ICC news July 2, 2010

Australia and New Zealand take time over next step

37

Cricket Australia is not rushing towards a decision on whether to re-nominate John Howard as ICC vice-president and will hold a special board meeting next week to determine its next move. Howard has gained support from the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand following his rejection for the ICC job in Singapore on Wednesday, while senior cricket officials have been left without explanations of why the appointment was denied.

Both cricket boards, which provided Howard as their joint nomination, are frustrated by the decision but will now take their time over any new announcement. A Cricket Australia spokesman told Cricinfo its board would wait for reports from the chairman Jack Clarke and James Sutherland, the chief executive, on the events in Singapore before deciding what happens next.

Justin Vaughan, the New Zealand Cricket chief executive, has spoken about the need to "let the dust settle" while Clarke also acknowledged "there's some water to flow under the bridge" before the candidate was finalised. Under the ICC's guidelines, it was the turn of New Zealand and Australia to select the vice-president, who would then take the top job in 2012.

The process stalled when board members from Africa and Asia blocked Howard's elevation. Australia and New Zealand were given until August 31 to provide another option for the position as Sharad Pawar's deputy.

John Key, the New Zealand prime minister, called it a "shocking decision". "I saw John on TV saying he's going to hold his ground and I think he should," Key told New Zealand radio.

Julia Gillard, Australia's prime minister, said she shared some of the concerns Howard had voiced publicly since being shut out. "I'd be very happy to offer full support for John Howard to get this role," she said.

Howard remains committed to the position and Cricket Australia will stand by him at least until the board meeting next week. New Zealand had originally pushed for Sir John Anderson in the role, but Vaughan indicated the job had become less appealing after the events in Singapore.

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • catalyst213 on July 8, 2010, 7:35 GMT

    CA and John Howard can even go lower than this, we may thin its too much but for them its just the beginning.

  • on July 6, 2010, 15:25 GMT

    Howard nomination was rejected by 7 countries.. not just India... Why did WI rejected it?? Srilanka had good enough reason to reject after Howard calling their national tresure,Murli a "chucker".. so forget about India's power or supporting the nomonation... Howard would have never got the desired 7 votes.. IT WAS A POOR NOMINATION.. DON'T PUT THE BLAME ON INDIA'S POWER.. ACCPET IT CA/NZ

  • arshadmomin on July 5, 2010, 21:19 GMT

    CA should be penalised for even nominating Howard. I can't myself much of a follower. I am just an ordinary fan. Even I have heard enough negative headlines from Howard in recent years.

  • TheOnlyEmperor on July 5, 2010, 7:35 GMT

    I now expect the Aussi media to blame the Indians for "casting a veto on Howard" as "political revenge" for: 1. Racist attacks on Indians in Aus. 2. Australia's consistent refusal to give uranium to India. 3. Aus and NZs action in repeatedly wanting India to sign the NPT and CTBT. And this is exactly the muck that cricket fans would have to deal with, if politicians were to get involved in cricket. How come the Aussies don't get this? :P

  • TheOnlyEmperor on July 5, 2010, 7:20 GMT

    I have the perfect solution to this insanity. Kylie Minogue would be the perfect Aussi nominee. She could be ICC's face bringing various cultures togther in the cricketing world as well as attracting the Europeans and Americas into cricket. She could do a lot more to cricket than Shakira has done to promote FIFA WC-SA! Cricket would be seen as glamorous and fashionable and show biz stuff...making it popular worldwide and bringing in tons of money, something that Modi's IPL managed to do...and why leave Modi out? He is an excellent organiser with enough talent/spunk to host a cricket WC in Brazil if need be! His recent fallout with the BCCI shd give him brownie points for an ICC job - he wd know how to rein in the BCCI! He wd bring life back to the Eng county system as well as to WI cricket? Who knows? The other board members can spend time, ensuring that all the deals are clean and inked with the the i's dotted and t's crossed. I vote for a Kylie-Modi partnership at the ICC!:P

  • Chris_P on July 3, 2010, 23:03 GMT

    All I have read toi date is speculation. At no time has the ICC memberrs stated the reason for their stance and that is all CA and NZ want. So what is the real reason guys? Come on, spit it out, what is it about Howard that is spooking you? Anywhere else in the civilized world, you get a reason for a rejected application, well, anywhere else in the developed world. As stated numerous times, there has not been a vote, just a rejection of the candidate so there needs to be a reason given. Both the boards of Australia and NZ deserve that. The ICC has set up a process that all countires not only voted on but endorsed, yet they don't follow their process they adopted? Hmmmmm, look at the facts, 3 countries out of 10 are represented without any issue of political corruption, human rights issues or corruption whereas 7 other countires have had a history of it. Guess which 7?

