March 4, 2010

No, Prime Minister

A one-time school-mate remembers John Howard, the nominee for the ICC's top post, and a genteel disagreement they had over a certain urn
19

In the school magazine for 1954, a picture of me in the First XI exactly backs on to the scholarly, bespectacled face of John Winston Howard in the debating society group on the reverse of the page. Was there ever a more accurate pointer to the future for two hopeful lads?

Of course, at the time I had no idea that I was sharing the Canterbury Boys' High School playground with a future prime minister of Australia. He was two years behind me, and it was not until 30 years later that our paths crossed. By then he was leader of the Federal Opposition in Canberra, and we were taking part in a trans-global radio discussion about South Africa and its landlocked cricketers. In a susceptible moment as the link-up was being completed, "little Johnny" actually declared that I had been one of his "heroes" in the school First XI. Wow! Perhaps, although I had long lived in England, land of my birth, I might soon be in line to become Australia's immigration minister or something?

We've bumped into each other a few times over the years. He had already been dubbed a "cricket tragic" by Mark Taylor, for John Howard's genuine and passionate love of the game aired itself at every opportunity. He saw in cricket all the sublime qualities that his cricketophile predecessor and true hero, Robert Menzies, had loved.

In 1997 an extensive cricket exhibition that I had arranged at Australia House in London was formally declared open by Mr Howard before a large gathering which included the Australian touring team. Shown through the many display cabinets and animated exhibits, he took a genuine interest and knew what he was talking about. Given the chance, I asked his wife how she would describe her husband as a cricketer. Her reply was loyal and supportive, and it transpired that he had played for West Pennant Hills before his political career monopolised his time. He had played in a charity match recently, and Kerry O'Keeffe had delivered a flattering verdict on his offspinner's action - just as Don Bradman had spoken highly of the Duke of Edinburgh's bowling back in 1948. There is no shortage of tact in those diplomatic zones.

I wouldn't wish to conceal my delight at Mr Howard's elevation to president-elect of the ICC. The world body - every cricket administration down to the lowliest - vitally needs to be overseen by people whose first consideration is the game's welfare. And that doesn't just mean filling the vaults with cash while at the same time disfiguring cricket.

There is just one small blot on John Howard's record, however, and I can't keep it to myself. It happened like this.

Three years ago, during the final Test of the Ashes series, with England about to suffer their first 0-5 whitewash against the old enemy since 1920-21, he joined the chorus demanding the actual physical retention of the precious little Ashes urn in Australia so long as they nominally held it. It had been travelling around Australia in an exhibition tour, only the second time it had left Lord's since the Honourable Ivo Bligh's widow had presented it to MCC soon after his death in 1927.

When somebody sought John Howard's view on the matter, he said unequivocally that the urn should indeed remain in Australia as long as his country's cricket team was triumphant.

So, with what I hoped was a jocular/mischievous smile, I told him that unless he withdrew his claim I'd consider tabling a motion at the next AGM for his expulsion from the club because he had publicly advocated what amounted to the theft of the famous urn

Now I happened to be in the SCG press box and was alarmed to hear this announcement. You can't appropriate somebody's property just like that, I thought. A few English cricket writers seemed just as distracted by this contretemps. So, having earlier spotted the MCC chairman, Charles Fry, in the VIP area at the other end of the MA Noble Stand, I suggested we go and find Mr Fry to get a categorical statement from him as to the non-negotiable nature of ownership of the Ashes.

Unfortunately, there was no Fry to be seen. But I did spot Mr and Mrs John Howard.

Aha! I'm not sure to this day whether I was serious or not, but I gently (I hope) chastised him for wishing to seize the Ashes urn from its rightful owner, MCC. He had a law degree, and surely knew in his heart, let alone his acute brain, that this was wrong. He smiled indulgently - as he will need to do often during upcoming ICC meetings - and I knew I needed to be more persuasive somehow.

