ICC news June 30, 2010

Speed slams 'political' boards over Howard

Cricinfo staff
99

Malcolm Speed, the former ICC chief executive, has slammed the boards that have blocked John Howard's nomination as the next ICC vice-president. During the ICC annual meeting in Singapore it was confirmed that Howard didn't have enough support, while Australia and New Zealand have been asked to nominate another candidate

Speed, who was CEO from 2001 until 2008, was scathing in his assessment of what had taken place to undermine Howard's nomination, which itself was the subject of a compromise between Australia and New Zealand. He said those who didn't want Howard in the role are politically motivated.

"Howard has been rejected because his appointment would provide ICC with strong leadership that would thwart the ambitions of several current administrators to downgrade and devalue the role of the ICC," Speed wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald.

"Howard would have stood in their path. The role requires strength of character - a leader, diplomat, statesman and politician. The ICC board is as political as any political party. The countries that voted him down want a compliant figurehead who will do their bidding."

Speed added that Australia and New Zealand have previously accepted nominations despite reservations. He said that they should decline to make another candidate available and instead pass the role onto Pakistan and Bangladesh, who are next in line on the rotation system, then refuse to vote themselves.

"In the meantime, they should be banging the table and making their displeasure widely known," wrote Speed.

Speed also questioned whether ICC president-elect Sharad Pawar would have time for cricket in the midst of his political career. "Sharad Pawar, is the Minister for Agriculture in the Indian government - a serious full-time job, feeding 1.2 billion people. He is a good and fair man but he will be working part-time as ICC president and, take it from me, he knows little about cricket administration.

"I was present at several ICC board meetings he attended. ICC meetings generally last two days. Pawar attended for one hour and was then replaced by one of the Board of Control for Cricket in India apparatchiks. They were concerned that he was too busy and would be too reasonable," wrote Speed.

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."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on July 5, 2010, 20:22 GMT

    Cricket in Pakistan is a basket case... very true, who made it this way though Mr. Speed? You are one fo the culprits!

  • sudhir9 on July 2, 2010, 14:18 GMT

    sir, malcom speed , all we indians were under the same frustation as you are now when you said the following words before india winning 2007 20-20 world cup and beating australia in australia,,,, you said "you people(indians) just have money other than that you dont know how to play cricket you people dont win icc tournaments look at new zealand despite being a small country how are they playing" ................be prepard you speed and aussies there is lot to come in future from us(indian team) in terms of cricket "be bold to face it"

  • on July 2, 2010, 14:07 GMT

    Wow go Mr Speed finally highlighting the fact that they way that icc is ruled by the backwards asian cricket boards. i have to say im impressed good on him its been happening for far to long cricket needs to grow up and move with the times its just stuck doing what the bcci wants it to do at the moment. I think that we should nominate Sir Richard Hadlee hes one of the greatest players of all time, a perfectionist and tough nut and wont be pushed around.

  • cricpolitics on July 1, 2010, 19:53 GMT

    Malcolm Speed: "The ICC board is as political as any political party. The countries that voted him down want a compliant figurehead who will do their bidding"

    And yet he wants to bring in a real politician into ICC knowing how political this organization is already. You have too many contradicitons Mr. Speed. Just accept the results, it was all done through a legal process. Would you be that furious if the person rejected was from Asia or Africa?

  • Robeli on July 1, 2010, 18:12 GMT

    So what's the problem here?? Aus and NZ nominated Howard and he got rejected by majority vote! What's wrong with that? Does Aus and NZ think everybody should just say 'amen' and accept it? What if Zim and SA nominate Rob Mugabe when it's their turn? (Not that I'm comparing Howard with Mugabe, its the principle) Come on people, move on!

  • trotter on July 1, 2010, 16:51 GMT

    Time to call L Modi or S khan or A Bachchan

  • on July 1, 2010, 16:22 GMT

    @ vidheyan : totally agree. active ministers and politicians should not run sports.

  • on July 1, 2010, 15:54 GMT

    I just love it when Aussies moan!

  • dadalowg on July 1, 2010, 15:44 GMT

    HAHA. So John Howard called Murali a "chucker" and now a few years later, Sri Lanka have rejected his nomination. EAT YOUR WORDS now Mr. JH...

  • SachinIsTheGreatest on July 1, 2010, 15:43 GMT

    So Howard is being rejected for his cricketing credentials. Fair enough. I doubt if there ever was a rule which said Australia and New Zealand had to go ahead and say yes to anyone picked by other nations. They could have objected to it there and then and that in itself would have proved they care for the game.

  • on July 5, 2010, 20:22 GMT

    Cricket in Pakistan is a basket case... very true, who made it this way though Mr. Speed? You are one fo the culprits!

  • sudhir9 on July 2, 2010, 14:18 GMT

    sir, malcom speed , all we indians were under the same frustation as you are now when you said the following words before india winning 2007 20-20 world cup and beating australia in australia,,,, you said "you people(indians) just have money other than that you dont know how to play cricket you people dont win icc tournaments look at new zealand despite being a small country how are they playing" ................be prepard you speed and aussies there is lot to come in future from us(indian team) in terms of cricket "be bold to face it"

  • on July 2, 2010, 14:07 GMT

    Wow go Mr Speed finally highlighting the fact that they way that icc is ruled by the backwards asian cricket boards. i have to say im impressed good on him its been happening for far to long cricket needs to grow up and move with the times its just stuck doing what the bcci wants it to do at the moment. I think that we should nominate Sir Richard Hadlee hes one of the greatest players of all time, a perfectionist and tough nut and wont be pushed around.

  • cricpolitics on July 1, 2010, 19:53 GMT

    Malcolm Speed: "The ICC board is as political as any political party. The countries that voted him down want a compliant figurehead who will do their bidding"

    And yet he wants to bring in a real politician into ICC knowing how political this organization is already. You have too many contradicitons Mr. Speed. Just accept the results, it was all done through a legal process. Would you be that furious if the person rejected was from Asia or Africa?

