ICC News June 30, 2010

CA chairman Jack Clarke wary of India's clout

51

Jack Clarke, Cricket Australia's chairman, will be more cautious in his dealings with India following its role in dismissing John Howard as the ICC's vice-presidential candidate in Singapore. Australia has developed an increasingly strong relationship with the BCCI, including developing the Champions League Twenty20, but the board was part of the group that blocked Howard's passage.

A frustrated Clarke said India wasn't the only country to oppose the joint recommendation of Australia and New Zealand at the meetings in Singapore over the past two days. However, the decision by the ICC's board to request another candidate has altered the environment.

"You hope it doesn't affect your relationship but it obviously puts a block there for a while and makes you wary, I suppose," he said. "But we have to deal with all the member countries of the ICC ... We'll have a board meeting in October and there's no point not rolling up."

Zimbabwe and South Africa were the original opponents to Howard's nomination, raising their protests outside an ICC meeting in Dubai in April, but a group of six members signed a letter on Tuesday night expressing their desire to veto the recommendation. The list didn't include Zimbabwe, but India's strength allowed them to bring Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh on board, highlighting a return to the days when the Asian and African countries voted en-masse.

Despite seeing Howard "knocked off" by the alliance, Clarke refused to say the enormous power of the bloc was unhealthy for the future of the game. "In any business model where a company has 75% of the income it is not an ideal model, but that's not India's fault they do that," he said. "With distributions that go to all the countries, [India] earn it and distribute it evenly among nine of the Test-playing countries and the Associates.

"It is a powerful bloc, it's a reality of life. But you've also got to remember that until 1992 Australia and England had a power of veto [in ICC meetings]."

There is a strong feeling that if India had supported Howard he would have had no problems in becoming the deputy to Sharad Pawar, the incoming ICC president. "I can't speculate about that," Clarke said. "I've been on the board for 18 months, been to seven meetings, I think the bloc vote that was once there before my time doesn't exist at the same level."

A BCCI source told AFP there was "nothing personal against Howard". "But we do accept the argument that only a man with previous experience in cricket administration should head the ICC. Howard was not involved with Cricket Australia at any time."

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • catalyst213 on July 5, 2010, 10:17 GMT

    Even if John Howard had been involved in Cricket Admin in CA, would it makes any difference. We all know although some may put a blind eye to it that this man is a racist, divisive war criminal. So forget it boys, join BCCI thats where the money is, you beat'em join'em, but ofcourse you will be like a second hand prince.

  • catalyst213 on July 5, 2010, 10:01 GMT

    Whingers, Whingers, Whingers........Oi Oi Oi is all i can say about Aussies.

  • catalyst213 on July 5, 2010, 5:06 GMT

    Aussies dont get tired in proving themselves as sore losers, i like the dedication.

  • Kewal999 on July 3, 2010, 12:56 GMT

    John Howrd became the PM of Aus 'coz he was popular there, he lost in ICC because he wasn't popular enough among 7 of the 10 ICC member countries. Simple as that! Time to learn some POLITICS Mr. Howard. And c'mon Mr. Howard accept your defeat graciously. Time to learn some SPORTSMANSHIP too!

  • on July 2, 2010, 19:50 GMT

    Howard nomination was rejected by 7 countries.. not just India... Why did WI rejected it.. nobody is blaming them.. also it is highly unlikely that Srilanka would have supported him when he called Murli a "chucker".. so forget about India supporting the nomonation or not... Howard would have never got the desired 7 votes.. IT WAS A POOR NOMINATION.. DON'T PUT THE BLAME ON INDIA.. ACCPET iT CA

  • on July 2, 2010, 12:50 GMT

    lol im an indian and i am proud of the bcci. yes well let the bcci act as if the own cricket, because they do when it comes to money etc......... aussies hate losing being a kiwi in the fifa world cup because of new zealands success they came up with a way to merge both countries AUSTRALASIA. aussies just cant take the fact that they will lose... :)

  • on July 1, 2010, 10:42 GMT

    BCCI earn money and distribute it evenly.If CA does not like it don`t accept the money from BCCI.

