ICC news July 24, 2010

Anderson declines ICC vice-president request

36

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

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • 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!

  • on July 28, 2010, 2:42 GMT

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

  • 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.

  • StarveTheLizard on July 26, 2010, 18:47 GMT

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

  • 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......?

  • threeheadedmonkey on July 26, 2010, 1:09 GMT

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • on July 25, 2010, 9:24 GMT

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

  • 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!

  • on July 28, 2010, 2:42 GMT

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

  • 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.

  • StarveTheLizard on July 26, 2010, 18:47 GMT

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

  • 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......?

  • threeheadedmonkey on July 26, 2010, 1:09 GMT

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • on July 25, 2010, 9:24 GMT

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

  • on July 25, 2010, 7:14 GMT

    The Aussies must put up Pauline Hanson she will be a popular choice.

    Or Greg Chappel who is very popular in India

  • rassie on July 25, 2010, 6:49 GMT

    Why do we always think that politics and sport go together. Oil and water. Politicians leave our sports. Retired ones, go to a home. Leave our sports.

  • 1WhoSpeak_Truth on July 25, 2010, 6:30 GMT

    to Mr. tfjones

    I thought john hwoard was REJECTED in TRUE democratic way 6 3.... may be u forgot how true democratic way is .. it call MAJORITY WIN.. .. ask anyone well educated person in australia and they will tell you john howard had created generation of polution in australian politics.. he has used race cards more than once and also lots of things u prob dont know.. how is mr john howard was better candidate than mr anderson( beside only thing mr john know about cricket is murli is chucker when ICCC and rest of the cricket playing nation INCL ENG AND NZ cleared him ) ??? why CA has to twist arm or NZ board to appoint john ? where was YOUR TRUE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM then ???? or true demo system is when everything done australian way ?????? and about your IBC remarks that shows what u mean by true democratic system.. i hope u did NOT forget creation of new WSC (world series cricket) in 1970s.hope john/cav have some dignity and let some respectable person be VP.

  • on July 25, 2010, 6:21 GMT

    I agree with ABRAR-JANJUA. Mark Taylor is a deserving candidate for the post. He is respected man all over the cricketing world. He played the cricket in true spirit. Politicans should leave the ICC and let the cricketers and professionals to run the ICC. Don't mix Politics and Sports.

  • catalyst213 on July 25, 2010, 5:32 GMT

    ICC should sack Sharad Pawar and Aus/NZL should get someone who is well respected person, we all know its hard to find some graceful and dignified person. What we fans are asking/arguing is find the right person. Is that really too much, its time for cricketing world to unite and make Cricket a better sport and a bigger sport, and who governs it really matters. There's a lot of misunderstanding and greed involved which is preventing a great sport to thrive, and writers like Gideon Haigh are definately not helping the situation.

  • Fanatic_cricko on July 25, 2010, 5:16 GMT

    I do not understand why they are not nominating one of the greatest of New Zealand: Richard Hadlee for this post. He should be the right choice not the politicians. Get the politician out of ICC

  • alkenned on July 25, 2010, 1:22 GMT

    Howard was a ridiculous choice and deserved to be rejected, albeit for the wrong reason. Mark Taylor sounds good to me.

  • ronrat on July 25, 2010, 0:46 GMT

    How about the asian nations accept our nomination or withdraw from the ICC. They continually cheat and lessen the game with match fixing and ball tampering yet dare tell other nations how to run the game. And asian cricket supporters on this site are equally biased. Send them packing. We don't need you.They should put no nomination in and withdraw all fiinancial support. Fixture no tests between any asian nation until such time as they accept who we decide to nominate.

  • BCCI_Rules on July 25, 2010, 0:45 GMT

    Why waste everyones time with these nominations. BCCI runs cricket and arn't interested in anyone else's opinion. Howard is the most highly respected nomination ever and yet the BCCI doesnt want anyone in the position that wont bow and scape to their will. Please India tells who Aus/NZ new representative is?

  • Gilliana on July 25, 2010, 0:14 GMT

    It seems that CA is adamant and insist on pushing Howard. They definitely have an agenda for Howard and one could have no doubt that India and Zimbabwe are the targets. I feel that it is time for the whole setup of the ICC be reformed as there are still elements that have the colonial mentality and are secretly pushing their plans to go back to their glory days where they can shift the goal posts at will. This rotation rule must be abandoned and the vote must be brought in. Personally, if an Australian is to be nominated at this present juncture I would like to see Mark Taylor 's name be put up. I have met this gentleman a few times and I can vouche that he is a man of fairness and grace in as much a person of excellent cricketing knowledge and ability as he has played the game to the highest level.