  • Robeli on July 1, 2010, 18:12 GMT

    So what's the problem here?? Aus and NZ nominated Howard and he got rejected by majority vote! What's wrong with that? Does Aus and NZ think everybody should just say 'amen' and accept it? What if Zim and SA nominate Rob Mugabe when it's their turn? (Not that I'm comparing Howard with Mugabe, its the principle) Come on people, move on!

  • trotter on July 1, 2010, 16:51 GMT

    Time to call L Modi or S khan or A Bachchan

  • on July 1, 2010, 16:22 GMT

    @ vidheyan : totally agree. active ministers and politicians should not run sports.

  • on July 1, 2010, 15:54 GMT

    I just love it when Aussies moan!

  • dadalowg on July 1, 2010, 15:44 GMT

    HAHA. So John Howard called Murali a "chucker" and now a few years later, Sri Lanka have rejected his nomination. EAT YOUR WORDS now Mr. JH...

  • SachinIsTheGreatest on July 1, 2010, 15:43 GMT

    So Howard is being rejected for his cricketing credentials. Fair enough. I doubt if there ever was a rule which said Australia and New Zealand had to go ahead and say yes to anyone picked by other nations. They could have objected to it there and then and that in itself would have proved they care for the game.

  • kool_Indian on July 1, 2010, 15:31 GMT

    Becoz the comments section has been closed in other places - I am pasting it here... please read this to know abt Howard... http://www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/139495.html

  • on July 1, 2010, 14:39 GMT

    This is a spectacle to behold. Indeed the rejection is bitter medicine but justly deserved. Welcome to the real world Messrs Speed & Howard.

  • calhyde on July 1, 2010, 14:18 GMT

    Speed can race and lend his shoulders to Howard...and Mr Howard, would have spilled his biased / racial politics and ruin Cricket. There is a hugh pool of able, trustworthy & unbiased people in the cricketing world of New Zealand & Australia...so what the big deal about Howard?

  • on July 1, 2010, 14:09 GMT

    Hey Howard: What goes round, comes round, so live with it. You are now a loser, i hope your puppets (folks in the ACB) realise that. I am happy that the PCB finally got something right.

    Speed was right about one thing though, that ICC is now more like a political party, and hence member boards were well within their rights to be politically motivated when voting.

  • vidheyan on July 1, 2010, 14:06 GMT

    As an Indian, I was not a fan of Mr Speed in the past, but he makes a huge point here. Sharad Pawar is the agricultural minister of the world's largest agricultural economy. A country of 1.2 billion people where 75% of the population is dependent on agriculture. A country where hundreds of farmers are committing suicide every month (unbelievable but true!!) because of the hardships that they are facing. I am only surprised that more people haven't voiced their concern about the blatant contradiction in this appointment. The only reason Pawar is into cricket, is because of the money in the game today and to leverage the power that it inevitably brings for his political gains. As much as I am a big fan of the game, I can't care less if he is contributing to the running of the game or not as ICC president, because he is insulting the people of India by taking up the ICC post, thereby demoting the post of agriculture minister of India as a part time job. This is wrong in so many levels.

  • gusgemba on July 1, 2010, 13:37 GMT

    Australia and England always tryed and trying to ddictate terms at other cricketing nations.Some times even threatening to use their vetoe power on certain matters which may seems to go against them.Nominating a misserable politico like Howard Australia and England trying to tighten their grip on other nations to run the international cricket as they want with the help of New Zealand.This man Howard is the one who insulted Great Murali when he was the so called prime minister of the Kangaroo Farm.He has done that to Murali,just to ruin his career and stop him becoming the best bowler in cricketing history by overtaking Shane Warne who was the only other contender to acheive that staus.Not only that as aprimeminister he did his best to corner the Zimbabwean cricket by doing all the political harrasments.So Ausrtralia and England want to get fulfill their ugly and dirty ideas by nominating such an irresponsible and bias person like Howard.So The ICC's desision is OK.

  • Gupta.Ankur on July 1, 2010, 13:04 GMT

    Hahaha.....................so funny to see a character like speed dishing out dirt on others when he himself has certain strong stains on his linen....

    He and Malcolm grey were instrumental is creating a field of umpires and referees who were biased towards Asian teams and soft on eng&auss...

  • Vikram_Rathore on July 1, 2010, 12:51 GMT

    How many non English or non Australian member ruled the roost in ICC till 2002... hardly any... Was it that there were no legitimate candidates from the Indian Subcontinent (Pak, SL, Bangla included), West indies, Zimbabwe or even South Africa? Well, they had enough domination over this game... its time to pass the baton and make the game more global. Besides, John Howard is perfectly capable of armtwisting boards to have his way and ensure that Australia or England benefits the most... His political career is equally notorious, with him making infamous statements against a great cricketer (Murali), head of the state (Mandela), senior official of a cricket board (Chingoka), and further did nothing more than lip service to thward the racist attack on Asians in Australia.

    Its high time for Malcolm and co, to shut-up and move on...

  • Itchy on July 1, 2010, 12:45 GMT

    @Bang_La: Aus voters did recognise Howard as being a strong and successful leader - he was prime minister for over 11 years and that in a democratic country (not like a certain African nation I can think of).

    All these calls for ex-cricketers to be involved as candidates are a bit rich considering the number of ex-ICC presidents who have never played the game at any decent level.

  • jillpreston on July 1, 2010, 12:39 GMT

    In my own time I experienced another politician with 'strong leadership' similar to Mr Howard. He was also a leader, diplomat, statesman and politician. A lot of their attitudes were similar. He ruled Germany during WWII.

