ICC news July 1, 2010

Cricket Australia keep backing John Howard for ICC

68

Cricket Australia is standing by John Howard and seriously considering whether to repeat its push to have him installed as ICC vice-president despite his swift rejection in Singapore. The appointment of Howard was stopped at an ICC board meeting on Wednesday by a group of Asian and African members in a result that left Australian and New Zealand officials "gutted".

Jack Clarke, Cricket Australia's chairman, will consult with his board this week, but Cricinfo has learned Howard remains the organisation's nomination for the position despite the refusal of seven ICC board members to support the application. It sets up the prospect of Howard's name being returned as the joint Australia-New Zealand candidate by the August 31 deadline, although this depends on New Zealand Cricket wanting to continue the fight.

Australia and New Zealand have been asked to put forward another candidate and Haroon Lorgat, the chief executive of the ICC, said the organisation did not have to give justification for rejecting Howard. Lorgat told reporters in Singapore on Thursday that the ICC "does not have to give those reasons".

"There weren't sufficient number of directors in support of the nomination," Lorgat said. "[It] did not go to a vote and the outcome was to request Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket to reconsider their nomination and to return to the ICC by the 31st of August."

Howard was standing firm despite the embarrassing turn of events. "I haven't withdrawn, I'm still the nomination and I won't be withdrawing," he told Sky News.

Clarke and Wally Edwards, his deputy, will host a meeting with Cricket Australia's board members, who were said to be "very angry" with the Singapore result, over the next couple of days to determine whether to keep pushing for Howard. Once they have decided the way forward they will discuss the position with New Zealand Cricket, which originally wanted its former chairman Sir John Anderson in the role.

Both Clarke and Alan Isaac, the New Zealand chairman, were angry and frustrated with the outcome of the ICC board meeting in which the Howard issue didn't get to a vote. Under the ICC's regulations, it was Australasia's turn to choose the vice-president, who would then assume the top job in 2012.

However, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa and West Indies signalled their intention on Tuesday night to block the move. Zimbabwe, privately the most critical of the appointment, did not join the list but were a crucial player in the decision.

India also had a role in providing support to deny Howard. "If India said yes, it would have got through," a source close to the negotiations told Cricinfo.

Cricket Australia asked Howard to take up the post and he said it was on the understanding that if he fitted the ICC guidelines and didn't have a criminal record he would be approved. Both the Australian and New Zealand boards argued he came through the most rigorous selection process and deserved the role.

Clarke was disappointed at the treatment of such a well-qualified applicant and the hurt was compounded by no reasons being given for the rejection. Howard said he had spoken to a board chairman from one of the opposing countries, who told him he could not say why the appointment had been blocked. "It's a very unusual situation," Howard said.

Criticisms of Howard vary from his decisions regarding Zimbabwe during his time as Australia's prime minister to him not being involved previously with Cricket Australia in an official capacity. "Frankly, we did not want an outsider to meddle with the ICC," an Indian board official 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."

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • UAETigers on July 1, 2010, 16:55 GMT

    I am unable to understand why CA and NewZealand boards are persisting with one nominee and candidate. If a person don't have the relative field experience then how can you make him BOSS of the biggest organization of that field.

    Howard can be a good administrator but more then once he has shown that he has biased mind and he has backed Aussie cricket more then on merit basis. Why these two boards are getting furious and angry if their nominee is not considered for the highest post. This is democratic way of tackling issues or some one trying to bring dictatorship with in the game. Aussie and England has ruled ICC for long and no one had complaint so they should respect others opinion too.

  • Antir on July 1, 2010, 13:46 GMT

    It is time that all the cricketing nations went their own way. Let the BCCI do whatever they like it. Australia/New Zealand can survive on their own. Let the other nations fight among themselves. Organising tours does not depend on the ICC. Registering for the Worldcup is a no brainer, 50 over cricket is almost dead. The business of cricket does not need respect or unity between nations. It is all about fame, money and power.

  • on July 1, 2010, 13:40 GMT

    Comparing John Howard to Robert Mugabe is completely unfair. Mr. Howard was democratically elected PM of Australia where as Mr. Mugabe is a Dictator. It's different issue that Mr. Howard does not have previous cricket admin experience. However looking at the current administrators on various cricketing boards in Sub Continent, they are politicians first and then cricket administrators (e.g.Mr. Sharad Pawar). Therefore argument by Indian board official about Mr. Howard is in valid. Being an assertive leader, the opposing Boards feel threatened by Mr. Howard's presidency. But being a true cricket fan we should keep these politics aside and better worry about the expansion of the game in other parts of the world.