  • on July 1, 2010, 7:09 GMT

    Mr. Howard need 7 votes for him he got only 3 means 7 against, Bloke get on with life, you aren't destined to be here. Secondly had BCCI ( a board which no Indian is proud off) tried to support Howard again ppl would have commented that they used money power to make SL, SA and Zim to change the decision.

    BCCI earn a lot more than everybody else put together...if it is a problem for others please dont take the money from them.

  • Mahiru on July 1, 2010, 4:21 GMT

    if Australia is so fond of Howard, why don't they first appoint him as the president of cricket australia..this is simply amusing to see how Australia can't bear up their nominee being knocked out.. quite hilarious..my suggestion, first let him lead CA and prove that he is capable of CRICKET administration

  • viks_j on July 1, 2010, 3:56 GMT

    We have to understand that whatever happened it has done with consensus. No one want John Howard as he doesn't has any experience as cricket administrator. All test playing nations has rejected him and even New Zealand has some reservation about his appointment. First it is opposed by SA and ZIM then by ASIAN countries and after west indies. So it is wrong to blame any particular country especially India.

  • catalyst213 on July 5, 2010, 10:17 GMT

    Even if John Howard had been involved in Cricket Admin in CA, would it makes any difference. We all know although some may put a blind eye to it that this man is a racist, divisive war criminal. So forget it boys, join BCCI thats where the money is, you beat'em join'em, but ofcourse you will be like a second hand prince.

  • catalyst213 on July 5, 2010, 10:01 GMT

    Whingers, Whingers, Whingers........Oi Oi Oi is all i can say about Aussies.

  • catalyst213 on July 5, 2010, 5:06 GMT

    Aussies dont get tired in proving themselves as sore losers, i like the dedication.

  • Kewal999 on July 3, 2010, 12:56 GMT

    John Howrd became the PM of Aus 'coz he was popular there, he lost in ICC because he wasn't popular enough among 7 of the 10 ICC member countries. Simple as that! Time to learn some POLITICS Mr. Howard. And c'mon Mr. Howard accept your defeat graciously. Time to learn some SPORTSMANSHIP too!

  • on July 2, 2010, 19:50 GMT

    Howard nomination was rejected by 7 countries.. not just India... Why did WI rejected it.. nobody is blaming them.. also it is highly unlikely that Srilanka would have supported him when he called Murli a "chucker".. so forget about India supporting the nomonation or not... Howard would have never got the desired 7 votes.. IT WAS A POOR NOMINATION.. DON'T PUT THE BLAME ON INDIA.. ACCPET iT CA

  • on July 2, 2010, 12:50 GMT

    lol im an indian and i am proud of the bcci. yes well let the bcci act as if the own cricket, because they do when it comes to money etc......... aussies hate losing being a kiwi in the fifa world cup because of new zealands success they came up with a way to merge both countries AUSTRALASIA. aussies just cant take the fact that they will lose... :)

  • on July 1, 2010, 10:42 GMT

    BCCI earn money and distribute it evenly.If CA does not like it don`t accept the money from BCCI.

  • on July 1, 2010, 7:09 GMT

    Mr. Howard need 7 votes for him he got only 3 means 7 against, Bloke get on with life, you aren't destined to be here. Secondly had BCCI ( a board which no Indian is proud off) tried to support Howard again ppl would have commented that they used money power to make SL, SA and Zim to change the decision.

    BCCI earn a lot more than everybody else put together...if it is a problem for others please dont take the money from them.

  • Mahiru on July 1, 2010, 4:21 GMT

    if Australia is so fond of Howard, why don't they first appoint him as the president of cricket australia..this is simply amusing to see how Australia can't bear up their nominee being knocked out.. quite hilarious..my suggestion, first let him lead CA and prove that he is capable of CRICKET administration

  • viks_j on July 1, 2010, 3:56 GMT

    We have to understand that whatever happened it has done with consensus. No one want John Howard as he doesn't has any experience as cricket administrator. All test playing nations has rejected him and even New Zealand has some reservation about his appointment. First it is opposed by SA and ZIM then by ASIAN countries and after west indies. So it is wrong to blame any particular country especially India.

  • m1a1 on July 1, 2010, 3:56 GMT

    The BCCI behaving like it owns cricket- what a shock.