  • Philip_Gnana on July 1, 2010, 12:36 GMT

    Malcom Speed is not up to speed with matters. Is he expecting all countries to accept every nomination? If that is the case why in hell have a vote? Voting is democratic. Each country has a right to vote for or against. Howard being a politician and a non-cricketer being recommended to job raises more questions about political ambitions of individuals. Get the bloody politicians out of the way.

    Let cricket be governed by cricketers who are also good administrators. If Howard was the best candidate that NZ and OZ could put forward...then it is a sad state of affairs.

    Come on OZ and NZ put out a worthy candidate.

    Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • ram5160 on July 1, 2010, 12:31 GMT

    Mr. Speed says- "To conclude, let me make a prediction. The ICC head office moved from London to Dubai in 2005. Howard's rejection is a clear sign that the ICC will be based in Mumbai by 2012." Speed was the CEO till 08. 1. So, in his opinion, the move to Dubai was good? Since it helped them to evade tax, it must be a good move? 2. What exactly does the rejection of Howard got to do with the ethereal movements of the ICC HQ? 3.At least if the HQ were in Mumbai or London or Sydney or Dhaka or Colombo or Islamabad, there would be some actual contact with cricket fans.

  • ImpartialJudge on July 1, 2010, 12:29 GMT

    I wonder why CA have nominated Mr.Howard. He was a politician and an divisive personality. Can't understand how diplomatic was it to call Murali a chucker and then to stand by his comments. I strongly feel that, current/past CA administrators who have put in such a good development platform domestically could have been nominated. As some already pointed out, Border, Waugh (or even Buchanan ??) would have been more acceptable.

  • ram5160 on July 1, 2010, 12:16 GMT

    @Homer 2007- Brilliantly spotted. Mr.Speed says- "The Pakistan Cricket Board chairman is a nominee of the president of the country - a political appointment. The incumbent is a buffoon and cricket in Pakistan is a basket case." " I was too polite to ask him whether he had ever been to a cricket match!" CRICINFO-By deliberately leaving out large sections of his article ur manipulating the context and presenting his objections as a reasoned one. Be NEUTRAL. You are subverting the holy contract u have with Cricket fans all over the world.

  • Pepi on July 1, 2010, 12:10 GMT

    Speed, u seem very arrogant and hell bent on leather to select Mr. Howard.

    I am neither for Pawar nor Howard they both are extremely busy politicians, hence not suitable for sport.

    In my opinion sport and business are not for Politicians .

    WHY DON'T U FIND SOME ELSE preferably with a cricketing background.

    Being an outgoing member you should leave it to the other members to decide instead of taking sides.

  • LALITHKURUWITA on July 1, 2010, 12:06 GMT

    This is called ACTION & REACTION

  • ram5160 on July 1, 2010, 12:04 GMT

    First lets talk about democratic and journalistic standards on Cricinfo. There is a blatant bias towards Howard. 2 articles from Haigh and now one from Bal. So far i ve seen only one against him that too in the INBOX 1.Where are the articles showing the opposite POV? 2.Surely his faults must receive as much of the spot light as his strengths? Or do u not believe that standard jounalistic principle, Mr.Bal? 3.Where are the articles illustrating his long and distinguished track record as a politico who repeatedly used the race card to gain power? 4. What are likes of Alter, Binoy, English and Samiuddin doing? Or is going against the Boss not allowed?

  • web_guru2003 on July 1, 2010, 12:00 GMT

    aaah poor Speed is angry. He took so long to realize that ICC is a political body. It was a political body when Mr.Speed was heading it (for 8 years btw), it IS a political body and it WILL remain a political body. Howard was off course rejected due to politics, politics that he did during his ear as PM. Mr.Speed is only feeling the pain of politics now coz Aus does no have enough votes (and nor the VETO power that they have enjoyed for decades)

  • MaheshSPanicker on July 1, 2010, 11:11 GMT

    sorry Mr. Speed, it is the political past of John Howard that has ultimately haunted him down, not the politics of the other boards. and can anyone in their right mind think sports and politics can stay away from each other?

  • wanderer1 on July 1, 2010, 10:50 GMT

    Aww, Malcolm seems to be getting angry and throwing a few of his toys out of the pram. He's angry that Ijaz Butt (supposedly a friend of John Howard) would vote against him, (maybe the decision was out of his hands). But anyway, it's quite possibly the first time the PCB has actually done something sensible, and they get blasted for it.... that's irony. I suppose that Pakistani vote was all important. Hey Malcolm all I'm gonna say is that in every facet of life "As you sow, so shall you reap", justice is divine.

  • on July 1, 2010, 10:13 GMT

    Speed and some of the other Aussie Cricket Chiefs sound like a spoilt child who did not get their way. Cut out the shrillness folks, it is not doing Australia any favours - and this makes the majority decision to cut out Howard from the ICC presidency look correct with each passing protest. Its called democracy. Move on. Current politicians who aspire to be future ICC Presidents please note - think ahead when sleighting Mandela (even a perception is bad) or taking cheap shots at the greatest wicket taker in the game (Murali). It may just rebound on you in a spectacular manner.

  • TIslam on July 1, 2010, 10:03 GMT

    Australian mouth piece. I would give credit to CA about being cowards and using Speed to move the mouth so that they have deniability. I think this is in itself a good enough reason to reject Howard. I though will like to see ICC adopt a FIFA style of governance riding all the boards and itself from politics and government interference. But still have an open mind about the use of technology...

  • Wakeybeancounter on July 1, 2010, 9:21 GMT

    Cricket is becoming like football, all about money and wherever there is loads of cash you will find ex-politicians and there like lining up to give a helping hand. Here in England we have just had the expenses scandal where their antics have been exposed, I have little confidence that politicians are not the same the world over.I was unhappy when the ICC moved to Dubai (for tax reasons?) just at a time when more money was coming into the game and the financial goings on in the IPL have reinforced my initial view that those who run the game are more interested in the cash on offer rather than the game itself.