  • on July 1, 2010, 13:34 GMT

    @Periander - Exactly. I hated him as PM but clearly to be at that level in any field suggests strong administrative ability. I find it interesting that Zimbabwe have been asking the cricketing world to ignore politics and support cricket in their nation, regardless of what is happening there. The suggestion being that sport and politics should be kept separate. Funny how it seems okay to involve politics in sport now. Just my 2 cents.

  • D.V.C. on July 1, 2010, 13:30 GMT

    @Moona_sweepa: "appease their local politicians?" Mate, nobody from either side of politics in this country has taken the slightest bit of interest.

  • SnowSnake on July 1, 2010, 13:15 GMT

    It would be very bad to reject someone and then select him because he will have an axe to grind against the nations that rejected him. Australia backing Howard only shows that Howard will come in with an agenda to back Australia's interest. Othewise, why should Australia get upset about Howard's rejection? In time, it is starting to appear that India and other nations did the right thing. Don't blame India, blame Australia and England for the veto power for decades. They were used to having an unfair advantage, and now we have a new-world-order which is hard to swallow by Australia. I think the current setup with strong lobbying is good for international cricket.

  • maidenwicket on July 1, 2010, 12:57 GMT

    For someone who is an outspoken critic of select cricket countries should never be at the helm of affairs, as every move of his will be viewed with suspicion and distrust. Dont we have enough headaches already?

  • chaithan on July 1, 2010, 12:15 GMT

    @periander: I am not commenting about Howard, but I disagree with your statement. Anybody who made it to his nation's top office is a good politician and not necessarily a good administrator. There's a big difference between the two.

  • lugujaga on July 1, 2010, 11:51 GMT

    howard is a contrversial pick and to avoid this from causing devision in the icc, australia and new zeland should pick another nominee and stop insisting on howard who is clearly not wanted by the majority of the cricket boards that make up the icc;so australia stop beating a dead horse already for goodness sake

  • ram5160 on July 1, 2010, 11:48 GMT

    Is this article supposed to be journalism? 1.Where is the Quotation from Isaac saying that he is angry or frustrated? Why do u try to lump NZC with CA? 2.Where are the articles showing the opposite POV, Howard s track record as a politico using the race card and so on? We have articles from Bal and Haigh supporting Howard, but surely equal space should be given to both sides of an argument. Frankly,we expect better from Cricinfo.

  • UAETigers on July 1, 2010, 16:55 GMT

    I am unable to understand why CA and NewZealand boards are persisting with one nominee and candidate. If a person don't have the relative field experience then how can you make him BOSS of the biggest organization of that field.

    Howard can be a good administrator but more then once he has shown that he has biased mind and he has backed Aussie cricket more then on merit basis. Why these two boards are getting furious and angry if their nominee is not considered for the highest post. This is democratic way of tackling issues or some one trying to bring dictatorship with in the game. Aussie and England has ruled ICC for long and no one had complaint so they should respect others opinion too.

  • Antir on July 1, 2010, 13:46 GMT

    It is time that all the cricketing nations went their own way. Let the BCCI do whatever they like it. Australia/New Zealand can survive on their own. Let the other nations fight among themselves. Organising tours does not depend on the ICC. Registering for the Worldcup is a no brainer, 50 over cricket is almost dead. The business of cricket does not need respect or unity between nations. It is all about fame, money and power.

  • on July 1, 2010, 13:40 GMT

    Comparing John Howard to Robert Mugabe is completely unfair. Mr. Howard was democratically elected PM of Australia where as Mr. Mugabe is a Dictator. It's different issue that Mr. Howard does not have previous cricket admin experience. However looking at the current administrators on various cricketing boards in Sub Continent, they are politicians first and then cricket administrators (e.g.Mr. Sharad Pawar). Therefore argument by Indian board official about Mr. Howard is in valid. Being an assertive leader, the opposing Boards feel threatened by Mr. Howard's presidency. But being a true cricket fan we should keep these politics aside and better worry about the expansion of the game in other parts of the world.

