ICC News June 30, 2010

Australia, New Zealand angered by Howard rejection

53

The Australian and New Zealand chairmen are united in their anger at not being given a reason for John Howard's scratching as ICC vice-president and embarrassed that such a decorated candidate has been refused. New Zealand Cricket's Alan Isaac and Cricket Australia's Jack Clarke were "gutted" after being asked by the board to nominate another option by August.

"It's incredibly disappointing that a man of John Howard's stature has been knocked off from this job," Clarke said from Singapore. "A person who has been such an eminent person and who has been through the most exhaustive process ever to get this job."

The opposition to Howard, who needed seven votes from the 10 major nations, began formally with a letter signed by six board members on Tuesday night. Resistance to the idea was so strong there was no point in having a ballot.

"There were no reasons given and that's part of the frustration Jack and I have in this whole process," Isaac said. "[There has been] lots of discussion but we're unable to ascertain a reason for the lack of support for our nomination. It's just not acceptable."

Howard, who was pursued by Cricket Australia to nominate for the position, was "extremely upset" when told of the veto. "When you put up someone through a process, someone as eminent as John, I don't think embarrassed is strong enough [to describe the way you feel]," Clarke said. "Just gutted that the ICC has ignored the chance."

A disappointed Howard admitted his political past could have been the problem. "Even in private discussions they are very reluctant to give a particular reason," Howard told Australia's Sky News. "It's a very unusual situation... I'm disappointed at the outcome. I wanted to do this job. I thought I could do it well and I would have devoted my full time to it."

Both Isaac and Clarke addressed the executive board during meetings over the past two days, with Clarke telling the members that Howard could not have been prime minister of Australia for 11 years without having ability. The pleas were ignored and the decision has exposed the reopening of a gulf between the Australia-New Zealand-England group and the Asia-Africa alliance.

Opposition to Howard's appointment began with his recommendation in March, with supporters of Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka early critics of the move before South Africa and India provided their influential support. Howard was a critic of Robert Mugabe's regime and refused to let Australia go there in 2007, while in 2004 he called Muttiah Muralitharan a chucker.

There was also a backlash in New Zealand after their candidate Sir John Anderson was overlooked for "a non-cricket person". An independent committee had been required to break the deadlock between Howard and Anderson, the two boards' preferred options.

Anderson has not been spoken to about replacing Howard and Isaac had no idea whether he would be interested. Despite the failure to advance Howard, Isaac remained comfortable with the selection.

"Both of the candidates were very able," Isaac said. "The recommendation for Howard was on his experience," he said. "John Howard also had the time [to do the job], which was one of the issues the nomination committee had with John Anderson."

Isaac and Clarke are adamant the appointment process, which is under its fourth design since 1992, followed the ICC constitution. A region-based, rotational method was introduced to avoid these types of issues.

"If you keep having processes that don't work or aren't allowed to work, I'm not sure how they go from there," Clarke said. "I'll have to go back to my board who will be pretty angry, very angry. Alan will need to go back to his board and then we'll need to get together and work out where we go from there."

There are no threats of boycotting meetings, holding grudges through Future Tour Programme planning or refusing to re-nominate a candidate. But when asked if anything had occurred at ICC board level that was more insulting to Australia and New Zealand, Clarke replied: "This has got to be in the grand final."

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • catalyst213 on July 5, 2010, 5:13 GMT

    A decent country/candidate will respect the decision and move on. Australia likes flying low, we got a good example here.

  • on July 2, 2010, 4:43 GMT

    Posted by ZEUS00 on (June 30 2010, 13:43 PM GMT) Well, I'm Kiwi ... Bring in Richard Hadlee, a gentleman with experience, tact and popularity. No one from the subcontinent is likely to oppose his nomination either. RESPONSE: I totally agree with this comment and I am from India and hold Sir Hadlee in very high esteem. I want to highlight that this is not a result of hatred against any race or ethnicity, but a mandate against a personality called John Howard, who, having insulted Nelson Mandela and the blacks' rights to equal treatment under law in South Africa, expects dignified treatment. Nonetheless, there is one thing I do admire about John Howard, and it is his obdurate optimism.

  • Chappo on July 2, 2010, 1:31 GMT

    I heard about this and heard about the disgusted Indian media saying that John Howard is a "racist" and so is Australians.

