oppsite of what his govenrnment professed.Let all governments from now on realise that you musr practise what you preach-have a mature thought and don't show your personal prejudice in your political actions otherwise it will be tit for tat-which again is bad but don't invite it in first instance.

  • Shen_Mark on June 30, 2010, 8:08 GMT

    Its a huge sign of relief for most cricket lovers... now whats Gideon Haigh & co. got to write?

  • on June 30, 2010, 8:05 GMT

    Well done, thank you very much John Howard but we do'nt need you.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 30, 2010, 8:03 GMT

    Howard can become an administrator in Cricket Australia. Then he can stop all tours except to ENG, NZ. He can probably start cricket tours to US. Where is his old friend Bush? Get Western to enforce economic sanctions against those who opposed. Ha Ha Ha????

  • nrravid on June 30, 2010, 7:54 GMT

    Very unfortunate decision. I do not understand India's stance after Sharad Pawar openly backed his nomination. May be India does not want to embarass SL & Zimb and lose their crucial support whenever important issues arise. I do not see Howard making any statements against India or Indian cricketers. Howard from his side might have publicly expressed his uncharitable comments against Murali. In the end a very bad precedent indeed. Not a good sigh right from nominaton to final withrawal.

  • bulla on June 30, 2010, 7:52 GMT

    This is bad, regardless of the 'divisive' character of the man in question. He may have been a bad choice for nominee but this is akin to the Great Schism of medieval Europe. The cricket world is now clearly going to be divided into a white and non-white block, interesting to see that all non-white nations opposed Howard. The ill-will of this episode will linger far longer than anyone will remember Howard's candidature.

  • ahash04 on June 30, 2010, 7:48 GMT

    It no shock, it was to happen, expected and should have been like this. It was what was deserved due to his past...Every country, every human being shall be respected and if u dont one day u will get the fruits...like here...

  • Asif_Iqbal on June 30, 2010, 7:42 GMT

    This time India follow the Srilanka and Pakistan stance.

  • Saim93 on June 30, 2010, 7:26 GMT

    Very good, John Howard was too outspoken for his own good. I still remember him calling Murali a 'Chucker' even though it was proven by tests that his action was correct. It would have been very sad to have seen him join the ICC panel.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Saim93 on June 30, 2010, 7:26 GMT

    Very good, John Howard was too outspoken for his own good. I still remember him calling Murali a 'Chucker' even though it was proven by tests that his action was correct. It would have been very sad to have seen him join the ICC panel.

  • Asif_Iqbal on June 30, 2010, 7:42 GMT

    This time India follow the Srilanka and Pakistan stance.

  • ahash04 on June 30, 2010, 7:48 GMT

    It no shock, it was to happen, expected and should have been like this. It was what was deserved due to his past...Every country, every human being shall be respected and if u dont one day u will get the fruits...like here...

  • bulla on June 30, 2010, 7:52 GMT

    This is bad, regardless of the 'divisive' character of the man in question. He may have been a bad choice for nominee but this is akin to the Great Schism of medieval Europe. The cricket world is now clearly going to be divided into a white and non-white block, interesting to see that all non-white nations opposed Howard. The ill-will of this episode will linger far longer than anyone will remember Howard's candidature.

  • nrravid on June 30, 2010, 7:54 GMT

    Very unfortunate decision. I do not understand India's stance after Sharad Pawar openly backed his nomination. May be India does not want to embarass SL & Zimb and lose their crucial support whenever important issues arise. I do not see Howard making any statements against India or Indian cricketers. Howard from his side might have publicly expressed his uncharitable comments against Murali. In the end a very bad precedent indeed. Not a good sigh right from nominaton to final withrawal.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 30, 2010, 8:03 GMT

    Howard can become an administrator in Cricket Australia. Then he can stop all tours except to ENG, NZ. He can probably start cricket tours to US. Where is his old friend Bush? Get Western to enforce economic sanctions against those who opposed. Ha Ha Ha????

  • on June 30, 2010, 8:05 GMT

    Well done, thank you very much John Howard but we do'nt need you.

  • Shen_Mark on June 30, 2010, 8:08 GMT

    Its a huge sign of relief for most cricket lovers... now whats Gideon Haigh & co. got to write?

  • on June 30, 2010, 8:08 GMT

    John Howard should have withdrawn from the race to avoid embarresment to Australian aspiration.His personal prejudice towards Zimbabwe,Murlidaran and his uncalled for comments on cricket in Asian sub continent led to hardening of stand on his nomination.Sports and poliitcs should be kept apart-John Howard did exactly oppsite of what his govenrnment professed.Let all governments from now on realise that you musr practise what you preach-have a mature thought and don't show your personal prejudice in your political actions otherwise it will be tit for tat-which again is bad but don't invite it in first instance.

  • on June 30, 2010, 8:09 GMT

    Good news. Appointing John Howard would politicise the sport more than it already is. The ICC needs a clear focus on the game rather than political divisions to help restore aspects of the sport that have suffered under the recent 20/20 phenomenon. John Anderson has spent a life time helping build and develop cricket in a country where cricket is not the number one sport so hopefully will be a more suitable selection. The most important question that will need answering is whether he has the ability to stand up to the fiscal power that the BCCI seems to be exerting on the sport. I constantly hear administrators of the game talking about how cricket needs to 'evolve' and 'grow'. Why is that? Virtually all the great moments that are the reason so many people love the game have occurred in closely fought test matches between the traditional cricket nations. Embrace the past and the golden age of cricket not the dollars of 20/20. Peace.