  • Andare on July 1, 2010, 9:09 GMT

    Speed your wrong. Australia could have chosen anyone else(except Pauline Hanson), and no one would have gotten in the way. And that person could be someone who will not "do their bidding", and would still gotten through.. Im glad George Bush isn't Australian, otherwise he would have been the next in line.

  • Rahul_Chakravarthy on July 1, 2010, 8:13 GMT

    "Gaming the Game"

    Why are the politicians in the "game"?

    Laloo, Sharad Pawar, Jaitley...? Who are they? They are not worth playing with the "game"

    What did Cricket benefit after they took charge?

    Now a days, politics=sports=films=business, can not seperate any of them.

    God save all of them.

  • topspeed55 on July 1, 2010, 7:57 GMT

    Now Mr. Speed along with Mr Howard needs to go to high school to get some democracy lessons. I mean a person has lost an election doesn't mean he is being insulted.

  • maddy20 on July 1, 2010, 7:41 GMT

    I have read a quote somwhere "A diplomat is a person who can convince you to go to hell and make you like it!" Mr. Howard is the other way around. How can a person who insults a player that too of a visiting team be called a diplomat. What you give is what you get brothers. Next time you should think twice before mocking someone

  • mbilalhussain on July 1, 2010, 7:38 GMT

    Mr. Malcolm Speed if you calling it a 'political motive' then that's right. Dont criticize, accept it. You should understand that a politician who has no experience of running cricket affairs eliminated through a 'political process' of voting. Democracy, right!!! a political elimination of a politician. His mistakes made him unpopular... Howard deserves it.

  • Itchy on July 1, 2010, 7:29 GMT

    While no fan of John Howard as a PM (he was also my local member), he was selected under the tenets of the constitution of the ICC and should have been endorsed as the next vice-president. I agree with Malcolm Speed (again, not one of my favourites) that Aus and NZ should pass the role on to Pakistan and Bangladesh and then refuse to endorse the candidate. While appearing childish on the surface it may at least get the ICC to look at their own rules that have been laid down for selecting new ICC presidents.

    It is disgraceful that voting would appear to be on racial lines - had there been a majority of white countries voting down a black candidate, the outrage would have been far more vocal and widespread. It says a lot about the democratic process that is supposed to exist in the ICC that Zimbabwe gets a vote.

  • Periander on July 1, 2010, 7:24 GMT

    I'm sure Speed knows all too well the inner machinations of the ICC and is probably right on the money with his statements.

  • Krags on July 1, 2010, 6:57 GMT

    Was Mr Speed sleeping when Aus Bullied NZ to accept Howard ? How less political does he think that to be ? these words : "thwart the ambitions of several current administrators to downgrade and devalue the role of the ICC" - clearly show that he gives no damn to any non white nation. Somebody should tell him to grow up and realize that the times of Imperialism are OVER and Whites do NOT bully non - whites any longer! Has he ever supported anything done by a non white so far ? Speed ; Howard ; G CLarke - all are from the same Racist category ...

    The only white country with some Human behaviour is NZ - and unfortunately they get bullied by the Aussies every time ...

  • SLUGGER-VENGEANCE_REBORN on July 1, 2010, 6:37 GMT

    Mr. Speed might be aware that after steamrolling the hapless NZ board the Aussies have finally been shown their place. When nominating a candidate for such a high profile position the Aussie board should have taken into consideration (informally) the views of all voting members. If going ahead and showing power was the way the Asia contingent could put up Mr. Musharaff or Mr. Bal Thackeray who have shown considerable (debatable) leadership skills.

  • Forcerhino on July 1, 2010, 6:33 GMT

    If its as political as any political party, then Speed should understand that the ones with more bargaining power would be the dominant powers. Why Indian nominations are accepted, goes beyond just a simple 'humble' acceptance from arrogant idiots down under. Its money - and the subcontinent and SA is where the money is. So Aussies and Kiwis better shut up and play!

    Ha ha

  • ZEUS00 on July 1, 2010, 6:29 GMT

    Speed has all of a sudden developed a big mouth cos he knows there is no future for him in the ICC!. Howard, had he been such a great man of character, would still be Australia's PM, wouldn't he? I'm sure there are many more Aussies/Kiwis out there who will be much better candidates than Johny Howard. The more defensive we get, the more we look like losers.

  • on July 1, 2010, 6:25 GMT

    Mr. Speed you started it not long ago with Mr. Bindra's nomination a couple of years ago, if it was okay then it is okay now. you slamming political boards is a bit of a joke, somehow you believe the rest of the world are either too dumb or too naive not to see through your political machinations. Good try anyways!

  • plsn on July 1, 2010, 6:21 GMT

    It seems Speed feels insulted by this rejection. Well, insulting is this - 1) Body scanning the Prime Minister of the largest democracy of the world when he was to visit Australia and refusing to respect international protocol. 2) Physically pushing away the President of BCCI on the dais. Reap what you sow, Speed and co.

  • honestbharani on July 1, 2010, 6:13 GMT

    lol.. Speed, the worst ICC President I have seen in my time of watching cricket, whining about someone playing the political game against a politician who was nominated to run cricket inspite of never having been involved at any level... The straw clutching has gone down to some ridiculous levels now..

  • Spinoza on July 1, 2010, 6:06 GMT

    Because John Howard is a politician...duh!

  • SLUGGER-VENGEANCE_REBORN on July 1, 2010, 5:53 GMT

    Mr. Speed might be aware that after steamrolling the hapless NZ board the Aussies have finally been shown their place. When nominating a candidate for such a high profile position the Aussie board should have taken into consideration (informally) the views of all voting members. If going ahead and showing power was the way the Asia contingent could put up Mr. Musharaff or Mr. Bal Thackeray who have shown considerable (debatable) leadership skills.