    I say this to the Indian media, that NOT ALL Australians are racist. I'm not !! >:(

    I thought the ICC stands for International Cricket Council, not "Indian" Cricket Council !!

  • jillpreston on July 2, 2010, 1:21 GMT

    We like democracy. We don't like democracy if the vote is 3-7, or 2-1-7 against us. In that case we want the veto power.

  • on July 1, 2010, 11:05 GMT

    Time for Aus, NZ and Eng to split from the BCCI. Sorry, I mean ICC.

  • on July 1, 2010, 11:01 GMT

    I'm from NZ and Howard should NEVER have been the nomination. We bent over to please CA and even let them appoint an Aussie to settle the impasse between Howard and Anderson, no surprise, he picked the Aussie. Howard may be an experienced politician and cricket "tragic" but Anderson's business and Cricket CV puts him to shame. Like others, I'm pretty certain the NZ Board are having a quiet "I told you so" moment. Vote is really 8-2.

    BUT despite that, this process has never been about democracy. "Under the ICC's regulations, it was Australasia's TURN to CHOOSE the vice-president". Once again, the ICC has proved itself irrelevant.

    Perhaps it doesn't really matter who is the next ICC figurehead. He'll hold no real power anyway.

  • champion1469 on July 1, 2010, 10:56 GMT

    it doesnt matter that these other boards think he is unsuitable, the 2 that are charged with this responsibility deem him to be. the end. the reason it is done like it is is so all nations can 'have a turn' at being in charge. its not like he can make radical decisions by himself either, the president has to consult with people. this is going to make a mockery of the process as every nomination now can be opposed, until the powerhouse nations are happy. why not just let them ( asia and probably africa) pick and save the hassle? what a joke.

  • Andare on July 1, 2010, 10:21 GMT

    Yibidi yibeda.. err.. Howard should just stop embarrassing Australia and just accept it and let them find someone else. And what is NZ doing? I thought they had a backbone when it comes to dealing with Australia. If there was any time to disagree with Australia, this is it.. Or maybe they r secretly wanting to embarrass Australia.

  • eminem on July 1, 2010, 4:53 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

  • jillpreston on July 1, 2010, 4:44 GMT

    Perhaps the position should be shared between John Howard, Darryl Hair, and Sarah Palin

  • catalyst213 on July 5, 2010, 5:13 GMT

    A decent country/candidate will respect the decision and move on. Australia likes flying low, we got a good example here.

  • on July 2, 2010, 4:43 GMT

    Posted by ZEUS00 on (June 30 2010, 13:43 PM GMT) Well, I'm Kiwi ... Bring in Richard Hadlee, a gentleman with experience, tact and popularity. No one from the subcontinent is likely to oppose his nomination either. RESPONSE: I totally agree with this comment and I am from India and hold Sir Hadlee in very high esteem. I want to highlight that this is not a result of hatred against any race or ethnicity, but a mandate against a personality called John Howard, who, having insulted Nelson Mandela and the blacks' rights to equal treatment under law in South Africa, expects dignified treatment. Nonetheless, there is one thing I do admire about John Howard, and it is his obdurate optimism.

  • Chappo on July 2, 2010, 1:31 GMT

    I heard about this and heard about the disgusted Indian media saying that John Howard is a "racist" and so is Australians.

    I say this to the Indian media, that NOT ALL Australians are racist. I'm not !! >:(

    I thought the ICC stands for International Cricket Council, not "Indian" Cricket Council !!

  • jillpreston on July 2, 2010, 1:21 GMT

    We like democracy. We don't like democracy if the vote is 3-7, or 2-1-7 against us. In that case we want the veto power.

  • on July 1, 2010, 11:05 GMT

    Time for Aus, NZ and Eng to split from the BCCI. Sorry, I mean ICC.

  • on July 1, 2010, 11:01 GMT

    I'm from NZ and Howard should NEVER have been the nomination. We bent over to please CA and even let them appoint an Aussie to settle the impasse between Howard and Anderson, no surprise, he picked the Aussie. Howard may be an experienced politician and cricket "tragic" but Anderson's business and Cricket CV puts him to shame. Like others, I'm pretty certain the NZ Board are having a quiet "I told you so" moment. Vote is really 8-2.

    BUT despite that, this process has never been about democracy. "Under the ICC's regulations, it was Australasia's TURN to CHOOSE the vice-president". Once again, the ICC has proved itself irrelevant.

    Perhaps it doesn't really matter who is the next ICC figurehead. He'll hold no real power anyway.