  • catalyst213 on July 1, 2010, 3:39 GMT

    CA should respect the outcome and move on. Surely the decision to reject Howard was correct and a very sensible one and lets just hope that ICC appoints someone who played and lived Cricket. Jack Clarke stop being a cry baby and get your head out of sand.

  • Chanaka on July 1, 2010, 3:20 GMT

    SL objected to Howard long before India made its stand known. Mr Clarke get your facts right.After all you hold a responsible post as head of CA.

  • V.GOMES on July 1, 2010, 2:34 GMT

    Sometimes the arrogance of your past finally catches-up woth you - so is the case for Howard. By the way, my sources tell me that it was Sri Lanka who rallied the subcontinent countries to vote against Howard. India, Pakistan & Bangladesh obliged. These Sri Lankans can be ruthless masterminds when it comes to politics,.. never piss them off couse they will get you back one fine day.

  • Natx on July 1, 2010, 2:34 GMT

    Good decision and let's move on. Mr Howard - Go get Australian board position first before getting nominated for ICC. Wish commonsense prevails and New Zealand go ahead and nominate Anderson later this year.

  • V.GOMES on July 1, 2010, 2:32 GMT

    Sometimes the arrogance of your past finally catches-up woth you - so is the case for Howard. By the way, my sources tell me that it was Sri Lanka who rallied the subcontinent countries to vote against Howard. India, Pakistan & Bangladesh obliged. These Sri Lankans can be ruthless masterminds when it comes to politics,.. never piss them off couse they will get you back one fine day.

  • AleemLatif on July 1, 2010, 2:04 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.

  • Bang_La on July 1, 2010, 1:58 GMT

    Jack Clarke should know, if India earns 75% of teh total money that ICC makes, it lies with Indian management's efficiency. So, what's the point in licking lips from frustration and greed and pointing finger to the Indians? Get efficiency and make sure that being one of the richest countries in the world, Australia makes more money to beat India. Balance of power will transfer. Plain solution.

  • on July 1, 2010, 1:05 GMT

    Mr Howard - Can't bat, Can" bowl and Can't field - Selectors have dropped him - Get over it. The kind of thrashing Aus is receiving at the hands of England, if anything you need to worry about regaining Ashes.

  • on June 30, 2010, 22:40 GMT

    I am from New Zealand but was born in India. So....Why did Australia choose John Howard in the first place? It seems to have been a political motive and a strategy to get a high level international politician to work with Pawar. It is clear that Howard was not a cricketing choice as he has no experience in cricket administration. That is the risk of making a political appointment...you reap political consequences if it is unpopular in critical circles. Howard is a right wing die hard and has been involved in controversies about aboriginal rights. His lack of sensitivity to indigenous people has been a feature of his political career. In the international arena this has a very different and negative image.

    When England & Australia had veto powers in the ICC until 1992, the ICC was not a democratic organisation. Now the democratic process is working against the old colonial countries.

    Sir John Anderson of New Zealand would be a better choice.

  • on June 30, 2010, 21:36 GMT

    Blamming India for Howard's rejection by member countries is not fair, is it? ICC VP needs to be a statesman and a proven diplomat, and this members may have thought of him as neither - so they rejected his nomination. Why is so much hue and cry? Howard should appeal and take the legal route and not act so unstatesman or updiplomatic. VP of ICC needs qualities that are tried and tested and he needs to think globally. Even as Ausi PM, he made many blunders. Violence against Hindu community in Sydney and other places under his rule were unabeted. Neither he showed resolve to stop the perpitrators, nor did he show will to prosecute them. He simply cannot lead.

  • Scgboy on June 30, 2010, 20:51 GMT

    Come on guys , we all know who's the power behind the throne.

    yes , it does put a damper on an otherwise healthy relationship

  • on June 30, 2010, 19:46 GMT

    @ Corey : If Australia leave mate, then its definitely their loss. I'm sure CA will have that basic sense in their heads.

