ICC news July 2, 2010

New Zealand unsure if Anderson wants ICC role

Cricinfo staff
35

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."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • SteveMiller on July 4, 2010, 3:05 GMT

    @Ken McCarron: I find it hard to understand how people don't see why others (myself included) think Howard is a racist, and therefore a very poor candidate to put forward. His record on Apartheid, his record on reconciliation, his record on Asia literacy in Asutralia, the difference between the sympathy he showed for white farmers in Zimbabwe and the lack thereof for refugees from Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. There is absolutely no evidence that the increase in Asian immigration in the later years of his government was the result of active engagement with Asia---it's just the result of more Asians meeting the immigration requirements and applying. There may well be deep problems at the ICC, but blind Freddy should have been able to see that Howard was never the solution. In fact, he may well be a gift to those at the heart of the problems.

  • Ambarsaria_NZ on July 4, 2010, 2:57 GMT

    I don think Sir Anderson wants the job. Bcs he knws its Australian board who will decide this & they will definitely put forward another OZ name for the job....

  • on July 3, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    Where do people really get the idea that John Howard was against Asians. Too many people have been influenced by absolute garbage. Go back and look through the media...more Asians migrated to Australia during Howard's reign than at any other time in Australia's history. Howard has always been a fan of India and openly supported all cricketing nations including Zimbabwe (but not Mugabe). The cricket boards of India and other nearby nations are openly corrupt. Besides, you don't need to have a PhD to run cricket but you do need admin experience and who better than an eleven year PM?

  • maddy20 on July 3, 2010, 5:06 GMT

    I think Anderson would have been the perfect choice. Not only Howard was never associated with any cricket board, his attitude towards the asian nations was pathetic to say the least! Nominate Anderson and he would get 9/10 votes(not sure about the Aussies vote). @Popcorn: Where on earth have you been mate? If you are not aware Sharad Pawar was the president of BCCI BEFORE he took the top job. I am sure you wouldn't want howard to even manage the team(let alone as CA president) would ya? More so considering the disastrous state of the current Australian cricket team!

  • mkhan1965 on July 3, 2010, 4:47 GMT

    Interesting discussion here. It's seems for us Asians (I mean Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans & somewhat reluctant Indians), it is our responsibility and right to choose who is right for the job, not New Zealand and Australian crickect boards'.

    I believe when Howard was selected by their boards, they followed all the rules and requirements. Now, after the candidate has been forwarded, we have to create a new requirement (experience as cricket administrator) to force him out. This shows why our nations are so much in mess.

    I hope NZC & AC would not stoop low to those, who believe in excercising medieval-style muscle power in running the ICC show, and refrain from forwarding another candidate. Let those boards that think they know better 'who is suited for the job' forward the right candidate.

  • rocky0109 on July 3, 2010, 4:36 GMT

    What the crap is happening in cricket?? What are th politicans are doing in the cricket administration ?? Why is the cricket world divided??Why is everyone acting so selfishly??Don't think either Howard or Pawar can do anything good for cricket.Bring someone who understands cricket well and takes cricket to new heights.Its time for Boards to put forward some genuine persons for the job.. Act wisely guys..Its end of the cricket matters not the person..Wake up..

  • on July 3, 2010, 1:04 GMT

    Hope some common sense prevails and Sir John is nominated. And for those seeking on Pawar, he has atleast served as President of BCCI. Yeah he is a politician but has some cricket knowledge thanks to his helm at BCCI. @ Pop corn : ICC has gone to dogs and has what you said happened it ld be to Pigs.

  • vivanek on July 3, 2010, 0:35 GMT

    Get someone else to do it. Surely these countries(Aus and NZ) have an education system capable of producing Administrators.

  • Ausgal24 on July 2, 2010, 23:26 GMT

    Justin Vaughan is trying hard not to look like a puppet at the hands of CA! One can imagine surreptitious phone calls et al, "you scratch my back, and I promise to repay the favour" etc.....and numerous other political things transpiring. Sir John would have been such a better choice of candidates, can't believe the Kiwis let us have the last word, yet again, on such a key international issue. Howard should spend the next few years of his life doing penance in Tibet, and perhaps then the world will be ready to forgive him for his misdeeds. We shouldn't even begin to itemize them, the list is inexhaustible!

  • on July 2, 2010, 23:12 GMT

    in the first place they knew he was controversial, the way he has behaved with the asians. And this was definately on the cards, almost inevitable! They should put up a guy who is respected in the cricket fraternity and has a supportive record towards all playin nations.