  • champion1469 on July 1, 2010, 10:56 GMT

    it doesnt matter that these other boards think he is unsuitable, the 2 that are charged with this responsibility deem him to be. the end. the reason it is done like it is is so all nations can 'have a turn' at being in charge. its not like he can make radical decisions by himself either, the president has to consult with people. this is going to make a mockery of the process as every nomination now can be opposed, until the powerhouse nations are happy. why not just let them ( asia and probably africa) pick and save the hassle? what a joke.

  • Andare on July 1, 2010, 10:21 GMT

    Yibidi yibeda.. err.. Howard should just stop embarrassing Australia and just accept it and let them find someone else. And what is NZ doing? I thought they had a backbone when it comes to dealing with Australia. If there was any time to disagree with Australia, this is it.. Or maybe they r secretly wanting to embarrass Australia.

  • eminem on July 1, 2010, 4:53 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

  • jillpreston on July 1, 2010, 4:44 GMT

    Perhaps the position should be shared between John Howard, Darryl Hair, and Sarah Palin

  • Fauzer on July 1, 2010, 3:44 GMT

    why take part in a democratic process if you can't accept the majority's verdict???

    its disgraceful of CA to carry on as if they don't understand why people despise howard.

    john, pack your bags and, good bye.

  • on July 1, 2010, 3:32 GMT

    JH no no… He cant do this job..

  • on July 1, 2010, 2:46 GMT

    As a Kiwi, this is the best cricket news I've had all year. I was so embarassed by the limp attitude of NZ Cricket in agreeing to an Aussie convenor 'choosing the A/NZ candidate (when has an Aussie ever chosen a Kiwi over a countryman ?). At least the Internation Cricket community is showing some courage and standing up to the bullies. How embarassing that NZ Cricket jettisoned Sir John Anderson, only to have him rescued by India et al.

  • catalyst213 on July 1, 2010, 2:20 GMT

    Peter English, your article sounds like John Howard is to be elected as UN Secretary General. Its not an insult that he for obvious reasons not is selected but it was an Insult to nominate such a moron for the job in the first place. ICC should have clear guidelines on who is eligible and please dont tell us that the next candidate is Darrell Hair.

  • Agnar on July 1, 2010, 2:09 GMT

    Seven other countries are angry when John Howard was nominated.

  • AleemLatif on July 1, 2010, 2:02 GMT

    This was something which was always in cards. John Howard - ex PM of Australia with extremely unfriendly, fanatic attitude towards Asian/African countries - how can somebody think of such things that the other countries would FORGET about his attitude/actions towards them for 10 years. It is a lesson for some of bloody hard-lined OZs cricketers and Cricket Australia that they should change there rude and arrogant attitude towards other nations, to be able to have any friends in this world - other than USA, and UK off-course. Nominate Richie Benaud (OZ) or Richard Hadley (NZ) and see that everybody would love to have them on-board, just because of them being highly sensible and uncontroversial personalities. Common OZs stop being frogs in the well and get out in the ocean to see the world and the world's perspective about you, which some of the hard-lined OZs have changed since the last 15-20 odd years. Learn to respect others if you expect some respect in return.

  • cricbuff11 on July 1, 2010, 0:31 GMT

    I think the Aussies lost the plot somewhere at the nominating stage to nominate such a controversial figure. Having said that, the moral of the whole saga: "keep the politicians out of the game". I just hope everyone understands that we need competent administrators (somebody having cricketing knowledge and is a well-wisher of the game). I think we need that here in India very bad because of the way the game has deteriorated lately. People with practically no experience with cricket ruling the roost. India is definitely become the financial center of the game and we need to handle that status carefully and improve the game.

  • on July 1, 2010, 0:25 GMT

    Any expressed anger by nz is political lip service. nz got shafted through the selection process. It was supposedly nz's turn to have it's representitive on go for the post. Then aus put up Howard any way the vote was split and an indepentant australian business man split the vote and Howard was nominated. With out nz ever having voted for him, I think nz will be quite pleased with the end result, Howard was Australia's nomination not nz's

  • on June 30, 2010, 23:18 GMT

    Be kind to people on the way up because they are bound to repay you on the way down ... I wonder if Malcolm Fraser or even Big Bob Menzies would have had this natty revenge played out on them. Looks like the rest of the world has reflected what the people of Bennelong already knew.