  • SnowSnake on June 30, 2010, 19:26 GMT

    I am surprised how immature all the boards are. Australia is saying it needs to re-evaluate its relationship with BCCI just because Howard's nomination was blocked by several members with India being one of them. How immature. What happend to democracy? Isn't Australia's statement emotional blackmail. Isn't it is a quid-pro-quo? I would expect Australia to make a stong case on credentials of Howard than issue statements like these. How unfair it was when England and Australia had a veto power. If Australia suspects unfair treatment then sue the members and have a judicial process sort things out. May be Howard was not qualified among the candidates. if not, then judicial process will sort it out. Such statements and accusations without substantiation only reflects poor professional setup.

  • AnthoniJi on June 30, 2010, 19:15 GMT

    It's all an ego trip my freinds. So are some of the comments here. Bottom line it is all about money and I am pain to see cricket become a money making commodity. Sad...:(

  • rocky on June 30, 2010, 18:48 GMT

    which is the sixth country to oppose.they mention india,pakistan,srilanka,bangladesh and south africa.It is specifically mentioned zimbabwe was included in this list.australia nad new zealand support him.so who else signed the letter it has to be either west indies or england.so how does this make asian bloc or whatever , it sounds more like nobody likes this guy.Even new zealand were promoting Anderson.

  • on June 30, 2010, 18:48 GMT

    Hey there you go Australia should just accept the outcome of this process as deed New Zealand when its candidate lost. What the media is failing to highlight is Zimbabwe's position. Because it did not sign the letter does it mean it was supporting Howard. There is something missing in all these reports we are reading. It would be fishy for Zim to have initiated for the rejection of Howard only to back out at the last minute from it. Which they seem to have done. What this shows is that Zim cricket never did oppose Howard like they said. It was the media that was publishing falsehoods as to be expected with every negative report published about Zim these days. So flimsy were the reasons of the West refusing to play in Zim, now ironically they should be the ones demanding solid reasons for Howard's denial. Tell us the real reason why New Zealand won't tour Zim. When Brazil a football team made up of Superstars recently played soccer there and India , Sri Lanka tour Zim.

  • kalyanbk on June 30, 2010, 18:33 GMT

    The article is misleading when it says that it was India that brought the other asian countries onto the table. It must be noted that Sri Lanka had opposed Howard on their own particularly with regards to his comments about Murali. Perhaps the BCCI made a business decision considering Sri Lanka's views along with Zimbabwe and South Africa. If CA is upset, perhaps they can make Howard the head of CA first and then after serving a few years nominate him again for the ICC post.

  • on June 30, 2010, 17:51 GMT

    http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/465379.html#cmnt

    Well that's the reality. Everyone want to use the power for their own benefit. I'm happy that Howard is not in the Cricket administration. He has been very partial against countries (zim,Srilanka and others) and players (murali) during his tenure as PM. what's the guarantee that he won't be impartial when leads the ICC? India, rule it as long as you have the power. Such opportunities are rare.

  • on June 30, 2010, 17:15 GMT

    These Pawars, Howards, Modis is not at all good for health of Good Cricket. These Politicians are businessmen who are lurking to sell Cricket, corrupt Cricket. Cricket needs selfless Cricketers to administer it.

  • Bala.p on June 30, 2010, 17:02 GMT

    With power comes responsibility. What India has done is irresponsible. We need strong people to run the board and Howard was an ideal choice. This is what happens when there is uneven clout and one member nation is allowed to grow without control.

  • on June 30, 2010, 16:21 GMT

    A BCCI source told AFP there was "nothing personal against Howard". "But we do accept the argument that only a man with previous experience in cricket administration should head the ICC. Howard was not involved with Cricket Australia at any time."

    - Thats just nonsense!!.. Even though Im against Howard, and like the fact that he did not get his way.. I believe only a business man with brains can run the ICC. He will look at aspects, a normal cricket administrator wouldnt. It doesnt take much to run a business if you have your senses and street smart thinking in check!

  • on June 30, 2010, 15:55 GMT

    in my view BCCI is absolutely right australian pm is a funny guy knowing nothing about cricket administration

  • CricketPissek on June 30, 2010, 15:32 GMT

    it's a bit weird that all these article make it seem like India was leading this opposition, even from the Asian bloc, when it was Sri Lanka who started it. For once, i think this was a correct decision made by the 6-7 countries, and the fact that Pakistan and India were united in this should be clear enough evidence that it wasn't politically motivated!