  • SteveMiller on July 4, 2010, 3:05 GMT

    @Ken McCarron: I find it hard to understand how people don't see why others (myself included) think Howard is a racist, and therefore a very poor candidate to put forward. His record on Apartheid, his record on reconciliation, his record on Asia literacy in Asutralia, the difference between the sympathy he showed for white farmers in Zimbabwe and the lack thereof for refugees from Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. There is absolutely no evidence that the increase in Asian immigration in the later years of his government was the result of active engagement with Asia---it's just the result of more Asians meeting the immigration requirements and applying. There may well be deep problems at the ICC, but blind Freddy should have been able to see that Howard was never the solution. In fact, he may well be a gift to those at the heart of the problems.

  • Ambarsaria_NZ on July 4, 2010, 2:57 GMT

    I don think Sir Anderson wants the job. Bcs he knws its Australian board who will decide this & they will definitely put forward another OZ name for the job....

  • on July 3, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    Where do people really get the idea that John Howard was against Asians. Too many people have been influenced by absolute garbage. Go back and look through the media...more Asians migrated to Australia during Howard's reign than at any other time in Australia's history. Howard has always been a fan of India and openly supported all cricketing nations including Zimbabwe (but not Mugabe). The cricket boards of India and other nearby nations are openly corrupt. Besides, you don't need to have a PhD to run cricket but you do need admin experience and who better than an eleven year PM?

  • maddy20 on July 3, 2010, 5:06 GMT

    I think Anderson would have been the perfect choice. Not only Howard was never associated with any cricket board, his attitude towards the asian nations was pathetic to say the least! Nominate Anderson and he would get 9/10 votes(not sure about the Aussies vote). @Popcorn: Where on earth have you been mate? If you are not aware Sharad Pawar was the president of BCCI BEFORE he took the top job. I am sure you wouldn't want howard to even manage the team(let alone as CA president) would ya? More so considering the disastrous state of the current Australian cricket team!

  • mkhan1965 on July 3, 2010, 4:47 GMT

    Interesting discussion here. It's seems for us Asians (I mean Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans & somewhat reluctant Indians), it is our responsibility and right to choose who is right for the job, not New Zealand and Australian crickect boards'.

    I believe when Howard was selected by their boards, they followed all the rules and requirements. Now, after the candidate has been forwarded, we have to create a new requirement (experience as cricket administrator) to force him out. This shows why our nations are so much in mess.

    I hope NZC & AC would not stoop low to those, who believe in excercising medieval-style muscle power in running the ICC show, and refrain from forwarding another candidate. Let those boards that think they know better 'who is suited for the job' forward the right candidate.

  • rocky0109 on July 3, 2010, 4:36 GMT

    What the crap is happening in cricket?? What are th politicans are doing in the cricket administration ?? Why is the cricket world divided??Why is everyone acting so selfishly??Don't think either Howard or Pawar can do anything good for cricket.Bring someone who understands cricket well and takes cricket to new heights.Its time for Boards to put forward some genuine persons for the job.. Act wisely guys..Its end of the cricket matters not the person..Wake up..

  • on July 3, 2010, 1:04 GMT

    Hope some common sense prevails and Sir John is nominated. And for those seeking on Pawar, he has atleast served as President of BCCI. Yeah he is a politician but has some cricket knowledge thanks to his helm at BCCI. @ Pop corn : ICC has gone to dogs and has what you said happened it ld be to Pigs.

  • vivanek on July 3, 2010, 0:35 GMT

    Get someone else to do it. Surely these countries(Aus and NZ) have an education system capable of producing Administrators.

  • Ausgal24 on July 2, 2010, 23:26 GMT

    Justin Vaughan is trying hard not to look like a puppet at the hands of CA! One can imagine surreptitious phone calls et al, "you scratch my back, and I promise to repay the favour" etc.....and numerous other political things transpiring. Sir John would have been such a better choice of candidates, can't believe the Kiwis let us have the last word, yet again, on such a key international issue. Howard should spend the next few years of his life doing penance in Tibet, and perhaps then the world will be ready to forgive him for his misdeeds. We shouldn't even begin to itemize them, the list is inexhaustible!

  • on July 2, 2010, 23:12 GMT

    in the first place they knew he was controversial, the way he has behaved with the asians. And this was definately on the cards, almost inevitable! They should put up a guy who is respected in the cricket fraternity and has a supportive record towards all playin nations.

  • Squizza on July 2, 2010, 20:33 GMT

    ILL DO IT!! I have many ideas that will change the cricketing world!!!

  • chaithan on July 2, 2010, 17:48 GMT

    That's a silly comment from Vaughan. Howard was rejected because he was deemed to be unsuitable and his integrity was in doubt, not as a show of power by the Asian bloc(who did not even initiate the opposition to him). The problem was with the candidate and there was no other reason for the rejection. Instead of taking it as an insult to Australian pride, CA and NZC should consider a different candidate. Australia should accept that Howard was forced out in the same way they forced out Anderson at an earlier stage.

