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....

  • dummy4fb 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..

  • dummy4fb 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!

  • dummy4fb 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.

  • No featured comments at the moment.