  • on July 1, 2010, 13:34 GMT

    @Periander - Exactly. I hated him as PM but clearly to be at that level in any field suggests strong administrative ability. I find it interesting that Zimbabwe have been asking the cricketing world to ignore politics and support cricket in their nation, regardless of what is happening there. The suggestion being that sport and politics should be kept separate. Funny how it seems okay to involve politics in sport now. Just my 2 cents.

  • D.V.C. on July 1, 2010, 13:30 GMT

    @Moona_sweepa: "appease their local politicians?" Mate, nobody from either side of politics in this country has taken the slightest bit of interest.

  • SnowSnake on July 1, 2010, 13:15 GMT

    It would be very bad to reject someone and then select him because he will have an axe to grind against the nations that rejected him. Australia backing Howard only shows that Howard will come in with an agenda to back Australia's interest. Othewise, why should Australia get upset about Howard's rejection? In time, it is starting to appear that India and other nations did the right thing. Don't blame India, blame Australia and England for the veto power for decades. They were used to having an unfair advantage, and now we have a new-world-order which is hard to swallow by Australia. I think the current setup with strong lobbying is good for international cricket.

  • maidenwicket on July 1, 2010, 12:57 GMT

    For someone who is an outspoken critic of select cricket countries should never be at the helm of affairs, as every move of his will be viewed with suspicion and distrust. Dont we have enough headaches already?

  • chaithan on July 1, 2010, 12:15 GMT

    @periander: I am not commenting about Howard, but I disagree with your statement. Anybody who made it to his nation's top office is a good politician and not necessarily a good administrator. There's a big difference between the two.

  • lugujaga on July 1, 2010, 11:51 GMT

    howard is a contrversial pick and to avoid this from causing devision in the icc, australia and new zeland should pick another nominee and stop insisting on howard who is clearly not wanted by the majority of the cricket boards that make up the icc;so australia stop beating a dead horse already for goodness sake

  • ram5160 on July 1, 2010, 11:48 GMT

    Is this article supposed to be journalism? 1.Where is the Quotation from Isaac saying that he is angry or frustrated? Why do u try to lump NZC with CA? 2.Where are the articles showing the opposite POV, Howard s track record as a politico using the race card and so on? We have articles from Bal and Haigh supporting Howard, but surely equal space should be given to both sides of an argument. Frankly,we expect better from Cricinfo.

  • on July 1, 2010, 11:45 GMT

    Howard's handling of the Zimbabwe and Muralidharan issues show he lacks tact. In my opinion, he is too Australian and if he was not good enough to run CA, he certainly is not good enough to run for ICC. Benaud / Hadlee may be better choices because of what they can offer to these top executives in ICC who clearly lack the cricketing nous to take crucial decisions. What we need is a good cricketing brain and not someone who has played politics to come on top. Sorry but cricket and politics should not mix. Let Howard be the CA president or whatever for a few months / years and then he can be considered for ICC's top job. Not before that.

  • on July 1, 2010, 11:32 GMT

    @ Andy Brown - hey Mr. Brown, it's not Asian sub politics. it's called your past haunts you politics. No! Howard, No! Darrel, No! rasicm, end of talk.

  • UnderDog1630 on July 1, 2010, 11:31 GMT

    Why should somebody give a reason to reject. In democracy you just vote yes/no. You dont give reasons.....

  • wanderer1 on July 1, 2010, 11:19 GMT

    I suppose this is what they call "flogging a dead horse". Rule number 1 of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, whilst expecting a different result to what has gone before.

  • Bytheway on July 1, 2010, 11:07 GMT

    There are two conflicting issues here: 1) Australia & NZ have a right to nominate a candidate, 2) The ICC member countries have a right expect an experienced cricket administrator for the top job. I think CA & NZ's decision to nominate Howard is more romantic than pragmatic.

  • leifedling on July 1, 2010, 10:43 GMT

    Exactly what was to be expected of Howard. Brazen as ever. I just hope he does not succeed if he does get a second chance.

  • ak54 on July 1, 2010, 10:40 GMT

    its always india's fault. India opposed Howard- India's fault. Srilanka opposed him- India's fault. Pakistan opposed him- India's fault. Its always India.

    As per article India also had a role in providing support to deny Howard. "If India said yes, it would have got through," a source close to the negotiations told Cricinfo.

  • Zubdog on July 1, 2010, 10:40 GMT

    They're implying that this decision is racially motivated when some journalists have been saying "African and Asian countries are opposed to Howard's appointment". All they ask for is for someone with previous experience in cricket administration. Howard has not even said sorry to Murali for his comments!