  • mrick on June 30, 2010, 22:54 GMT

    I think Australia should boycott its tour of India in protest at this decision. "NZ and AUS are not "team players"" ... Australia and NZ have never rejected the nominations of other countries in the past, so I think it is the other countries that have not been "team players". I am curious about the claim that John Howard is "a person who so blatantly supported the racist rule in SA and called Mandela as terrorist" - can anyone supply a credible reference for this claim?

  • yetigoat on June 30, 2010, 22:36 GMT

    Speaking as a kiwi, i am not disappointed a politician failed, however I am disappointed in the continued block voting that continues. On one side we have the outdated traditional power block of Eng/Aussie (and there lapdog NZ mates) and on the other the very corrupt Indian led block (they are all lapdogs to BCCI)

    Disgusting really :(

  • SLAMMER on June 30, 2010, 22:20 GMT

    Can Australia provide one legitimate reason for John Howard's candidature as VP of the ICC, here are a few illegitimate ones I can provide off hand:

    1. Called Murali a chucker at three separate instances inspite of Murali's action being cleared by the the same ICC, which he now wants to become VP of. 2. Joined the sledge fest between McGrath and Sarwan in their famous spat at the MCG. Amply displaying his petty partisan approach to the issue. 3. His known link to cricket besides the claim that he is a cricket fan is to attend the Boxing Day test at the MCG every year. If any of the reasons above either individually or cumulatively justify his candidature for VP of ICC, I think there are multitudes of Aussies who would meet and exceed the criteria, we should choose one of them instead of John Howard.

  • bharath74 on June 30, 2010, 22:05 GMT

    If john wright was a nominee for the post, he would have got 10 votes. Howard is a controversial person, who made rude remarks about asia/africa. How can u expect him to win? u were successful in convincing NZ,who might be happy vt the result as well. There is nothing racist in this election, its just the wrong candidate.

  • on June 30, 2010, 21:31 GMT

    It's called Democracy. The majority wins, like it or not. Get over it.

  • BhuvG on June 30, 2010, 20:47 GMT

    I am not sure whether it is the arrogance or ignorance of two boards (AUT & NZL) that caused this so called 'insult'. First, The boards have ignored the fact John Howard was a controversial candidate, thanks to his un-intelligent tung. I don't think anyone forgets comments he made against Muralitharan, which were completely unwarranted and unintelligent for a Prime Minister to make, let alone anyone associated with CA board, when a foreign team is visiting your country. Secondly, his only involvement with the cricket anywhere or at any level was his visit to MRF Pace Foundation in Chennai (other than his comments on Murali). The boards argument that John has time and experience to bring to ICC does not go well with people who has unbiased love for the game. In fact, inviting John Howard to ICC is to invite trouble, which is already pondering with many. What ICC needs now is a true diplomat who can work with either side of the table,and certainly not a conservative politician

  • Jarr30 on June 30, 2010, 18:56 GMT

    SURE... NZ cricket board is angered...they must be laughing behind aussie's back.

  • duncanmoo on June 30, 2010, 18:53 GMT

    If the Australian and New Zealand chairmen are truly clueless as to a reason for John Howard's scratching, perhaps their hapless support of a clearly unsuitable candidate should call into question their roles in their respective countries' cricketing bodies. I am a white South African and I find the idea of John Howard in any position of power offensive. It is precisely John Howard's "stature"/history that makes him unsuitable for the job.

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

    John howard is a career politician. He should know which constituency will vote which way and why. He should also know their compulsions, reasoning and causes. He knows what it takes to get to that top seat. What I really fail to understand is why fight a war that cannot be won.

  • Reggaecricket on June 30, 2010, 18:07 GMT

    John Howard figured it out finally - blunders made during his political life did cost him this job. Let's get John Anderson appointed and carry on from there. I hope CA understands that not allowing NZ to put forward their candidate was a mistake. Why isn't anyone talking enough about that?

  • anmn on June 30, 2010, 17:47 GMT

    NZ and AUS are not "team players". If majority decide otherwise, you need to play along. Such divisive attitude is not good for cricket. They need to learn to work with others instead passing irresponsible comments. Its important the will and opinion of majority is respected. In a team process, anger is only detrimental. Loosing reason and getting angry is not a sensible thing to do. NZ and AUS need to learn on how to act civil when working with others and expressing dissent. Getting angry is not an intelligent thing to do at all. Their reaction is apalling....