  • mrmonty on June 30, 2010, 15:29 GMT

    Yes, blame it on BCCI. If it were CA or NZ board blocking an Asian/African nominee, it would have been a democratic exercise (even with a veto). How hypocritical!!

  • on June 30, 2010, 14:58 GMT

    Australia needs to leave the ICC in protest. Or refuse to nominate another candidate.

  • on June 30, 2010, 14:56 GMT

    Times are a changing, Jack!

  • Asadpk on June 30, 2010, 14:32 GMT

    This is really biased reporting from Peter English. There is a valid reason for Howard's rejection which is his controversial political past (he will forever be remembered for being a conservative hawk, for calling Murali a chucker and for stopping Aus from touring Zim). The fact is that it was Zim and SA that started the resistance against his appointment and were later joined by Srilanka and the rest of South Asian members. To blame India's clout or strength is not correct, in fact it is India who followed its neighbours and Zim/SA in blocking Howard's appointment.

  • RogerC on June 30, 2010, 14:32 GMT

    This is a case where Howard in the past has created doubts in the minds of Asian countries through his biased behaviour like the Muralitharan issue or Zimbabwe issue. Doubters think that if Howard is allowed to use the powers of the ICC, he will behave similarly. Australia shouldn't have nominated Howard for this. What cricket administration qualifications does he have in the first place?

  • on June 30, 2010, 14:31 GMT

    Bahaha, he's hurting like a puppy. Howard is probably the worst choice for the job, tied along with Pawar. Where are the ex-players who actually know something about the game AND know how to market/improve it?

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

    Touche BCCI..Way to go..We have had enough of the West driving us in Cricket..its we who feed ICC..so we have to say..I must say that BCCI must run cricket rather than ICC..

  • Homer2007 on June 30, 2010, 14:14 GMT

    And in the meanwhile, instead of fretting too much about India's alleged clout, Cricket Australia will do well to introspect on their inability to win friends and influence people.

  • on June 30, 2010, 13:53 GMT

    once again u want to point fingers at India... however this time india followed other countries...if you read cricinfo, earlier articles suggested that India had no problem with Howard nomination but Sri Lanka did along with South Africa and Zimbabwe. This time India did not flaunt its wealth and tried to convince those countries but instead used its brain and followed other countries to do what was right...but of course someone needs to be blamed and it is usually india coz we have the money

  • Shen_Mark on June 30, 2010, 13:42 GMT

    He might be right about India's power, but i don't think they'd have rejected anyone about as half as unsuitable as Howardeeee. well thats a lot of as'es

  • plsn on June 30, 2010, 13:28 GMT

    "Howard was not involved with Cricket Australia at any time."

    How many Aussies can take this bitter pill?

  • on June 30, 2010, 13:27 GMT

    So all of a sudden, INDIA's power over the game is a major worry for the cricket? Remind you, AUS and ENG ruled cricket for quite a long time and everyone knows how well you handled back then. It's just INDIA opposing Howard's nomination but there are 6 other countries as well. CA is helpless and jealous of BCCI. NZs Mark Richardson would have been a better option. But i guess that would hurt CA if any KIWI candidate would be to take over.!!!!

  • snethaji on June 30, 2010, 13:12 GMT

    Well this is embarrassing for many of CA fellows. but the truth is , Howard lost to him self.

    When he is in power his tongue gone for roller coast. but now it needs water to swim.

    Let's hope for the John Anderson who loves the game more than his life.

    But Howard is the administrator with ...

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 30, 2010, 13:11 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.

  • on June 30, 2010, 13:08 GMT

    brillient ... mr clark wants to blame other for his and his colleagues failure to convince srilanka, SA and zim. when making mr howards name for the post, did CA seriously believe that countries that have had issues with mr howard would not speck up?! at the end of the day (apart from zim and srilanka) the Asian block and South Africa voted against mr howard on the basis of eligibility -" no cricket admin experience, then no support". isn't this how companies hire or elect board member? if mr howard had the required experience then there was nothing stopping his election.