  • on July 1, 2010, 10:37 GMT

    Welcome to the new world order.

  • D.V.C. on July 1, 2010, 10:35 GMT

    @braindead_rocker: Actually they didn't have the vote. But this is not meant to be an election, it is meant to be a rubber-stamping of Australia and New Zealand's choice. It is supposed to be an acknowledgement that those two members have followed a rigorous procedure, not a popularity contest. The members who are against aren't even giving the same reason. Some are saying they don't want a non-cricket person. However, the precedent of a non-cricket person has already been set, so that isn't a reason to vote against. Besides there are plenty of examples of people coming from outside sport to administrate that do a fantastic job. Nick Greiner for Soccer Australia comes to mind as a prime example.

  • on July 1, 2010, 10:32 GMT

    Mr. Howard might have been a good administrator in a homogenous envrionment (within Australia) and backed very legally by their boards. Mr. Howard did not provide any confidence of doing well in a heterogenous environment like ICC. In fact, Mr.Howard's remarks were disparaging and condescending when relating to cricketing matters of certain countries, hardly which, ICC or Cricket needs know. Mr. Howard would do more damage to cricket if he continues to press. I guess trusted men in AUS and NZ would think right eventually.

  • on July 1, 2010, 10:21 GMT

    what if he got selected for the post...?????

  • moosa_sweeper on July 1, 2010, 10:19 GMT

    when will the arrogant australian board learn to listen to the others and consider them as equals? they knew that howard was a controversial candidate from the outset, but they chose to flex their muscles anyways in order to appease their local politicians. face it, the world doesn't rotate around you, so please stop crying.

  • Krags on July 1, 2010, 10:18 GMT

    Are Aussies and English ready to accept Mr R Mubagwe as the ICC President, when Zimbabwe's turn arives ?

  • spinkingKK on July 1, 2010, 9:41 GMT

    I am an Australian Indian. I don't agree with the people's comments that Howard is unsuitable. Howard, from what I know, is a cricket lover and appreciate the game and will have some new ideas to the game. At the same time, he doesn't hold back his opinions as a person when asked about Muralitharan's actions. Everybody has their rights to express. That's all he has done. With regards to what happened in Zimbabwe, I can not comment because all what I know is what was said in the media in Australia and according to that, what happened there was very very bad and there was nothing wrong in sanctioning Zimababwe for that. However, I do not support Howard for all his policies as a politician. But, if being a politician is wrong, how did Sharad Powar get in? I do respect the majority votes from the associate countries, but there was no need for the votes in the first place. All I can say is Howard will fit the position perfectly and could have brought in something new, like GST (lol)

  • on July 1, 2010, 9:39 GMT

    This is the Asian sub continent politicking coming to the fore again

  • Mutukisna on July 1, 2010, 9:38 GMT

    Howard has been rejected. Why are they trying to unleash this loose canon on World Cricket? World Cricket wil split into two factions if this man is appointed. He has been put to grass by the Australian voters and for everyone's sake should remain there! It is not the politiician in him that has caused the rejection but the man himself. Australia and New Zealand Cricket should put forward another candidate who may or may not be a politician. How about the Rt. Hon. Kevin Rudd?

  • harshik on July 1, 2010, 9:31 GMT

    Nominate someone better. With cricket brain. New zealand should nominate and not support this absurd nomination

  • crackers134 on July 1, 2010, 9:22 GMT

    Disgraceful decision, John Howard is a great leader who would be much better for the ICC and world cricket than most of the incompetent people other countries put up for leadership positions in the ICC. The power of the African and Asian nations is too much, if Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are considered full member nations so should Ireland, who would at very at least be the equal of those nations but probably better if they weren't losing players to England. Of course India and the other "powers" from Asia and Africa wouldn't let them become full members, they would rather someone like Afghanistan, Nepal or Namibia so they have a guaranteed extra vote for all their agendas. I hope Australia, NZ and England stand firm and re-nominate one of the great leaders of modern times and stand up to the Asian/African monopoly.

  • IntCricket on July 1, 2010, 9:11 GMT

    Aus is establishing a precedent here, now Zim just has to nominate Mugabe when it is their turn and from what Aus say they will have to accept him unconditionally.........

  • SumitSahai on July 1, 2010, 9:06 GMT

    Its ironic that a BCCI chap objects to Howard's nomination on the basis that "only a man with previous experience in cricket administration should head the ICC". If that were to strictly apply, Sharad Pawar wouldn't be elected either. But you'd expect that kind of political ineptness from BCCI.