  • SujithBabu on July 3, 2010, 11:28 GMT

    England and Australia had veto power in the ICC till the mid-80s. I do not see any of the Toms, Johns and Mucks ever mentioning this in any of the comments. Not too long ago, IS Bindra was not allowed to become the ICC CEO because couple of years down the track Shard Pawar was to be the ICC president and thus it would lead 2 Indians holdingthe 2 of the highest posts of ICC simultaneously . At the same time, it was okay for 2 Australians to be the CEO and President of the ICC simultaneously. Hypocrisy has no end.

  • Sungupta on July 3, 2010, 7:07 GMT

    It is amusing to read the comments of the Australian and New Zealand Prime Ministers that they are still backing Mr. Howard for the post offering full support. Normally Australia champions democracy when applied to others and cuts off diplomatic relations with countries when there is a coup or disputed elections. How is it that now they do not want to accept the democratic verdict handed out by the ICC board members? Frankly, this appears to be symptomatic of a superiority attitude when they feel that they have a right to disregard the wishes of the majority.

  • Dubby49 on July 3, 2010, 6:59 GMT

    If you can't reject a candidate nominated by a bloc, why have a vote? Whatever, Mr Howard's talents it is clear he is a divisive character. The fact that from the very start four boards clearly opposed his candidacy andwhile three supported it, should have given CA a clear indication that pushing Howard's case was likely to cause ructions. According to Morgan, the three fence sitters - India, BD and WI chose to dump Howard in the final run up so don't blame India for having engineered this defeat.

    Continuing to push Howard for the VPs job is stupid. And why are the Australian and NZ PMs getting involved. Part of the problem was Howard speaking out of turn re Murali. Time the Aussies learnt they have no longer have a veto power in the ICC.

  • The_Wog on July 3, 2010, 5:53 GMT

    @raghavmadan, what precisely are these "comments against Mandela" that everyone seems to "know" about? Personally, as an Aussie I would have voted for the well credentialled Kiwi. I don't see how defending our borders (as does every country on earth) from pirates, terrorists and queue-jumpers, and leading us into the sub-prime crisis with a solvent banking system, zero net debt and (thereby sparing us from the GFC unlike countries without those advantages) qualifies him for cricket administration any more than Anderson would be qualified to be PM. And I certainly hope that the "no rubber stamp" precedent holds, and the world votes against the sort of clowns that have run the ICC in recent times. Presumably this isn't about Howard's nationality at all.

  • catalyst213 on July 8, 2010, 7:35 GMT

    CA and John Howard can even go lower than this, we may thin its too much but for them its just the beginning.

  • on July 6, 2010, 15:25 GMT

    Howard nomination was rejected by 7 countries.. not just India... Why did WI rejected it?? Srilanka had good enough reason to reject after Howard calling their national tresure,Murli a "chucker".. so forget about India's power or supporting the nomonation... Howard would have never got the desired 7 votes.. IT WAS A POOR NOMINATION.. DON'T PUT THE BLAME ON INDIA'S POWER.. ACCPET IT CA/NZ

  • arshadmomin on July 5, 2010, 21:19 GMT

    CA should be penalised for even nominating Howard. I can't myself much of a follower. I am just an ordinary fan. Even I have heard enough negative headlines from Howard in recent years.

  • TheOnlyEmperor on July 5, 2010, 7:35 GMT

    I now expect the Aussi media to blame the Indians for "casting a veto on Howard" as "political revenge" for: 1. Racist attacks on Indians in Aus. 2. Australia's consistent refusal to give uranium to India. 3. Aus and NZs action in repeatedly wanting India to sign the NPT and CTBT. And this is exactly the muck that cricket fans would have to deal with, if politicians were to get involved in cricket. How come the Aussies don't get this? :P