So I adopted a fresh strategy. I had a go at pulling rank, not just as a senior boy at Canterbury High (and now, no doubt, a former hero of his) but as a long-standing member of Marylebone Cricket Club. John was also a member, but of fewer years, and an honorary member at that. I, poor mug, have to find the ever-increasing membership subscription every year. And now perhaps I had a chance to do something meaningful for the MCC. So, with what I hoped was a jocular/mischievous smile, I told him that unless he withdrew his claim I'd consider tabling a motion at the next AGM for his expulsion from the club because he had publicly advocated what amounted to the theft of the famous urn.

None of this seemed to matter when England recovered the Ashes in 2009.

They breed fun and good humour into you at Canterbury High, or at least they used to in the 1950s. The old school will be very proud of John Howard for taking his seat at the head of cricket's most eminent table. May his term be trouble-free (unlikely) and beneficial (certain, if his adoration for the game is anything to go by).

David Frith is an author, historian, and founding editor of Wisden Cricket Monthly

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • davyc on March 5, 2010, 5:49 GMT

    I think that the comment about Australia's being able to actually hold the original urn as long as they are winners is a fair one. Playing for something and then not being able to have it is not fair, and being fair is what cricket is all about, or is it?

    Forget security concerns, the urn in its sealed container wil be well looked after. Although older members of the MCC, either in their graves or not, may take a turn!

  • Rev0408 on March 5, 2010, 3:48 GMT

    Jeptic - so what? Does that make him any different to Pawar? Anyone running the ICC should be aiming to create an environment of mutual respect and understanding between the member nations (particularly at the elite level). If Howard is attempting to close the divide between the varying power blocs, I'm all for it! And yes, we're all aware that he has a vested interest in saying the right things, but that shouldn't equal total derision and suspicion for doing so. And as for others commenting that politicians shouldn't be running the game, well, that is the case these days. Cricket is no longer merely about leather on willow - other factors such as player security have taken precedence. It doesn't matter whether it's a drunk idiot at the WACA tackling a player or gunmen attacking a team bus in Pakistan, the issue needs to be sorted out and I think politicians such as Howard and Pawar would do a superior job to an ex-player in the top job.

  • rlaws on March 5, 2010, 3:36 GMT

    In my opinion John Howard is the wrong man for this position. Look at his version of a fair go for Australians - WORKCOHICE. If he dreams up something like that for cricket then heaven help us. I cant believe he has the gall to show his face in public after that dismal effort of putting Australian workers into slavery.

  • mroak1 on March 5, 2010, 2:45 GMT

    I think Mr Howard would make a good boss of the ICC,the ones we have had in the past were not much.Maybe he will clam down on ball tampering and blower's who chuck.

  • Rooboy on March 5, 2010, 2:43 GMT

    Interesting comment, Abbas Mehmood, and I just remembered the leading Pakistani politician who labelled all Australians convict b*stards. Of course, that never happened, but since you are just making things up, why shouldn't I? And if you expect others to show you any respect, perhaps you could act in kind and refer to the ex Prime Minister by his correct name. taraka911, Howard DID NOT take the first opportunity to call Murali a chucker despite what your imagination tells you, a journalist asked him the question and he responded with his opinion.

  • jayray999 on March 5, 2010, 1:18 GMT

    I don't know why "leaving the politics" out is somehow a positive. I think nothing relevant is accomplished by leaving out the politics. The politics of a situation are the means and often the end. Mr Howard himself, faced with sagging popularity ratings as Prime Minister, suddenly discovered his sensitive side and made unprecedented overtures to the Australian aboriginal community. And now, despite the widely held view that that he is to be a counterpoise to Indian domination of the game, he lavishes praise on India because he is awaiting ICC confirmation. So please don't leave out the politics. The politics are the only real thing.

  • curryinbrisbane on March 5, 2010, 0:08 GMT

    Unfortunately since JWH is already in the wagon's seat as the ICC President elect, there's nothing much can be done about it. He has already oiled the diplomatic wheels in being prudent to 'reassure' India as the status quo in cricket and ensured his future rosy for the next 4 years. Let it not be forgotten that he has to survive for the next 2 years under another astute politician Sharad Pawar as the ICC president who himself has no cricket standing other than holding the key to ICC's survival. As long as JWH remembers that India contributes 50% of ICC's revenues and the rest of the cricket playing nations make up the balance, he can have all disagreements with the Frith's of the world.