    But who cares? No one has cared to tell the public why Howard is suitable for the role, and no knows really why he is deemed unsuitable for it either. And I'm not even sure what the role of the ICC VP is. A few years down the line, we'll wonder what the fuss was all about.

  • Andare on July 1, 2010, 8:56 GMT

    A country like Australia surely can nominate someone better than Howard.. At least someone who can play back yard cricket and know how to hold a bat. Where there are so many respectable ex players, who no one would even stand in their way, why Howard?

  • Ed_Lamb on July 1, 2010, 8:56 GMT

    Whether or not he's a good candidate can only be known by those that know him professionally, but the suggestion that everyone in the ICC needs to have experience in cricket administration to be successful is absurd. They desperately need outside influence because at the moment they "manage" cricket rather than showing strategic leadership - they need a group of people happy to make tough decisions and it's exactly the "we did not want an outsider to meddle with the ICC" that will block progress/leadership. Whoever said that needs to think about the future of the game, not protecting their own comfortable position.

  • magd2992 on July 1, 2010, 7:58 GMT

    This is a disappointing, yet ultimately unsurprising, result. I lived in Australia during the entirety of Howard's reign as Prime Minister, and, although I did not agree with a many of his policies during that time nor did I ever vote for his government, I respected him as a administrator, a diplomat and a leader. I believe Howard is an excellent candidate for this ICC role and by rejecting his nomination, the ICC board has made an incorrect and politically motivated decision. To say that "only a man with previous experience in cricket administration should head the ICC" is ridiculous. Howard has a lifetime of experience in *public* administration and over 11 years experience running a country. No matter how hard the ICC board might try to convince itself otherwise, the importance and complex nature of administration in the ICC simply pales in comparison to what Howard has experienced and achieved in every respect. Except, maybe, its political nature.

  • RedRascal on July 1, 2010, 7:31 GMT

    If they love him so much, let them elect him as the head of CA then !

  • kumar57 on July 1, 2010, 7:27 GMT

    Having read the comments on how the Afro-Asian bloc had taken a bad political decision,I just cant help wondering as to what the views of the English/Aussie/NZ journos and cricket honchos would be were SA/Zimbabwe decide to nominate Robert Mugabe ( if he is still around)as their nominee when their turn comes around the next time.

  • Periander on July 1, 2010, 7:21 GMT

    Regardless of what you think of him as an individual, (and heck, I would never have voted for him), a politician who has made it to the top office in their respective nation is going to be a very skilful administrator.

    It would be of great benefit for the ICC and cricket in general to have someone of his calibre in this position.

    It's not a 'democracy' in a true sense like some have suggested. Nations take turns to put forth a candidate, and in this case Australia have suggested a former PM; but the other nations have not given a reason why he is not suitable for the role.

  • jonno67 on July 1, 2010, 7:20 GMT

    @braindead_rocker:

    What part of "Didn't get to a vote" do you have trouble understanding?. This might help you: "Both Clarke and Alan Isaac, the New Zealand chairman, were angry and frustrated with the outcome of the ICC board meeting in which the Howard issue didn't get to a vote"

    @ plsn, Yeah that would be really smart, DH.

  • on July 1, 2010, 7:13 GMT

    I'm not sure what the fuss is. Howard may be a politician, and a very very successful one, who, while may not be the most popular with everyone, run our country very well for 13 years minus a few policies, which while i disagree with, it doesn't change the fact he was successful. For those who say that he isn't qualified to be a cricket administrator...i'm sorry but what is the ICC board if not all about politics? Its politics between boards, between everyone else and india more specifically, but he is more then qualified on those grounds alone.

    And one thing you can say about Howard, is that he lives his cricket. I think he would be good for the ICC.

    Why not just let be vice for 2 years, and if he still doesn't seem up for it just not let him be president and let the current president continue for another year while you tranisition the next in line in.

  • Enrico1973 on July 1, 2010, 7:07 GMT

    Isn't this typical? Hard to find a difference between sports and politics these days. Howard should just retire to the armchair and enjoy watching cricket from a snooky-little elders home rather try to gain access to the ICC.

  • doctorsushi on July 1, 2010, 6:52 GMT

    Its a bit silly of Australia to start complaining of continental bullying - after all they bullied NZ into putting Howard forward in the first place, ahead of their own far more qualified Sir Anderson. The 'committee' which selected Howard was a joke and at some point NZ Cricket will end their public support and pitch for the better man.

