ICC news

Anderson declines ICC vice-president request

Peter English

July 24, 2010

Comments: 36 | Text size: A | A

New Zealand Cricket chairman Sir John Anderson.
Sir John Anderson is no longer an option for New Zealand and Australia © New Zealand Cricket
Enlarge

Sir John Anderson does not want to be the next ICC vice-president in a decision that further complicates the search for a suitable candidate after John Howard was rejected last month. Anderson, a former chairman of New Zealand Cricket, was seen as the smoothest second choice following the ICC board's order that Australia and New Zealand find another option.

Howard, 70, remains the candidate but Alan Isaac, the current New Zealand Cricket chairman, and his Australian counterpart Jack Clarke will continue discussions before a decision is expected after Cricket Australia's board meeting on August 13. Clarke, an Adelaide solicitor, remains the man most likely to step into the ICC job, but there is the possibility of trying again with Howard, the former Australia prime minister.

Anderson was New Zealand's original choice for the role before an independent panel decided Howard was the best candidate as the countries' joint nomination. The ICC board did not even vote in Singapore on Howard's appointment, which would have included a two-year term as president from 2012, after members from six countries signaled their opposition.

New Zealand Cricket's board learned of Anderson's decision on Friday. "Unfortunately Sir John advised me that he is not available to be considered as a possible nominee," Isaac said.

"The NZC board respects Sir John's position and acknowledges the outstanding contribution he has made to the game of cricket. We have recommenced discussions with Cricket Australia around a proposed way forward." Anderson took on more company director positions after being overlooked originally and is the chairman of an agriculture business.

A decision does not have to be made until the end of August and neither side is chasing an urgent resolution to the drawn-out affair. The Australian board remains angry about the treatment of Howard, who was vetoed due to a mixture of his political links and lack of experience in cricket administration.

The board members were briefed by Clarke at a special meeting on July 9, but decided to wait until next month to discuss potential candidates. James Sutherland, Cricket Australia's chief executive, said the Howard decision was still "terribly disappointing".

"The process [of re-nominating a candidate] is something that needs to be done jointly between Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket," he said. "In time we will have a chance to get together and talk about the next step. At the moment John Howard remains our nomination."

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

RSS Feeds: Peter English

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by mac1980 on (July 30, 2010, 9:50 GMT)

Just to add my 2 bits here - it is quite apparent that most Australian fans writing in here have a MAJOR inferiority complex with regards to India and the BCCI. All I can say is - I REALLY pity them. If they actually feel that it was due to the BCCI that John Howard was rejected, then they are just barking up the wrong tree!!! THE FACT IS - Howard was rejected through a democratic process with 6 ICC members voting against him, including Sri Lanka and South Africa!!!! It is as simple as that and thats the bottomline, whether you like it or not! So it is no one's case that Howard was unfairly rejected - that is just a load of hogwash! The Australian board can rave and rant all they like about Howard remining their "best candidate for the job" (snigger, snigger!!!) but at the end of the day they know that it isn't going to happen. So I suggest that Australian fans here stop showing the inferiority complex that they have against India and the BCCI and grow up a little!

Posted by   on (July 28, 2010, 2:42 GMT)

Of course Anderson declined. Who'd want to work as a stooge for the BCCI?

Posted by MrMickey on (July 26, 2010, 23:26 GMT)

The next nomination should be chosen by the countries that rejected Howard. Thats what they want. There was never an indication that Sir Johns nomination would be successful either, it may have been knocked back as well, we will never know.

Posted by StarveTheLizard on (July 26, 2010, 18:47 GMT)

It's comforting to know that bad things do happen to bad people - at least sometimes.

Posted by   on (July 26, 2010, 2:56 GMT)

News in NZA today is that Martin Crowe has stated he woulod be interested in the position!! I think he would be good as he is 'current' in cricket terms in that he coaches in IPL and he is also a bit of a forward thinker and innovator. Maybe he would be to controversal for the Asian nations though......?

Posted by threeheadedmonkey on (July 26, 2010, 1:09 GMT)

Any chance of adding this to Vettori's long resume of roles?

Posted by   on (July 25, 2010, 23:39 GMT)

I couldn't agree more with tfjones1978. How on earth is Bangladesh playing Test cricket? Their Test record is abysmal and their ODI form is not much better (in fact it is probably worse, considering they lost to Holland recently). It is a disgrace that the BCCI can force other countries to continue to vote as a bloc by implying that funds would be withdrawn if they did not co-operate. Yes, Howard may not have been the preferred candiade of the BCCI but in comparison to the current mess the ICC is in, he would have been a godsend. At least he is interested in cricket, unlike a certian president of the ICC.

Posted by tfjones1978 on (July 25, 2010, 13:55 GMT)

If the ICC wants to be really neutral, at the very least the President & Vice should be from non-full member countries. From countries that are well respected in the global society. Perhaps an American, German, French, Chinese or similar would be considered fair and neutral. P & VP are admin positions, not a position in a cricket team. The leader of a sporting club doesnt have to be person that has played (or even understands) the rules of the game, and it would take like 5 minutes to explain the basics of the game to someone that would oversee it for the next 4 years.

As an IT person I can tell you that I have worked in many industries where IT is needed where I have had NO understanding going in as to how the industry worked. CEO is similar, it wont take long for a CEO to understand the game.

This will bring in an unbiased opinion and give a new perspective, someone that isnt taited by cricket politics.

Posted by   on (July 25, 2010, 9:51 GMT)

I agree with tfjones1978. The ICC is corrupt due to the Asian bloc which does only looks after itself (and is not really interested in Zimbabwe, West Indies etc except when it comes to needing their votes. Who cares about the boring cricketers of the east? Bring in Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands and Canada. Within 20 years they will be competitive but at least they will behave properly (as in democratically). Too many people here do not know John Howard personally. Neither do I. But I know several people who do and they all say he is a wonderful man to work with, whether you share his beliefs or not. JH should have been the man!

Posted by   on (July 25, 2010, 9:24 GMT)

I would think Mark Taylor or Ian Chapple should be decent choice for this position.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Peter EnglishClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days