  • on July 1, 2010, 5:47 GMT

    Speed seems to be jobless! Either that or he is just foaming at the mouth due to some sort of panic attack of being outta the limelight! Howard did not deserve the job with his political gaffes being not his strengths but his weakness. He has acted and made comments in the past against nations, teams and players ... he is just reaping the just rewards of what he has sown - so quit whining! And go away quietly .. the curtain has come down for you. Bye Malcolm!

  • BoonBoom on July 1, 2010, 5:28 GMT

    Why Speed did not slam Howard and Australian government when the Australian team's tour of Zimbabwe was blocked ??????

  • Sampath_KCS on July 1, 2010, 5:05 GMT

    I just want to know whether Mr.Speed noted following news on cricinfo on 23rd Jan 2009. " Exclusive - ICC executive meeting,ICC meeting goes ahead without Chingoka, Cricinfo staff,January 23, 2009 The ICC's executive meeting in Perth at the end of the month will go ahead, but without Peter Chingoka, the chairman of Zimbabwe Cricket. Chingoka was banned from entering Australia by the authorities earlier this month because of what it stated were his links to the Mugabe regime" So Mr.Speed, who are not politically motivated ???

  • eminem on July 1, 2010, 4:45 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

  • on July 1, 2010, 3:36 GMT

    How much of this embarassment do we have to endure in NZ. We know the candidate was not the best, but were shafted by Australia. Now our Board says Howard was 'the best candidate'...They know he wasn't. And what does NZ Cricket ever get from Australia - a perfunctory 3 week tour every 3 years on their way somewhere else, 2-test series at best, early season curtain-raiser tours of Australia. I say let's go with the Indian power-block. At least there's a good payday.

  • TRexGotPhD on July 1, 2010, 3:32 GMT

    Speed says those who blocked Howard's nomination are politically motivated -- DUH -- Does he seriously believe that those who wanted his nomination were not politically motivated ? He himself says that the role required a politician. And now he is upset because others played the same game ? They (read Australia) are just pissed because Howard was their Prime Minister - well boohoo! Out of 9 test nations 6 were opposed to him and New Zealand were not comfortable with his nomination either. Democracy worked...so why are they whining ? Isn't Australia always out to teach the world the tenets of a democratic government ? It has become just too easy and fashionable to target India every time something goes against Australia. They forget that other nations were also against Howard.

  • muizuzair on July 1, 2010, 3:24 GMT

    Is Mr Howard the one an only nominee who possesses significant leadership and administrative skills? It doesn't mean that minus Mr. Howard cricket will discontinue to seek excellence and dispassionate independence in the game's global governance. If those who didn't want Mr. Howard are politically motivated then it might be that those who want him to be nominated are also politically motivated. Its the criticisms and comments made by Mr. Howard against certain cricket players in the past that has stood in the path. Had he criticized Shane Warne or Vittori in the same manner as he criticized Murali i don't think that Australia or New Zealand would have ever come up with his name to be nominated.

  • Chrishan on July 1, 2010, 3:05 GMT

    I think it's disgraceful for Mr. Speed to come up with such allegations. If there is any "downgrading or devaluation of the role of the ICC" it is due to decisions made by Speed's administration. It's obvious that this is a case of countryman supporting fellow countryman. The ICC should be governed by people with cricketing experience and not some pencil pushing bureaucrat.

  • RaghuramanR on July 1, 2010, 2:59 GMT

    If India comes, politics tags along :)

  • on July 1, 2010, 2:54 GMT

    We are happy as Asians. If the majority is not with John Howard their is no way he being elected as a vice precedent. After his critics Murali's cricketing life was at a risk. Should we vote for a one who has done a thing like that to our hero? No way. This was what Murali told on press after PM's critics "I thought of coming to Australia but now I will think three times before I come. I am disappointed and we are talking to our lawyers. He [Howard] should take away that word ... I don't know what is in his mind, but I am so disappointed that the prime minister of a country would be coming out and giving a statement like this, because he has more responsibility than this, I think." So big thanks to member countries for blocking such a disgraceful leader as the Vice President of ICC.By the way is it so hard to find a gentleman Cricketer in AUS and NZ??????AUS and NZ are angered "So What"?????

  • jpa170478 on July 1, 2010, 2:45 GMT

    Well said Malcolm, and you have hit the nail on the head in regards to the politics. I hope it had nothing to do with just and right stance on Zimbabwe. Sport was strong but not strong enough in regards to Apartheid. Apart from a few nations we were weak in regards to Zimbabwe. Howard took the right stance on tyranny

  • 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.

  • Homer2007 on July 1, 2010, 1:55 GMT

    Oh my, Cricinfo being coy in printing all the gory details that the ex Chief Executive of the ICC had to say? Here is the article, in full - http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/howard-was-rejected-because-he-would-foil-the-iccs-saboteurs-20100630-zmti.html

  • Bang_La on July 1, 2010, 1:48 GMT

    Another crooney Malcolm Speed brought politics in ICC and he singled out Zimbabwe clearly for political reasons. If Howard was a strong and successful leader, Australian voters would have recognised him, Mr. Speed.

  • UnderDog1630 on July 1, 2010, 1:38 GMT

    Speed... Slow down. If he was half good as you he would have won the nomination. He is an evil. Anyway it was a democratic process and he lost. Howard rejection is politically motivated and your comments are racially motivated!!!

  • steveb3277 on July 1, 2010, 1:33 GMT

    And we all thought FIFA was bad. Time to look beyond the typical tit for tat country exchanges that will inevitably be brought up here.

    Time for the individual nations to do what is best for the game - not what i best for their own interests or benefit. That's probably hoping for too much.