  • Homer2007 on June 30, 2010, 13:08 GMT

    I am sorry, but when even the West Indies, a Project Snow minion of long standing, feels compelled to throw its weight with the "Asian-African" bloc, isnt that a strong enough statement that the NZ-Aus candidate was not suitable for the position? And since when did 30% of the ICC's membership's opinion carry more weight than that of the majority? It will behoove Mr English to know that the SLC was opposed to Mr Howards nomination from the outset and Pakistan had deferred its opinion on the matter to its President. Add West Indies to the mix and, even with India's support, Mr Howard did not have enough votes to pass muster. That is the reality of this nomination. Faux outrage and continued references to India's "clout" do not diminish this reality.

  • Gupta.Ankur on June 30, 2010, 12:44 GMT

    I really don't know what's the big fuss? BCCI has along with 5 other members made a wise decision purely based on common sense and logic...

    There is absolutely no need to bring monetary stuff in this decision..........

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Gupta.Ankur on June 30, 2010, 12:44 GMT

    I really don't know what's the big fuss? BCCI has along with 5 other members made a wise decision purely based on common sense and logic...

    There is absolutely no need to bring monetary stuff in this decision..........

  • Homer2007 on June 30, 2010, 13:08 GMT

    I am sorry, but when even the West Indies, a Project Snow minion of long standing, feels compelled to throw its weight with the "Asian-African" bloc, isnt that a strong enough statement that the NZ-Aus candidate was not suitable for the position? And since when did 30% of the ICC's membership's opinion carry more weight than that of the majority? It will behoove Mr English to know that the SLC was opposed to Mr Howards nomination from the outset and Pakistan had deferred its opinion on the matter to its President. Add West Indies to the mix and, even with India's support, Mr Howard did not have enough votes to pass muster. That is the reality of this nomination. Faux outrage and continued references to India's "clout" do not diminish this reality.

  • on June 30, 2010, 13:08 GMT

    brillient ... mr clark wants to blame other for his and his colleagues failure to convince srilanka, SA and zim. when making mr howards name for the post, did CA seriously believe that countries that have had issues with mr howard would not speck up?! at the end of the day (apart from zim and srilanka) the Asian block and South Africa voted against mr howard on the basis of eligibility -" no cricket admin experience, then no support". isn't this how companies hire or elect board member? if mr howard had the required experience then there was nothing stopping his election.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on June 30, 2010, 13:11 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.

  • snethaji on June 30, 2010, 13:12 GMT

    Well this is embarrassing for many of CA fellows. but the truth is , Howard lost to him self.

    When he is in power his tongue gone for roller coast. but now it needs water to swim.

    Let's hope for the John Anderson who loves the game more than his life.

    But Howard is the administrator with ...

  • on June 30, 2010, 13:27 GMT

    So all of a sudden, INDIA's power over the game is a major worry for the cricket? Remind you, AUS and ENG ruled cricket for quite a long time and everyone knows how well you handled back then. It's just INDIA opposing Howard's nomination but there are 6 other countries as well. CA is helpless and jealous of BCCI. NZs Mark Richardson would have been a better option. But i guess that would hurt CA if any KIWI candidate would be to take over.!!!!

  • plsn on June 30, 2010, 13:28 GMT

    "Howard was not involved with Cricket Australia at any time."

    How many Aussies can take this bitter pill?

  • Shen_Mark on June 30, 2010, 13:42 GMT

    He might be right about India's power, but i don't think they'd have rejected anyone about as half as unsuitable as Howardeeee. well thats a lot of as'es

  • on June 30, 2010, 13:53 GMT

    once again u want to point fingers at India... however this time india followed other countries...if you read cricinfo, earlier articles suggested that India had no problem with Howard nomination but Sri Lanka did along with South Africa and Zimbabwe. This time India did not flaunt its wealth and tried to convince those countries but instead used its brain and followed other countries to do what was right...but of course someone needs to be blamed and it is usually india coz we have the money

  • Homer2007 on June 30, 2010, 14:14 GMT

    And in the meanwhile, instead of fretting too much about India's alleged clout, Cricket Australia will do well to introspect on their inability to win friends and influence people.