  • PeteB on July 25, 2010, 0:08 GMT

    Mark Taylor doesn't want the job my friends. Neither does Steve Waugh. You'd have to have your head read or be a masochist if you wanted this gig.

  • crictonite on July 24, 2010, 22:00 GMT

    Yeah, Vettori would be an excellent choice. In fact now that I think about it, he should have directed the Lord of the Rings trilogy as well.

  • _NEUTRAL_Fan_ on July 24, 2010, 20:30 GMT

    lol@Josh van Lier. They could offer ME the post, its not like would I have to do anything but make 1 or 2 speeches a year.

  • maddy20 on July 24, 2010, 20:05 GMT

    @The blue android- You hit the nail on the head. I second that. We want neither John Howard or Gideon Haigh!

  • Bulathwelage on July 24, 2010, 16:46 GMT

    It's like a sacarstic reversal of rsults for Mr. John Howard to have such a humiliating exit from the cricket world and for Muttaiah Muralidaran to have such a grand and warm farewell from Test Cricket. Mr. Howard called Murali a "Chucker" and insulted him. I doubt whether he ever apologised for making such a serious remark on a world record player when he was already cleared scientifically. Mr. Howard may be a good administrator but has no experience as a cricketing figure. He has been politically partial in his vision and thinking towards other countries. How can a man with such a history do justice to his job as the President of ICC? Austrailia should have never proposed him.

  • lucyferr on July 24, 2010, 16:16 GMT

    Good for Anderson! He has been treated disgracefully by New Zealand Cricket, and was humiliated when they rolled on their yellow bellies for the Aussies and some carpet-bagging Aussie politico bigwig. NZC does not deserve him. Maybe next time the Kiwis will stand up for one of their own, hmm?

  • ABRAR-JANJUA on July 24, 2010, 13:37 GMT

    I Think that Mark Taylor is the best choice for vice-president post.He was a great cricketer and no doubt respectable personality as well .He can be suitable candidate for this job.I would love to see him there...

  • catalyst213 on July 24, 2010, 12:39 GMT

    Its pure grace from Sir J. Anderson to withdraw himself from nomination and on the other hand its absolute rubbish to say...."He(Anderson) was smooth second choice." We cricket lovers want someone who is respected by all and is available for the job full-time, we don't need Sharad Pawar or John Howard. In cricketing terms they're both losers and bad examples or perfect examples of who should not do this job. If Australia's candidate is still John Howard then it only shows the difference between Sir John and Little Old Johnny.

  • Gilliana on July 24, 2010, 11:39 GMT

    Andersen had done the right thing on principle and the redneck Clarke, true to Aussie form, pushed himself in uncourteously. New Zeland must forward a name for the VP post.

  • plsn on July 24, 2010, 9:19 GMT

    A nation which has produced a cricketer like Don Bradman!! - A nation which has been playing cricket for more than a century !! - CAN YOU NOT THINK OF A SINGLE CRICKET PERSON OTHER THAN JOHN HOWARD??!! OR .....DO YOU NOT WANT TO?!!

  • on July 24, 2010, 6:49 GMT

    I hope he gets rejected again, incase they put him up

  • tfjones1978 on July 24, 2010, 6:25 GMT

    I believe Aust, NZ, Eng & other countries should withdraw from the ICC & create an International Board of Cricket (IBC) which includes as equal members all countries whom are interested in being involved in a fair democratic system, unlike the currently rigged board where 1 of 100 countries (with support of 3 others) rigg the system to create a generation of polution in what was once an honorable game.

    John Anderson should have said "I do not wish to be the token leader of an organisation that allows and encourages corruption in its ranks. There has been clear signs over the last 10 years that politics has become more important then cricket. The ICC allowed one country full membership from one lucky win to allow the Asian block of four to rule with an iron fist, whilst several other fine candidate countries, competitive against the elite, suffer from a lack of interaction with full member countries. It is time for a truly democratic international board of cricket for all 100 nations."

