ICC news July 2, 2010

New Zealand unsure if Anderson wants ICC role

Cricinfo staff

As the dust settles on the ICC board's rejection of John Howard as its next vice-president, it is unclear whether the man he beat for the nomination, Sir John Anderson, still wants the job. Anderson, a former chairman of New Zealand Cricket, would be the logical candidate if the Australian and New Zealand boards decide against continuing the push for Howard.

Howard was the joint nominee of NZC and Cricket Australia, but New Zealand were originally keen for their man Anderson to be put forward instead. But after the bitter events of the past few days, Justin Vaughan, the chief executive of NZC, said he was unsure whether Anderson would still be interested in the role, which is a stepping stone to becoming ICC president.

"He is a busy man," Vaughan told the Dominion Post. "Since January, he has taken on a few more directorships, he's now the chairman of PGG Wrightsons. The ICC president's role takes a lot of time if you want to do it well. The other point is the events of the last week have probably made the ICC not quite as attractive a proposition to people as it was.

"I imagine there would be a bit of hesitancy from anyone to put their name forward because you never know if it is going to be torpedoed. We need a bit more clarity from the ICC as to why John Howard was unsuitable and rejected."

The ICC presidency is decided on a rotational system in which each region is given a turn and nominates its preferred candidate, and Vaughan said the ICC board should have adhered to that process. He said it was not appropriate for the position to become a popularity contest.

"Although there were certain people that felt that Sir John was a better candidate at the time of selection, we really felt the process and the integrity of the process was more important," he said. "So from the date the choice was made we have had no hesitation in giving our full support to John Howard.

"NZC is held up as a model of good governance in terms of having independent directors who do what is best for cricket. But that obviously doesn't apply to the ICC and that is a shame."