  • on June 30, 2010, 16:31 GMT

    As head of country John Howard should not have intervened into Murali bowling action, when you have a system in place to evaluate bowlers. He might have been a good selection for the role, but his those remarks came back haunting.:-(.

  • Jojy.John.Alphonso on June 30, 2010, 16:14 GMT

    The snub given to Howard is extremely unfortunate. He would have made a wonderful administrator, given his passion for the game.

  • on June 30, 2010, 16:10 GMT

    Its all about india's power! huh?

  • kool_Indian on June 30, 2010, 15:58 GMT

    I am very happy that John Howard is not going to be ICC President. Whatever the people may think, this person would have created a lot of trouble to Afro-Asian countries, a person who so blatantly supported the racist rule in SA and called Mandela as terrorist doesn't deserve it.

  • on June 30, 2010, 15:29 GMT

    Only One word "Karma"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • gottalovetheraindance on June 30, 2010, 15:21 GMT

    how about Julian Hunte from West Indies?

  • realredbaron on June 30, 2010, 15:18 GMT

    The whole process through which Howard was rejected was completely democratic. Australia and New Zea land should focus on nominating the right candidate, some one like John Anderson, rather than wasting time on fuming over the controversial Howard's rejection by the overwhelming majority of the cricketing world.

  • Faraz_Baig_AusFan on June 30, 2010, 15:00 GMT

    Disappointing!! Time to go back in time, let AUS & END have the ICC veto power

  • kotakade on June 30, 2010, 15:00 GMT

    This is what happens when a politician is appointed to a Cricket position. I guess politicians would say Cricket is too important to be left to Cricketers! It doesn't help in Howard's case to make disparaging comments about "certain" Cricket players either.

    I'm sure Australia and New Zealand have far better Cricketing personalities with administrative experience that can fill the shoes.

  • Agnar on June 30, 2010, 14:47 GMT

    Get over it. The majority does not like his "stature" and voted no. You have heard of this process, haven't you?

  • on June 30, 2010, 14:28 GMT

    Murali is a chucker is it? Now you got chucked out old man !

  • Bang_La on June 30, 2010, 14:20 GMT

    Right, John Howard was decorated by George Bush, History speaks. However, Australian voters did decorate his rear with boots :) Some decoration!

  • CricketMaan on June 30, 2010, 14:17 GMT

    Well Done BCCI..we don't want an aussie at this post..we have had enough of Malcom Speed and et all dictating us...its we who have the VETO now..

  • Subra on June 30, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    People are quick to forget that there was a time when England and Australia could block any decision. They were the two Foundation Members. I can, therefore understand their disappointment/annoyance. Just because there is a rotational policy, it does not mean that the country concerned can nominate any one. While I may be speculating, I am sure that if Richie Benaud was nominated it would have been a unanimous choice - because cricketers the world over can identify Richie. I hope Australia/New Zealand nominate a cricketing personality. Siva from Singapore

  • the_blue_android on June 30, 2010, 14:02 GMT

    New Zealand angered? Really? Who is this article trying to fool? I'm sure the Kiwis got a big chuckle out of the whole matter, NZ's candidate shot down by Oz, OZ candidate shot down Asian Bloc. Glad ICC decided not to make Howard the VP. We don't need guys who create controversies because they don't know when to keep their mouth shut.

  • on June 30, 2010, 13:57 GMT

    well, yet another case where the power shift in the global cricketing structure has been made clear. the Aus and NZ boards would be pritty badly hit, but it is the orient striking back!. don't take them for a ride, like it was done in the past.

  • Brahams on June 30, 2010, 13:52 GMT

    Hmmm....

    If India had good script writers, we would have heard something like this:

    The people have spoken.... this is a wonderful day for democracy...the rule of law lives on ...the tyrants and imposters cannot hide...would urge Aus/NZ/Eng to join the international community...

    Translation: Just wag your tail to your new masters. It is futlie to resist.

    ...Lord Buddha

  • Hodra99 on June 30, 2010, 13:46 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.

  • ZEUS00 on June 30, 2010, 13:43 GMT

    Well, I'm Kiwi and there isn't the slightest anger in me about the whole thing! We should've nominated a person with some cricketing credentials in the first place. Howard should be spending some quality time with his wife after 11 pretty ordinary yet exhausting years as Australian PM. We used to get tired just watching him consistently conduct himself in an ignominious manner.Bring in Richard Hadlee, a gentleman with experience, tact and popularity. No one from the subcontinent is likely to oppose his nomination either.