  • TheOnlyEmperor on July 5, 2010, 7:20 GMT

    I have the perfect solution to this insanity. Kylie Minogue would be the perfect Aussi nominee. She could be ICC's face bringing various cultures togther in the cricketing world as well as attracting the Europeans and Americas into cricket. She could do a lot more to cricket than Shakira has done to promote FIFA WC-SA! Cricket would be seen as glamorous and fashionable and show biz stuff...making it popular worldwide and bringing in tons of money, something that Modi's IPL managed to do...and why leave Modi out? He is an excellent organiser with enough talent/spunk to host a cricket WC in Brazil if need be! His recent fallout with the BCCI shd give him brownie points for an ICC job - he wd know how to rein in the BCCI! He wd bring life back to the Eng county system as well as to WI cricket? Who knows? The other board members can spend time, ensuring that all the deals are clean and inked with the the i's dotted and t's crossed. I vote for a Kylie-Modi partnership at the ICC!:P

  • Chris_P on July 3, 2010, 23:03 GMT

    All I have read toi date is speculation. At no time has the ICC memberrs stated the reason for their stance and that is all CA and NZ want. So what is the real reason guys? Come on, spit it out, what is it about Howard that is spooking you? Anywhere else in the civilized world, you get a reason for a rejected application, well, anywhere else in the developed world. As stated numerous times, there has not been a vote, just a rejection of the candidate so there needs to be a reason given. Both the boards of Australia and NZ deserve that. The ICC has set up a process that all countires not only voted on but endorsed, yet they don't follow their process they adopted? Hmmmmm, look at the facts, 3 countries out of 10 are represented without any issue of political corruption, human rights issues or corruption whereas 7 other countires have had a history of it. Guess which 7?

  • SujithBabu on July 3, 2010, 11:28 GMT

    England and Australia had veto power in the ICC till the mid-80s. I do not see any of the Toms, Johns and Mucks ever mentioning this in any of the comments. Not too long ago, IS Bindra was not allowed to become the ICC CEO because couple of years down the track Shard Pawar was to be the ICC president and thus it would lead 2 Indians holdingthe 2 of the highest posts of ICC simultaneously . At the same time, it was okay for 2 Australians to be the CEO and President of the ICC simultaneously. Hypocrisy has no end.

  • Sungupta on July 3, 2010, 7:07 GMT

    It is amusing to read the comments of the Australian and New Zealand Prime Ministers that they are still backing Mr. Howard for the post offering full support. Normally Australia champions democracy when applied to others and cuts off diplomatic relations with countries when there is a coup or disputed elections. How is it that now they do not want to accept the democratic verdict handed out by the ICC board members? Frankly, this appears to be symptomatic of a superiority attitude when they feel that they have a right to disregard the wishes of the majority.

  • Dubby49 on July 3, 2010, 6:59 GMT

    If you can't reject a candidate nominated by a bloc, why have a vote? Whatever, Mr Howard's talents it is clear he is a divisive character. The fact that from the very start four boards clearly opposed his candidacy andwhile three supported it, should have given CA a clear indication that pushing Howard's case was likely to cause ructions. According to Morgan, the three fence sitters - India, BD and WI chose to dump Howard in the final run up so don't blame India for having engineered this defeat.

    Continuing to push Howard for the VPs job is stupid. And why are the Australian and NZ PMs getting involved. Part of the problem was Howard speaking out of turn re Murali. Time the Aussies learnt they have no longer have a veto power in the ICC.

  • The_Wog on July 3, 2010, 5:53 GMT

    @raghavmadan, what precisely are these "comments against Mandela" that everyone seems to "know" about? Personally, as an Aussie I would have voted for the well credentialled Kiwi. I don't see how defending our borders (as does every country on earth) from pirates, terrorists and queue-jumpers, and leading us into the sub-prime crisis with a solvent banking system, zero net debt and (thereby sparing us from the GFC unlike countries without those advantages) qualifies him for cricket administration any more than Anderson would be qualified to be PM. And I certainly hope that the "no rubber stamp" precedent holds, and the world votes against the sort of clowns that have run the ICC in recent times. Presumably this isn't about Howard's nationality at all.

  • eminem on July 3, 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 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 3, 2010, 1:01 GMT

    CA should not have nominated John Howard in first place...it seems CA wanted to gain some power in cricket world by the witts of John Howard's cheap political mind...also in a democracy if he is rejected by a fair voting system among cricketing nations then CA has no right to force him to the position, this is being a bully

  • Ausgal24 on July 2, 2010, 23:17 GMT

    Howard would be the worst candidate for this position, and this is coming from an Australian. Let's find someone more presentable and popular, it shouldn't be that hard. Also, let's not worry whether they are Kiwi or Aussie, as that will further politicize the issue, and make a mockery of us all.