  • kalevivek on July 1, 2010, 1:29 GMT

    Dear Mr. Speed,

    in today's world only one country see your candidate as the best one, Aussies. New Zealand had been forced to accept him and England is either way dose not have it's own voice. It's either USA or somebody whom they follow, this time Aussies. You are still in last century, where your people were ruling ICC with the help of VETO. Not now.... Your people cannot say whatever they want to say and then ask others to forget.. please remember your symonds case also....just in case you are forgeting..

  • plsn on July 1, 2010, 1:27 GMT

    ICC IS NOT YOUR ANCESTRAL PROPERTY ANYMORE, SPEED! THIS IS HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS, IF YOU NEED TO BE REMINDED. HE HAS NOT BEEN "VETOED" AS IN THE EARLIER YEARS- HIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN REJECTED. FAIR AND SQUARE. NOW REST IN PEACE IN YOUR RETIREMENT!

  • CricFan78 on July 1, 2010, 1:23 GMT

    Speed who? Is this same guy who was bumped out of ICC?

  • braindead_rocker on July 1, 2010, 1:20 GMT

    The NZ board is vindicated and the Australians got what they deserved for sticking to their stand. What if Zimbabwe nominates Mugabe tomorrow? Will the Australians vote for him? What if he refuses to back down?

    Simply nominate Mr Anderson from NZ and let Howard enjoy his retirement.

  • Adeel-Mathematician on July 1, 2010, 1:01 GMT

    Australians are making it a matter of national pride. Howard's political carrer has been controversial, so why nominate him?

    A true character reveals at the time of crises or something unwanted happened despite your efforts. Here is Malcom Speed speaking in a loose language revealing his personality better. Look at his wonderful suggestion: ask Pakistan and Bangladesh to appoint their nomination and then refuse to vote! I have lost all my respect for Malcom Speed, which was already not much. Even surprising thing is that there is no dissenting voice from the Australia!

    The psychological underpinning in the rejection of Howard was that it would rest of the world of cricket except Aus, NZ, Eng as isolated entities. India may still could survive as they would have needed to suck the money.

  • on July 1, 2010, 0:56 GMT

    Stand firm John, Australia and New Zealand. Anyone who standsa up to the murderous Robert Mugabe has my vote. If Mugabe were white we would all have being calling for his ouster by now. How Joshua must be turning in his grave that he assiated Robert in freeing Rhodesia from white brutality only to insert Robert Mugabe's black tyranny. Not one of the countries which oppose John Howard can give a credible reason for their opposition. But we all know it is because as Australia's PM Howard stood up like a man and said it like it was. As for th ICC they don't want anyone who will shake up the established order, so no Howard for them.

    Claudius J. Francis Castries Saint Lucia

  • nauman421 on July 1, 2010, 0:54 GMT

    It is hard to understand why there is such a hue and cry over not enough support for Howard. I mean remove the voting clause and add that whosoever selected by the selecting boards will be the VP and he/she wont require any voting.........but if the requirement of the selected candidate should get 7 votes in favor is there then every candidate should expect that he/she can get disqualified if cant garner enough support...........its that simple!!

  • on July 1, 2010, 0:46 GMT

    Stand firm John, Australia and New Zealand. Anyone who stands up to the murderous Robert Mugabe has my vote. If Mugabe were white we would all have being shouting for his ouster by now. How Joshua must be turning in his grave knowing that he assisted Mugabe to free Rhodesia from white brutality only to have Mugabe insert black tyranny. From Freedom Fighter legend to worm. From hero to zero. That's Robert Mugabe alright! As for the ICC, all they want are wimps at the top who would do nothing to shake up the established order. How pathetic.

    Claudius J. Francis Castries Saint Lucia

  • Dannysen on July 1, 2010, 0:27 GMT

    It's time Australians realized that they can not get away anymore with all the bullying and insulting, they have been doing in the Cricketing world, opening their dirty mouths. If Howard had any shame he shouldn't have even tried for this job, after treating south Asians like crap duirng his premiership. What was he thinking?

  • Ranet on July 1, 2010, 0:10 GMT

    Speed needs to be reminded how the English teams behaved and treated other test playing nations. Does he not know that one reaps only from what he sows? In short, just shut-up and move on with another nomination. You have no choice.

  • on July 1, 2010, 0:02 GMT

    Can't see any alternative but to dissolve the ICC and the non-corrupt nations form a new alliance.

  • on June 30, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    Mr. Speed you are entitled to your opinion and so are othe others. The fact that there is a voting system means that other countries have the right to refuse. I'm pretty sure Australia and New Zealand can appoint a strong leader who is not a white collar racist. It's not the nominee they are rejecting; nor the right of the Aus nor NZ boards it is John Howard. As a follower of australian politics and based in melbourne I can pretty much make a objective observation and say Mr. Howard would have not being good for cricket. I do not in anyway support the current money greedy administration but howard is not the answer. Does australia not have anyone with a backbone who is not a red neck politician? Remember when he was priminister he couldn't respect the finding of the ICC regarding Murali. How can we expect him head the ICC in this capacity?

  • on June 30, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    should not have been chosen in the first, place was an inadequate prime minister and narrow minded and bigoted person when it came to cricket,down with howard.

  • on June 30, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    Whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge. Poor John Howard doesnt like the hand that karma dealt him, eh? If the boards have a voting system to approve or disapprove his nomination, they have every right to do so at their discretion.

  • on June 30, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    I can understand the fact that Speed is angry, but Howard has involved himself in allegations that haven't endeared him to the Asian bloc. I don't even know why he ran, because the Asian bloc was sure to not support him.

  • on June 30, 2010, 23:27 GMT

    Why is it a headlines on ESPN Cricinfo what Mr. Speed thinks? Why is he given so much importance where he can air his views? It is well documented what went on in Cricket (which is darkest era for ICC) during his regime.