  • reeksrok on July 2, 2010, 17:42 GMT

    I totally agree with Rajesh here. Let CA make him the next president and then try for ICC. If John had been nominated then surely this fiasco would not have taken place is everybody's claim so lets try and see the result.

  • Jim1207 on July 2, 2010, 15:34 GMT

    Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was answering whippersnapper infact. And, @Sitting-on-a-gate & @RohanChoukkar: FYI, I am an Indian and from Coimbatore, TN (if you want credibility, you can search in google my user id and the word cricinfo, and you ll see all my comments) and you and I know about Indian press and no need to save their name by blaming Aus press now! And, to say that Indian press has little / no coverage on this issue is such a joke, everyone knows. You just have to turn TV on and see indian news channels. Btw, I support Howard's rejection but just plainly stating the truth about Indian press. I hope its clear to you!

  • popcorn on July 2, 2010, 14:25 GMT

    Australia and New Zealand SHOULD NOT field another candidate. That would be a compromise. Let it go.ICC has already gone to the dogs.Only John Howard could have retreved it.

  • popcorn on July 2, 2010, 14:20 GMT

    The duplicity of these countries who voted against Howard is disgusting. Is Sharad Pawar qualified to be ICC President with NO experience as a Cricket administrator? Then why not John Howard?

  • Hassan.Farooqi on July 2, 2010, 13:22 GMT

    @Rajeshs239. Ditto. Why is Mr. Howard not the president of CA if he is indispensable for cricket? After all charity should start from home. My guess is, unlike Mr. Anderson who appears to be a popular person in New Zealand, Mr. Howard is not a popular guy in Australia at all. It would be like Pakistan nominating Senator Samiul Haq or India nominating Ball Thackeray. LOL.

  • mark135 on July 2, 2010, 12:55 GMT

    it's interesting the amount of opinions about this. there was a process. both countries fully supported the candidate. then something happened out of the normal process, the candidate was rejected. howard was not a political decision. to propose that shows that people are already judging howard based on petty bias from the past. this is a different role. why are the other countries so bent on rejecting him - they are MAKING it political if that is why they reject him! how hypocritical!

  • N_S_Sidhu on July 2, 2010, 12:48 GMT

    Putting forward Mr. Horward's name was itself a political step, by bringing in a former successful politician, would have no doubt made a stronger case for CA and NZC . And not supporting Mr. Howard in his bid was also a political step. Its' evident he doesn't govern enough trust from all the Member boards that'll make them support him for the highest post at ICC.Probably CA is taking the cue from BCCI, get big politicians placed at top roles in order to grow. Not sure how good it can be for the game of cricket. Delhi was stripped of hosting any International matches in front of all bigwigs present there. It will be better to have more former players involved in adminstration of the game, and to have some sort of balance, rather than ICC been run just by politicians.

  • eminem on July 2, 2010, 12:47 GMT

    Jim1207. where in the world have u been to. The press or media in India is not as regulated and manipulated as it is in Australia. The reason being India does not have a tabloid culture as in Australia. In Oz everything is driven thru the media and most people believe it like Bible truth. That doesnt happen in India mate. There its actual FREEDOM of the press, and in some cases its a bit out of control but thats another issue.

  • RohanChoukkar on July 2, 2010, 10:02 GMT

    @Jim1207: Australia has no shrill tabloids? Wow!

  • Rajeshs239 on July 2, 2010, 9:59 GMT

    First of all CA should make Mr. John Howard as president of CA and then they should try for ICC...Can CA make him as President of their own org?

  • aapple on July 2, 2010, 9:31 GMT

    Who was the ex All Black forward who got in the ring with Mal Meninga in a celebrity boxing match a couple of years ago? He was plenty tough enough for the ICC. Has a sporting background too. I'm sure the southern and western states would get behind him eventually

  • Sitting-on-a-gate on July 2, 2010, 9:24 GMT

    @jim1207-this mess has found absolutely no/ very little mention in the indian press. this particular howard's end (though EM Foster has a big following here :) ) is a non issue as far as i can see...

  • vajira12 on July 2, 2010, 7:59 GMT

    Vaughan is saying integrity of process was important than the integrity of the man. Sweet as.. as they say in NZ

  • hattima on July 2, 2010, 7:51 GMT

    @Scgboy: he should take it, as at the very least it would prove that he is a more acceptable personality than some others, and also because he should be able to run the ICC much better than his immediate predecessors.

  • GEBF on July 2, 2010, 7:33 GMT

    An OZ or a KIWI are costly, as they would have to be maintained either in Dubai, London or Singapore .The savings could be directed to help Afghans or Nepal; Some one with County cricket credentials is more valuable than John Howard.

  • Jim1207 on July 2, 2010, 6:50 GMT

    Indian press is a useless and always biased, providing exaggerating and sensitive information to boost their revenues. If anyone takes these news seriously and get offended, thats what these pressmen want and they would report anything absurd to achieve in getting foreign viewers too to read their news.