  • bonaku on July 2, 2010, 21:23 GMT

    It is pity that we are wasting so much time for a guy who is racist to every inch.

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

    There is plenty of talk from Aussie reporters that the Asian bloc did not support Howard because they were scared he would gather too much power. This again shows the disconnect between perception and reality of the place of the Anglo nations in cricket.

    There is no way any leader from these nations can have any real power in ICC because all the money comes from Asia.

  • on July 2, 2010, 17:28 GMT

    @Kieran Savage Indeed cricket needs a young man... A 70 year old "young" man John Howard!

    In general anyone voted against Howard was well within his/her rights. If you don't like the guy for any reasoin nomatter how trivial you don't have to vote for him. That is how voting is done in most democratic set ups. If Iin election a party nominates a candidate and I don't vote for him they can't come banging on my door asking for reasons.

    Asia/Africa don't want John Howard so they voted against him. Plain simple. If Aussies want him they can have him as Chairman of CA which is Australian body.. ICC is not an Australian or Anglo-Saxon body. No obligations to accept anyone who is hand picked by Aussies. Case closed!

  • prabwal on July 2, 2010, 17:27 GMT

    malcom speed says that the rest of the cricketing world have insulted Australia and Newzealand by rejecting Howard ! on the contrary, australia and newzealand has insulted the rest of the cricketing world by nominating Howard as they knew quite well about the reservations of the countries with Howard even before nominating.and even after being comprehensively rejected, Howard stands his ground arguing with the rest of the world how bad their decision is ! thank god, we don't have that great aussie sense of what is good and what is bad. no one likes to be told what he should do.the cricketing world did what they thought to be right.

  • Hassan.Farooqi on July 2, 2010, 17:26 GMT

    I think Dubya would have been a better choice than Howard. I have seen Dubya play cricket. OK, it was with a tennis ball, he got "injured" on a tennis ball bouncer, but nevertheless he was seen playing cricket. Is Mr. Howard seen playing cricket?

  • SirEngland on July 2, 2010, 17:15 GMT

    The whole process within the ICC for this position is based on votes. In this case, the majiority don't want Howard and that should be accepted. This is democracy except that it does not apply to Australia and NZ. Please give us all a break and nominate somebody who is more suitable. When it comes to Zimbabwe's turn, willl Australia accept Robert Mugabe as ICC president?

  • bharath74 on July 2, 2010, 16:45 GMT

    Respect democracy, dont make a big issue out of this. I cant believe how much these politicians love to hold on to their chairs. Just get Hadlee, J Wright, Cairns, Harris, Nash,,,,,, All we need is a good person not a politician, not a military person or not Mussolini. Select a proper candidate and let cricket thrive.

  • raghavmadan on July 2, 2010, 16:15 GMT

    @All who are wondering why Howard is hated across the world. 1. Sri Lanka hates him for calling Murli a chucker despite Aussie scientists proving otherwise. Just shows his bias. 2. Pakistanis hate him for backing Darrell Hair in the Lords test fiasco. Even though ICC admitted later that Hair was wrong and changed the result of the match, Howard refused to apologize. 3. Zimbabwe hate him for virtually DESTROYING their cricket for political reasons. He refused to let their team visit Australia. But then he goes and visits Zimbabwe begging for their vote? How hypocritical!! And 4. South Africa hates him for his comments against Mandela.

  • raghavmadan on July 2, 2010, 16:09 GMT

    @Keiran: Your main concern is that now we have an ICC president from asia who has an 'out of date' technique of dealing with media etc? How racist can you get. It is precisely this thinking (which you share with Howards of this world) why John Howard is unacceptable for the post of ICC president.

    @mark: wasn't it the ACB which made this an issue when nominating a clearly unacceptable person just for their whims? And now when he has been rejected by 70% of the members, they are going to stick by him!!! Oh and another thing, please look up the definition of the word 'nomination'. The right to nominate a person does not equal the right to appoint a person.

  • realredbaron on July 2, 2010, 15:17 GMT

    I want to put Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's name forward and want to see how the Aussies react.