    Anyways, while Mr. Speed characterizes Howard as leader, diplomat, statesman and politician - he forgets the most important trait required for this job - CRICKETING BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE - just because Mr Howard has been a PM of a country does not automatically qualify him for Cricket Adminstrator. As a matter of fact, all the borads have done a great service to ICC by preventing a man running it like running a country.

  • civiljp on June 30, 2010, 23:22 GMT

    To those in the subcontinent Howard could be seen to represent racism and discrimination, in the light of his government's immigration policies. Add to that Murali's treatment in Australia, which has never been forgiven or forgotten, there would be little chance of support from Sri Lanka. In Australia, many in the Sri Lankan community were appalled at Howard's nomination. Even in the field of sport difficult to separate the man from his policies.

  • on June 30, 2010, 23:20 GMT

    Isn't this exactly the reason why Howard wasn't and shouldn't be given the post? Lets face it, he is a politician, not a cricket administrator, so he will after all, only complicate the game with more politics. I can't recall his cricket experience, has he ever played for a club? "...provide ICC with strong leadership that would thwart the ambitions of several current administrators," Great work mate, you're a genius. I'm sure Sharad Pawar wouldn't do that, and according to you, all the previous elects have been idiots then. Only John Howard can provide strong leadership. If Sir Andersen was chosen, do you honestly think he would have evoked a similar reaction? I think not. Its not about disrespecting Aus&NZ, its about keeping the respects, rights & wishes of all other boards. And how exactly can you even dream of putting in someone who has called one of cricket's best ever bowlers (Murali) a chucker, and someone who completely blocked Zimbabwe Cricket Team from touring Australia?

  • Andy_P on June 30, 2010, 23:19 GMT

    I emphatically agree with Malcolm's assessment and advice. The boards that have blocked the ANZ nomination are no more than bullies, and this is not an isolated example. The ANZ boards MUST STAND FIRM or send a clear signal of displeasure as Malcolm has suggested. It is important not to reward the behaviour of bullies.

  • Amit68 on June 30, 2010, 23:05 GMT

    To do any job, you first have to have the capability to get the job. The process requires that the nominee be acceptable to all concerned. Howard could not fulfill that requirement. It is not enough to be leader, diplomat, statesman, politician, king of the world etc. if you can not get support from the people you hope to work with. That is the most basic requirement for anyone to be successful. It is better that he was rejected now, rather than be accepted and then be ineffective because of lack of support.

  • le_stephenois on June 30, 2010, 23:03 GMT

    We have had enough of white supremacist racism, Malcolm. Now its time for Asian racism.

  • chokkashokka on June 30, 2010, 22:54 GMT

    I've got one word for Speed and Howard - the self anointed grand-poobahs of the cricket world - democracy. Howard was weak as a candidate and controversial - everyone knows getting votes is not automatic. You have to work your constituents - and if you have a history of slants against them - then practice a lot of bending and pray for the stars being aligned. Accept the reality - buh-bye.

  • Markatia on June 30, 2010, 22:54 GMT

    How did he forget Howard's comments abount Murli and other Asian players. Howard no doubt is a big rasist and so is Speed.

  • hattima on June 30, 2010, 21:30 GMT

    Speed himself was one of the worst of the lot, one who repeatedly proclaimed racial supremacy. No wonder he is so upset that Howard can not take over the ICC.

  • crobe on June 30, 2010, 21:28 GMT

    Funny Speed should say that those who didn't want Howard in the role are politically motivated. Wasn't Howard politically motivated with his actions against Zimbabwe? What goes around comes around.

  • DabanggDesi on June 30, 2010, 21:05 GMT

    really malcolm....banging your hands & making your displeasure known in public is the best way to deal with this? Did you really come up with this idea to look like a bully? grow up malcolm because this isn't way to deal with it. Besides if the process that is working fine, pissed you off because your guy is not selected then suck it up. Life does not always work in your favor. If other six boys think that he is not good enough for the job and don't want him, and voted against him within the laws of ICC, then you have no choice to choose different one. Besides you still have Anderson who is more capable of doing the job then Howard. Howard is not the last person in Aus & NZ to do better job at ICC. May be your guy denied so everyone is at fault right? Just choose the Anderson and get over with this.

  • Agnar on June 30, 2010, 21:01 GMT

    "He said those who didn't want Howard in the role are politically motivated." How about the others?

  • on June 30, 2010, 20:58 GMT

    Yes..I read between the lines Malcolm, you would rather have John do the bidding of NZ, Australian and English boards. How conveniently hypocritical.

  • RajDaw on June 30, 2010, 20:52 GMT

    Two things Mr. Speed - Firstly," Democracy" and secondly "Politics". By your own admission ICC is a political body and this body runs on simple 'democratic' principles! Why then are you so upset if the rules regarding '7 country' approval was not met. If Mr. Howard was indeed such a 'statesman' or 'Diplomat', why did he polarise opinions? To nominate somebody purely to stand up against the perceived 'threat' of the Asian-African' bloc is ill conceived and so rightfully met it's demise. It's time we got over the phobia of being run over by the asian-bloc!

  • on June 30, 2010, 20:44 GMT

    Howard always has been a divisive figure and has made remarks that make people suspect whether he is a racist. ICC does not need ambitious politicians to manage its affairs rather good administrators who can popularize the game. Howard himself is an unpopular character.

    I think cricket boards of Australia, New Zealand & England has forgotten that they were controlling everything at ICC in until recently and now it is the payback time.

    I think they should get Speed as a consultant, I cannot imagine how this man became ICC CEO in the first place.

  • the_blue_android on June 30, 2010, 20:42 GMT

    "Howard would have stood in their path. The role requires strength of character - a leader, diplomat, statesman and politician." - He forgot to add the word " racist". Why are they are making it sound as if NZ was actually backing howard when everyone knows that they were arm twisted to do so? This guy is another joke.