  • Shahsa on June 30, 2010, 13:30 GMT

    In my opinion about John Howard , I always found him very conservative during his period as Prime Minister of Australia especially when it came to dealing with foreign countries or people. I am sure countries who rejected him definitely kept his past in mind and I totally support the countries who vetoed his selection. Atleast we don't want to see such kind of leadership in the beatiful world of cricket. And yeah one more thing, the world is full of people with beatiful minds and I am sure ICC can find one of them. Cheersss

  • Shen_Mark on June 30, 2010, 13:27 GMT

    Well, you've got to say that they dug up their own grave....of embarrassment. There's no point in shouting at others like big shots just to hide their mistake, get down and nominate a man with common sense, at least.

  • mojojesus on June 30, 2010, 13:22 GMT

    what insult are they talkin about ??.. if in near future Afghanistan is given the chance and nominates Osama or AL-Zawahiri, will CA, NZC and ENG board be happy and welcome him ??...

  • vajira12 on June 30, 2010, 13:10 GMT

    Its false to interpret this as a rejection of Austarlia and NZ. Its a rejection of an idividual.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • vajira12 on June 30, 2010, 13:10 GMT

    Its false to interpret this as a rejection of Austarlia and NZ. Its a rejection of an idividual.

  • mojojesus on June 30, 2010, 13:22 GMT

    what insult are they talkin about ??.. if in near future Afghanistan is given the chance and nominates Osama or AL-Zawahiri, will CA, NZC and ENG board be happy and welcome him ??...

  • Shen_Mark on June 30, 2010, 13:27 GMT

    Well, you've got to say that they dug up their own grave....of embarrassment. There's no point in shouting at others like big shots just to hide their mistake, get down and nominate a man with common sense, at least.

  • Shahsa on June 30, 2010, 13:30 GMT

    In my opinion about John Howard , I always found him very conservative during his period as Prime Minister of Australia especially when it came to dealing with foreign countries or people. I am sure countries who rejected him definitely kept his past in mind and I totally support the countries who vetoed his selection. Atleast we don't want to see such kind of leadership in the beatiful world of cricket. And yeah one more thing, the world is full of people with beatiful minds and I am sure ICC can find one of them. Cheersss

  • ZEUS00 on June 30, 2010, 13:43 GMT

    Well, I'm Kiwi and there isn't the slightest anger in me about the whole thing! We should've nominated a person with some cricketing credentials in the first place. Howard should be spending some quality time with his wife after 11 pretty ordinary yet exhausting years as Australian PM. We used to get tired just watching him consistently conduct himself in an ignominious manner.Bring in Richard Hadlee, a gentleman with experience, tact and popularity. No one from the subcontinent is likely to oppose his nomination either.

  • Hodra99 on June 30, 2010, 13:46 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.

  • Brahams on June 30, 2010, 13:52 GMT

    Hmmm....

    If India had good script writers, we would have heard something like this:

    The people have spoken.... this is a wonderful day for democracy...the rule of law lives on ...the tyrants and imposters cannot hide...would urge Aus/NZ/Eng to join the international community...

    Translation: Just wag your tail to your new masters. It is futlie to resist.

    ...Lord Buddha

  • on June 30, 2010, 13:57 GMT

    well, yet another case where the power shift in the global cricketing structure has been made clear. the Aus and NZ boards would be pritty badly hit, but it is the orient striking back!. don't take them for a ride, like it was done in the past.

  • the_blue_android on June 30, 2010, 14:02 GMT

    New Zealand angered? Really? Who is this article trying to fool? I'm sure the Kiwis got a big chuckle out of the whole matter, NZ's candidate shot down by Oz, OZ candidate shot down Asian Bloc. Glad ICC decided not to make Howard the VP. We don't need guys who create controversies because they don't know when to keep their mouth shut.

  • Subra on June 30, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    People are quick to forget that there was a time when England and Australia could block any decision. They were the two Foundation Members. I can, therefore understand their disappointment/annoyance. Just because there is a rotational policy, it does not mean that the country concerned can nominate any one. While I may be speculating, I am sure that if Richie Benaud was nominated it would have been a unanimous choice - because cricketers the world over can identify Richie. I hope Australia/New Zealand nominate a cricketing personality. Siva from Singapore