  • mark135 on July 2, 2010, 13:35 GMT

    Quote from 'howard lost support in last week': "There are broader concerns from yesterday's development, in particular the apparent realigning of loyalties along lines that were thought to have mattered less in the last decade, those of race." Sounds like a lot of anti-australian sentiment out there in the comments. How mature we are! Whatever the reasons behind the rejection, the rejecting members are the ones who have created an issue - an issue based on their reasons for rejection (political motivation? past grievance? or just cricket?). If it was pure and unbiased, i.e. just cricket reasons, well kieran and tyler have made a good point. howard's skills would be beneficial. why have the rejecting countries MADE it an issue by rejecting him? its poor in my opinion... it gives the appearance of a lot of members immaturely nursing grievances... we have kiddies and sour-pusses running the ICC!

  • spiritwithin on July 2, 2010, 13:32 GMT

    @ Kieran Savage..90% of da time ICC has been ruled by english or australians does they have done anything special to spread the game??a big NO..when it comes to cricket administration BCCI is still better than anybody and IPL is a major case in point..its surprising that howard was nominated by CA and definitely not a surprise when he's rejected,dont b biased on asia bcoz we all know how ECB and CA acted when they had veto power...y CA tried to humiliate itself by nominating howard is mystery in itself,may b they tried to wrest control of ICC by da politician mind of howard...

  • mark135 on July 2, 2010, 13:07 GMT

    it seems as though the icc is boycotting its own process. they are MAKING it political by rejecting howard, if for political sentiment reasons. that is a joke- shows how lame the body is. it refuses to follow its own process for individual country members' selfish (and political sentiment?) reasons... pathetic. the issue is already created by the rejecting countries.... cricket has gone to the dogs

  • satish619chandar on July 2, 2010, 11:16 GMT

    I agree its the turn of the aussies to elect a VP.. If its their choice alone, then why the hell in the world they have voting system.. They shd ve had voting in Cricket Australia for selecting a candidate and ICC shd ve appointed him directly.. If u r going to have a voting of the member nations, it is well within the rights of the members to vote against the guy whom they dont like to be posted.. If u cann it as atrocious and the aussies behaviour of selecting Howard who was arrogant towards South Africa, Zimbabwe and Srilankan cricketers need a special word to e coined..

    Besides, i agree that dont link Politics with Cricket.. For Howard, we shd not include his political governing skills.. In cricket, he is nothing other than calliung Murali a chucker.. If he s capable on this ground, every citizen in Australia is capable of becomning VP as they all called Murali a chucker..

  • RohanChoukkar on July 2, 2010, 10:09 GMT

    I refuse to believe that the Kiwi outrage is "real". They're probably just playing the fool and egging on Aussies who have determined to embarass themselves. Really. Just put up someone more acceptable. You're sure to find many in a country of 22 million.

  • Rajeshs239 on July 2, 2010, 9:31 GMT

    @ Kieran Is last ICC President Morgan from Asia? Check the stats before coming to conclusion....

  • on July 2, 2010, 7:30 GMT

    my main concern is that we now have a president of icc who is again from the asia region which continue to ruin international cricket for everyone outside of asia due to there out of date techniques of dealing with media and how to promote cricket in a truly professional manner they need to base the way cricket is run off of the NBA which is completely transparent and appeals to multiple cultures. cricket needs someone young who wants to take risks instead of older gents. but i agree that it was surprising that Howard was turned down but hey if ur not from asia ur never going to get a high level job.

  • on July 2, 2010, 6:53 GMT

    To all those who say "how dare they nominate someone who isn't a 'cricket person'", for the last few years these 'cricket people' who have held such positions can't seem to control world cricket at all. From the Zimbabwe stuff ups to meaningless ODI series' and badly timed Test series'. Maybe we dont need another 'cricket person' rather someone from outside to give a fresh perspective. Now I wasn't a fan of all of John Howard's decisons or policies (although being against a dictatorship hardly seems a negative, but thats just me) but he did lead our country for 11 years so maybe the ICC having him for a few years couldn't do any harm and he certainly couldnt do any worse than his predecessors.

  • Upuls11 on July 2, 2010, 6:23 GMT

    Where is the spirit of cricket? John Howard was given OUT by ICC but refuses to walk out. Typical aussie. He should be in Australian cricket team.