    It would also be good to hear NZ's side of this story rather than the superficial fob-offs reported so far...

  • simon_w on July 1, 2010, 6:14 GMT

    I'm soooo fed up of the politicking in the ICC, and its (not unrelated) general standard of uselessness. It's really spoiling the game. I can't remember the last time the ICC did or announced something that didn't smack of power-brokering or ineptitude - usually both.

  • on July 1, 2010, 6:07 GMT

    ICC needs a leader who can Unite...On the basis of his previous remarks and recordes, Howerd is a Divider...

  • TheOnlyEmperor on July 1, 2010, 6:06 GMT

    This is nothing. Wait till Tony Blair gets rejected!

  • Sanki88 on July 1, 2010, 5:55 GMT

    Doesn't he understand the meaning of the word 'refuse'? This is exactly not the type of person that cricket doesn't need, it's the ultimate gentlemen's game. If this so called 'best nomination' was a gentleman, he'd have stepped down. I hope that New Zealand will build up some courage to come up with a better nomination. I have no such hopes on the Aussies.

  • on July 1, 2010, 5:53 GMT

    The sooner people open their eyes and see that the BCCI is destroying cricket the better. The game as I grew up with and loved is being high jacked by people more concerned with money than the game.

    India .. wake up to yourselves, and try talking to other nations rather than asserting your will on them!! It's not what you wanted when you were fighting to be recognised, so why become something that you didn't like. Try being a force for positivity instead of negetivity.

  • ZEUS00 on July 1, 2010, 5:52 GMT

    We can have Howard back in 2021 after he's spent the next decade introspecting over his foot-in-the-mouth raspings!

  • cricket_for_all on July 1, 2010, 5:46 GMT

    So The Australian wanted to rule the ICC like they did in the past?. What is the meaning of democracy?

  • aceruser on July 1, 2010, 5:34 GMT

    I agree, Australia should put some one as nomination known to cricketing world. I doubt any one would reject..........and please Australia stop being a kid and making a big deal out of this rejected nominee. You forwarded a name, rest of the world dont like it, forward some one else's name...simple.

  • Raj2506 on July 1, 2010, 5:33 GMT

    Mr. Howard is a wrong choice, i guess there are lot of deserving candidates from Aus/NZ. Howard will influence politics and authority which will favor Aus, NZ and Eng

  • 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, 4:48 GMT

    'Cricket Australia keep backing John Howard for ICC'

    Some eminent person once defined insanity as repeating the same act while hoping for a different result

  • Mark-Johnson on July 1, 2010, 4:43 GMT

    Now it is very evident that there is a clear division in ICC. One Australia, England, Pakistan and Newzealand and other India, Sirilanka, Bangladesh, South Africa, Zimbabway and West Indies on the issue of Harvard.

  • M-S-R on July 1, 2010, 4:17 GMT

    I don't understand why ICC should accept someone as a leader when his own country rejected him!

  • Antir on July 1, 2010, 4:16 GMT

    People keep saying that John Howard wants this position and he asking people to vote for him. The issue is not John Howard. Neither is the issue the equally unpopular members who are currently on the ICC board.

    The issue is that Australia and New Zealand put forward a strong candidate as their nomination and it was rejected arbitrarily. They approached the people that they would like to nominate. They consider the best option for the current postion coming up. I do not care if it was two horse race, they have decided on one horse. The 6 member nations, who have rejected the nomination, have rejected Cricket Australia and Cricket New Zealand.

    The vitriolic politicised rubbish that is being posted on here is very disturbing. It means that people are happy for the orderly processes of the ICC to be undermined/corrupted at will by financial coercion. THIS IS NOT CRICKET. A new aparthied is being formed by people drunk with power using money as a weapon.

  • on July 1, 2010, 4:14 GMT

    The ICC have been a joke for years, so nothing new with this sort of decision. A spineless, gutless organisation only supassed in cronyism, nepotism and self indulgence by FIFA.

  • lloydele on July 1, 2010, 4:01 GMT

    Its obvious why the subcontinent don't want Howard. Howard showed how bright he was when he made unwarranted negative comments about Muralitharan. I am an Australian and can see the Shallowness of Howard's comment. I would not have chose Howard based on that comment itself. Also it seemed clear that Australia out muscled NZ to choose Howard. In fact, the result of Howard being rejected could have been expected. He is going to be further embarrassed if he does not withdraw.