  • on June 30, 2010, 20:29 GMT

    Speed typical arrogants will not get you anywhere. The problem is that you are used to always throwing your wait around so now when you hit a break wall like babies you want to whine and advocate for a boycott of the process all together. Australia is not cricket and Cricket is not Australia irregardless of what path the CA takes cricket will continue to be played all over the world even in the dreaded Africa. Its time Cricket stops taking political stance and everyone should denounce the use of sport to further political agendas. Imagine what the soccer world cup would have been withouth the North Koreans that showed both admirable passion and zeal for the game. If it was cricket North Korea would have not been allowed to participate. This in itself is where cricket falls short. Constant bickering by the Ausies and England who still want to play big brothers is what has brought us here. Eng and Aus failed to give cricket to the world now its India's turn. Enjoy the ride......

  • Canadian123 on June 30, 2010, 20:02 GMT

    Mr.Speed, I dare you ask your board to go on a protest. Also, it would be nice if you advice your players to follow suit and not queue up like bees to sign up for IPL. Where were you guys when Australia/England made all the decisions brushing aside the other nations? Did you raise the voice for the Asian/ African countries? Are you crying fowl now because you don't have the power? get to reality, you losers.

  • Da_Punjabi on June 30, 2010, 19:51 GMT

    Something is really hurting my ears.. what is it? Australia bullied KIWIS in putting forward its candidate when it was the turn of a Kiwi.... If Pawar didn't become the president of ICC, no indian would have complained, as he is such a boring person, and old hog with colonial babu mentality who would bend before colonial powers. Why Aussies are screaming from top of the building on Howard rejection as much?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Da_Punjabi on June 30, 2010, 19:51 GMT

    Something is really hurting my ears.. what is it? Australia bullied KIWIS in putting forward its candidate when it was the turn of a Kiwi.... If Pawar didn't become the president of ICC, no indian would have complained, as he is such a boring person, and old hog with colonial babu mentality who would bend before colonial powers. Why Aussies are screaming from top of the building on Howard rejection as much?

  • Canadian123 on June 30, 2010, 20:02 GMT

    Mr.Speed, I dare you ask your board to go on a protest. Also, it would be nice if you advice your players to follow suit and not queue up like bees to sign up for IPL. Where were you guys when Australia/England made all the decisions brushing aside the other nations? Did you raise the voice for the Asian/ African countries? Are you crying fowl now because you don't have the power? get to reality, you losers.

  • on June 30, 2010, 20:29 GMT

    Speed typical arrogants will not get you anywhere. The problem is that you are used to always throwing your wait around so now when you hit a break wall like babies you want to whine and advocate for a boycott of the process all together. Australia is not cricket and Cricket is not Australia irregardless of what path the CA takes cricket will continue to be played all over the world even in the dreaded Africa. Its time Cricket stops taking political stance and everyone should denounce the use of sport to further political agendas. Imagine what the soccer world cup would have been withouth the North Koreans that showed both admirable passion and zeal for the game. If it was cricket North Korea would have not been allowed to participate. This in itself is where cricket falls short. Constant bickering by the Ausies and England who still want to play big brothers is what has brought us here. Eng and Aus failed to give cricket to the world now its India's turn. Enjoy the ride......

  • the_blue_android on June 30, 2010, 20:42 GMT

    "Howard would have stood in their path. The role requires strength of character - a leader, diplomat, statesman and politician." - He forgot to add the word " racist". Why are they are making it sound as if NZ was actually backing howard when everyone knows that they were arm twisted to do so? This guy is another joke.

  • on June 30, 2010, 20:44 GMT

    Howard always has been a divisive figure and has made remarks that make people suspect whether he is a racist. ICC does not need ambitious politicians to manage its affairs rather good administrators who can popularize the game. Howard himself is an unpopular character.

    I think cricket boards of Australia, New Zealand & England has forgotten that they were controlling everything at ICC in until recently and now it is the payback time.

    I think they should get Speed as a consultant, I cannot imagine how this man became ICC CEO in the first place.

  • RajDaw on June 30, 2010, 20:52 GMT

    Two things Mr. Speed - Firstly," Democracy" and secondly "Politics". By your own admission ICC is a political body and this body runs on simple 'democratic' principles! Why then are you so upset if the rules regarding '7 country' approval was not met. If Mr. Howard was indeed such a 'statesman' or 'Diplomat', why did he polarise opinions? To nominate somebody purely to stand up against the perceived 'threat' of the Asian-African' bloc is ill conceived and so rightfully met it's demise. It's time we got over the phobia of being run over by the asian-bloc!

  • on June 30, 2010, 20:58 GMT

    Yes..I read between the lines Malcolm, you would rather have John do the bidding of NZ, Australian and English boards. How conveniently hypocritical.

  • Agnar on June 30, 2010, 21:01 GMT

    "He said those who didn't want Howard in the role are politically motivated." How about the others?

  • DabanggDesi on June 30, 2010, 21:05 GMT

    really malcolm....banging your hands & making your displeasure known in public is the best way to deal with this? Did you really come up with this idea to look like a bully? grow up malcolm because this isn't way to deal with it. Besides if the process that is working fine, pissed you off because your guy is not selected then suck it up. Life does not always work in your favor. If other six boys think that he is not good enough for the job and don't want him, and voted against him within the laws of ICC, then you have no choice to choose different one. Besides you still have Anderson who is more capable of doing the job then Howard. Howard is not the last person in Aus & NZ to do better job at ICC. May be your guy denied so everyone is at fault right? Just choose the Anderson and get over with this.

  • crobe on June 30, 2010, 21:28 GMT

    Funny Speed should say that those who didn't want Howard in the role are politically motivated. Wasn't Howard politically motivated with his actions against Zimbabwe? What goes around comes around.