  • Reggaecricket on July 2, 2010, 6:18 GMT

    Looks like we have more politicians (PM's of Aus & NZ) getting involved in this process! Whatever the reasons are when 7/10 reject a candidate what right has CA or anyone else got to demand that democracy is not respected? A unanimous decision has been reached and in a democratic society the result is always final. By standing their ground CA and Howard are throwing toys out of the cot!

  • mulleegrubber on July 2, 2010, 6:15 GMT

    K Goher is quite right, it's not about racism. But it is about CORRUPTION. Howard would have been just the sort of character that would have shone a light into some very dark corners that the current controllers of the ICC would rather remained unlit.

  • on July 2, 2010, 5:59 GMT

    Nominate Richard Hadlee or John Wright and see this mythical Afro-Asian hostility against Anglo-Saxons will disappear. Moreover, India was the last one to join the anti-Howard coalition [of the willing, if you will]. This, coming from an Indian.

  • on July 2, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    Its not a question of racism, its about democracy. When 7/10 members said they do not want him elected, why would these countries insist? Do laws of the world not apply to Planet Australia? Let it go... nominate someone who has some cricket credentials.

  • braindead_rocker on July 2, 2010, 5:39 GMT

    Looks like CA is hell bent on creating an issue,

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • braindead_rocker on July 2, 2010, 5:39 GMT

    Looks like CA is hell bent on creating an issue,

  • on July 2, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    Its not a question of racism, its about democracy. When 7/10 members said they do not want him elected, why would these countries insist? Do laws of the world not apply to Planet Australia? Let it go... nominate someone who has some cricket credentials.

  • on July 2, 2010, 5:59 GMT

    Nominate Richard Hadlee or John Wright and see this mythical Afro-Asian hostility against Anglo-Saxons will disappear. Moreover, India was the last one to join the anti-Howard coalition [of the willing, if you will]. This, coming from an Indian.

  • mulleegrubber on July 2, 2010, 6:15 GMT

    K Goher is quite right, it's not about racism. But it is about CORRUPTION. Howard would have been just the sort of character that would have shone a light into some very dark corners that the current controllers of the ICC would rather remained unlit.

  • Reggaecricket on July 2, 2010, 6:18 GMT

    Looks like we have more politicians (PM's of Aus & NZ) getting involved in this process! Whatever the reasons are when 7/10 reject a candidate what right has CA or anyone else got to demand that democracy is not respected? A unanimous decision has been reached and in a democratic society the result is always final. By standing their ground CA and Howard are throwing toys out of the cot!

  • Upuls11 on July 2, 2010, 6:23 GMT

    Where is the spirit of cricket? John Howard was given OUT by ICC but refuses to walk out. Typical aussie. He should be in Australian cricket team.

  • on July 2, 2010, 6:53 GMT

    To all those who say "how dare they nominate someone who isn't a 'cricket person'", for the last few years these 'cricket people' who have held such positions can't seem to control world cricket at all. From the Zimbabwe stuff ups to meaningless ODI series' and badly timed Test series'. Maybe we dont need another 'cricket person' rather someone from outside to give a fresh perspective. Now I wasn't a fan of all of John Howard's decisons or policies (although being against a dictatorship hardly seems a negative, but thats just me) but he did lead our country for 11 years so maybe the ICC having him for a few years couldn't do any harm and he certainly couldnt do any worse than his predecessors.

  • on July 2, 2010, 7:30 GMT

    my main concern is that we now have a president of icc who is again from the asia region which continue to ruin international cricket for everyone outside of asia due to there out of date techniques of dealing with media and how to promote cricket in a truly professional manner they need to base the way cricket is run off of the NBA which is completely transparent and appeals to multiple cultures. cricket needs someone young who wants to take risks instead of older gents. but i agree that it was surprising that Howard was turned down but hey if ur not from asia ur never going to get a high level job.

  • Rajeshs239 on July 2, 2010, 9:31 GMT

    @ Kieran Is last ICC President Morgan from Asia? Check the stats before coming to conclusion....

  • RohanChoukkar on July 2, 2010, 10:09 GMT

    I refuse to believe that the Kiwi outrage is "real". They're probably just playing the fool and egging on Aussies who have determined to embarass themselves. Really. Just put up someone more acceptable. You're sure to find many in a country of 22 million.