  • jillpreston on July 1, 2010, 3:59 GMT

    Suranga Silva, kudos on your accurate observation. You also know who flies on brooms

  • FJ88 on July 1, 2010, 3:50 GMT

    This actually misses the point that the Australians effectvely bullied their way over NZ to have Howard put forward as the nominee, espcially considering the most recent president from this region was Malcolm Gray - an Aussie. The whole thing was a farce selecting Howard over Anderson and its now come back to bite them. Karma

  • on July 1, 2010, 3:47 GMT

    If there is a voting system to make the selection and if JH has not got enough support then thats it. Speed or Aus and NZ boards do not have any authority to critisize other boards decisions what ever they may be. What is the purpose of having a voting system if people are not willing to accept the final outcome irrespective of whether they are happy with it or not? Aus NZ please grow up

  • popcorn on July 1, 2010, 3:46 GMT

    How dores Sharad Pawar qualify to be ICC President? He has no cricketing background.

  • on July 1, 2010, 3:03 GMT

    Clearly, something is cooking behind the scenes and under the hood.

  • on July 1, 2010, 2:13 GMT

    Correct decision by the member countries , Howard is a power hungry politician who doesn't know what to say or when to shut up , look at the picture he is holding the bat like a broom , he he he

  • on July 1, 2010, 2:03 GMT

    Why don't you just retire with some dignity...

  • plsn on July 1, 2010, 1:46 GMT

    Put up Alan Border or Richard Hadlee and see if they wil not be elected unanimously. And England(on the sly) will not be unhappy with this outcome!

  • KiQa55 on July 1, 2010, 1:28 GMT

    Check the Poll results on this topic on Cricinfos home page. Nobody wants him. Go home Howard.

  • braindead_rocker on July 1, 2010, 1:19 GMT

    Now this is ridiculous. In a democratic vote, he was told that he wasn't wanted...Now sticking to his stand will add to his misery. Better Australia listen to NZ and nominate Mr Anderson.

    Sorry Howard, but your earlier mistakes cannot be undone now.

  • on July 1, 2010, 0:52 GMT

    In March 2010 Muralitharan said, "He [Howard] has to convince the subcontinent - that's going to be a tough challenge for him."

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on July 1, 2010, 0:52 GMT

    In March 2010 Muralitharan said, "He [Howard] has to convince the subcontinent - that's going to be a tough challenge for him."

  • braindead_rocker on July 1, 2010, 1:19 GMT

    Now this is ridiculous. In a democratic vote, he was told that he wasn't wanted...Now sticking to his stand will add to his misery. Better Australia listen to NZ and nominate Mr Anderson.

    Sorry Howard, but your earlier mistakes cannot be undone now.

  • KiQa55 on July 1, 2010, 1:28 GMT

    Check the Poll results on this topic on Cricinfos home page. Nobody wants him. Go home Howard.

  • plsn on July 1, 2010, 1:46 GMT

    Put up Alan Border or Richard Hadlee and see if they wil not be elected unanimously. And England(on the sly) will not be unhappy with this outcome!

  • on July 1, 2010, 2:03 GMT

    Why don't you just retire with some dignity...

  • on July 1, 2010, 2:13 GMT

    Correct decision by the member countries , Howard is a power hungry politician who doesn't know what to say or when to shut up , look at the picture he is holding the bat like a broom , he he he

  • on July 1, 2010, 3:03 GMT

    Clearly, something is cooking behind the scenes and under the hood.

  • popcorn on July 1, 2010, 3:46 GMT

    How dores Sharad Pawar qualify to be ICC President? He has no cricketing background.

  • on July 1, 2010, 3:47 GMT

    If there is a voting system to make the selection and if JH has not got enough support then thats it. Speed or Aus and NZ boards do not have any authority to critisize other boards decisions what ever they may be. What is the purpose of having a voting system if people are not willing to accept the final outcome irrespective of whether they are happy with it or not? Aus NZ please grow up

  • FJ88 on July 1, 2010, 3:50 GMT

    This actually misses the point that the Australians effectvely bullied their way over NZ to have Howard put forward as the nominee, espcially considering the most recent president from this region was Malcolm Gray - an Aussie. The whole thing was a farce selecting Howard over Anderson and its now come back to bite them. Karma