  • Rahul_007 on July 24, 2010, 3:11 GMT

    Cricket Australia have a lot to answer for, for this mess. NZC put forward a super candidate - John Anderson; CA put forward a slippery politician with no respect in cricket circles - John Howard. Because CA is more powerful than NZC, they got their way. Now, we all loose. Anderson would have been a breath of fresh air to the ICC. No we're going to end up with a 'Plan B' candidate, or have to resign ourselves to Howard wheeling and dealing his way in.

  • Januka on July 24, 2010, 3:10 GMT

    Good, when he is the first choice and he wasn't considered in the first place why should he commit? NZ cricket board should stop sucking up to Australian Cricket.

  • on July 24, 2010, 1:49 GMT

    they should just get Vettori to do it.

  • the_blue_android on July 24, 2010, 1:28 GMT

    In this article, replace the phrase "independent panel" with "Australia". Which self respecting man with even a tiny bit of self esteem will take a job after being arm twisted and thrown out earlier ? Good decision Mr Anderson. Please do not go with Howard again. He will get rejected once again and we cannot bear another whinging article by cry baby Gideon Haigh.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • the_blue_android on July 24, 2010, 1:28 GMT

    In this article, replace the phrase "independent panel" with "Australia". Which self respecting man with even a tiny bit of self esteem will take a job after being arm twisted and thrown out earlier ? Good decision Mr Anderson. Please do not go with Howard again. He will get rejected once again and we cannot bear another whinging article by cry baby Gideon Haigh.

  • on July 24, 2010, 1:49 GMT

    they should just get Vettori to do it.

  • Januka on July 24, 2010, 3:10 GMT

    Good, when he is the first choice and he wasn't considered in the first place why should he commit? NZ cricket board should stop sucking up to Australian Cricket.

  • Rahul_007 on July 24, 2010, 3:11 GMT

    Cricket Australia have a lot to answer for, for this mess. NZC put forward a super candidate - John Anderson; CA put forward a slippery politician with no respect in cricket circles - John Howard. Because CA is more powerful than NZC, they got their way. Now, we all loose. Anderson would have been a breath of fresh air to the ICC. No we're going to end up with a 'Plan B' candidate, or have to resign ourselves to Howard wheeling and dealing his way in.

  • tfjones1978 on July 24, 2010, 6:25 GMT

    I believe Aust, NZ, Eng & other countries should withdraw from the ICC & create an International Board of Cricket (IBC) which includes as equal members all countries whom are interested in being involved in a fair democratic system, unlike the currently rigged board where 1 of 100 countries (with support of 3 others) rigg the system to create a generation of polution in what was once an honorable game.

    John Anderson should have said "I do not wish to be the token leader of an organisation that allows and encourages corruption in its ranks. There has been clear signs over the last 10 years that politics has become more important then cricket. The ICC allowed one country full membership from one lucky win to allow the Asian block of four to rule with an iron fist, whilst several other fine candidate countries, competitive against the elite, suffer from a lack of interaction with full member countries. It is time for a truly democratic international board of cricket for all 100 nations."

  • on July 24, 2010, 6:49 GMT

    I hope he gets rejected again, incase they put him up

  • plsn on July 24, 2010, 9:19 GMT

    A nation which has produced a cricketer like Don Bradman!! - A nation which has been playing cricket for more than a century !! - CAN YOU NOT THINK OF A SINGLE CRICKET PERSON OTHER THAN JOHN HOWARD??!! OR .....DO YOU NOT WANT TO?!!

  • Gilliana on July 24, 2010, 11:39 GMT

    Andersen had done the right thing on principle and the redneck Clarke, true to Aussie form, pushed himself in uncourteously. New Zeland must forward a name for the VP post.

  • catalyst213 on July 24, 2010, 12:39 GMT

    Its pure grace from Sir J. Anderson to withdraw himself from nomination and on the other hand its absolute rubbish to say...."He(Anderson) was smooth second choice." We cricket lovers want someone who is respected by all and is available for the job full-time, we don't need Sharad Pawar or John Howard. In cricketing terms they're both losers and bad examples or perfect examples of who should not do this job. If Australia's candidate is still John Howard then it only shows the difference between Sir John and Little Old Johnny.

  • ABRAR-JANJUA on July 24, 2010, 13:37 GMT

    I Think that Mark Taylor is the best choice for vice-president post.He was a great cricketer and no doubt respectable personality as well .He can be suitable candidate for this job.I would love to see him there...