  • Bang_La on July 2, 2010, 6:00 GMT

    Sir John Anderson must be presented as next candidate though I doubt if he wants to be a second option while he was genuinely an excellent candidate until Australia bullied NZ to supersede him by Howard. If Australia bullies again, NZC should show some guts and stand up against and tell them where to go. No one will oppose Sir John Anderson.

  • kickoz on July 2, 2010, 5:59 GMT

    Still you belive that Howard is god selection?? I don't

  • raza14 on July 2, 2010, 5:04 GMT

    Everybody at ICC is an important figure, part of a popularity contest, even a celebrity but I wonder nobody have the mind to think that this incident is harming cricket in all. Cricket already confined to a limited number of countries for last couple of decades and hadn't moved forward, is now being damaged by such silly things at ICC level, People need this game to flourish in the world rather in India & Australia only. BCCI & CA should think about the spirit of cricket instead of economics of cricket. God Bless Good Cricket, free of Racism and politics.

  • fairdinkum on July 2, 2010, 4:01 GMT

    Sir John may be just what the ICC want. Only able to do it part-time and with reported health issues. Not suggesting he would be a compliant vice president but could be sidelined easily. I think it is a poisoned chalice.

  • whippersnapper on July 2, 2010, 2:27 GMT

    This whole issue has been brought down into the gutter. I was never a fan of John Howard the Prime Minister (too right wing for me), nor am I all that concerned he was knocked back from the vice presidents job. But Indian press over night labelling Howard a racist etc is just unnecessary and over the top. It really needs to be sorted quickly so cricket can move on. Please!

  • SRT_Jammy_Dada_VVS_and_Anil_legends on July 1, 2010, 22:44 GMT

    Probably the first time that Justin Vaughan has said what he's really thinking in his time as NZ Cricket CEO- good on him.

  • Scgboy on July 1, 2010, 21:13 GMT

    I am an Aussie and i would have supported the guy . That said , if he has any pride , he wouldn't take it. would anyone ?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Scgboy on July 1, 2010, 21:13 GMT

    I am an Aussie and i would have supported the guy . That said , if he has any pride , he wouldn't take it. would anyone ?

  • SRT_Jammy_Dada_VVS_and_Anil_legends on July 1, 2010, 22:44 GMT

    Probably the first time that Justin Vaughan has said what he's really thinking in his time as NZ Cricket CEO- good on him.

  • whippersnapper on July 2, 2010, 2:27 GMT

    This whole issue has been brought down into the gutter. I was never a fan of John Howard the Prime Minister (too right wing for me), nor am I all that concerned he was knocked back from the vice presidents job. But Indian press over night labelling Howard a racist etc is just unnecessary and over the top. It really needs to be sorted quickly so cricket can move on. Please!

  • fairdinkum on July 2, 2010, 4:01 GMT

    Sir John may be just what the ICC want. Only able to do it part-time and with reported health issues. Not suggesting he would be a compliant vice president but could be sidelined easily. I think it is a poisoned chalice.

  • raza14 on July 2, 2010, 5:04 GMT

    Everybody at ICC is an important figure, part of a popularity contest, even a celebrity but I wonder nobody have the mind to think that this incident is harming cricket in all. Cricket already confined to a limited number of countries for last couple of decades and hadn't moved forward, is now being damaged by such silly things at ICC level, People need this game to flourish in the world rather in India & Australia only. BCCI & CA should think about the spirit of cricket instead of economics of cricket. God Bless Good Cricket, free of Racism and politics.

  • kickoz on July 2, 2010, 5:59 GMT

    Still you belive that Howard is god selection?? I don't

  • Bang_La on July 2, 2010, 6:00 GMT

    Sir John Anderson must be presented as next candidate though I doubt if he wants to be a second option while he was genuinely an excellent candidate until Australia bullied NZ to supersede him by Howard. If Australia bullies again, NZC should show some guts and stand up against and tell them where to go. No one will oppose Sir John Anderson.

  • Jim1207 on July 2, 2010, 6:50 GMT

    Indian press is a useless and always biased, providing exaggerating and sensitive information to boost their revenues. If anyone takes these news seriously and get offended, thats what these pressmen want and they would report anything absurd to achieve in getting foreign viewers too to read their news.

  • GEBF on July 2, 2010, 7:33 GMT

    An OZ or a KIWI are costly, as they would have to be maintained either in Dubai, London or Singapore .The savings could be directed to help Afghans or Nepal; Some one with County cricket credentials is more valuable than John Howard.

  • hattima on July 2, 2010, 7:51 GMT

    @Scgboy: he should take it, as at the very least it would prove that he is a more acceptable personality than some others, and also because he should be able to run the ICC much better than his immediate predecessors.