  • mattkel on March 4, 2010, 23:27 GMT

    I think you'll find that 'Little Johnny' called Murali a chucker, not to get public support, but because he indeed was a chucker until the rules were changed to accomadate his action.

  • Jeptic on March 4, 2010, 23:02 GMT

    hey Rev-joker...he makes positive comments about India because he wants their support. HE IS A POLITICIAN!!!!!

  • raghavmadan on March 4, 2010, 13:56 GMT

    In my humble opinion Mr. Firth, maybe they should change the name of the bilateral series. It surely cannot be called Ashes if the Ashes urn is not what they are playing for.

    Maybe they can call it the Howard-Blair cup?

  • davyc on March 5, 2010, 5:49 GMT

    I think that the comment about Australia's being able to actually hold the original urn as long as they are winners is a fair one. Playing for something and then not being able to have it is not fair, and being fair is what cricket is all about, or is it?

    Forget security concerns, the urn in its sealed container wil be well looked after. Although older members of the MCC, either in their graves or not, may take a turn!

  • Rev0408 on March 5, 2010, 3:48 GMT

    Jeptic - so what? Does that make him any different to Pawar? Anyone running the ICC should be aiming to create an environment of mutual respect and understanding between the member nations (particularly at the elite level). If Howard is attempting to close the divide between the varying power blocs, I'm all for it! And yes, we're all aware that he has a vested interest in saying the right things, but that shouldn't equal total derision and suspicion for doing so. And as for others commenting that politicians shouldn't be running the game, well, that is the case these days. Cricket is no longer merely about leather on willow - other factors such as player security have taken precedence. It doesn't matter whether it's a drunk idiot at the WACA tackling a player or gunmen attacking a team bus in Pakistan, the issue needs to be sorted out and I think politicians such as Howard and Pawar would do a superior job to an ex-player in the top job.

  • rlaws on March 5, 2010, 3:36 GMT

    In my opinion John Howard is the wrong man for this position. Look at his version of a fair go for Australians - WORKCOHICE. If he dreams up something like that for cricket then heaven help us. I cant believe he has the gall to show his face in public after that dismal effort of putting Australian workers into slavery.

  • mroak1 on March 5, 2010, 2:45 GMT

    I think Mr Howard would make a good boss of the ICC,the ones we have had in the past were not much.Maybe he will clam down on ball tampering and blower's who chuck.

  • Rooboy on March 5, 2010, 2:43 GMT

    Interesting comment, Abbas Mehmood, and I just remembered the leading Pakistani politician who labelled all Australians convict b*stards. Of course, that never happened, but since you are just making things up, why shouldn't I? And if you expect others to show you any respect, perhaps you could act in kind and refer to the ex Prime Minister by his correct name. taraka911, Howard DID NOT take the first opportunity to call Murali a chucker despite what your imagination tells you, a journalist asked him the question and he responded with his opinion.

  • jayray999 on March 5, 2010, 1:18 GMT

    I don't know why "leaving the politics" out is somehow a positive. I think nothing relevant is accomplished by leaving out the politics. The politics of a situation are the means and often the end. Mr Howard himself, faced with sagging popularity ratings as Prime Minister, suddenly discovered his sensitive side and made unprecedented overtures to the Australian aboriginal community. And now, despite the widely held view that that he is to be a counterpoise to Indian domination of the game, he lavishes praise on India because he is awaiting ICC confirmation. So please don't leave out the politics. The politics are the only real thing.

  • curryinbrisbane on March 5, 2010, 0:08 GMT

    Unfortunately since JWH is already in the wagon's seat as the ICC President elect, there's nothing much can be done about it. He has already oiled the diplomatic wheels in being prudent to 'reassure' India as the status quo in cricket and ensured his future rosy for the next 4 years. Let it not be forgotten that he has to survive for the next 2 years under another astute politician Sharad Pawar as the ICC president who himself has no cricket standing other than holding the key to ICC's survival. As long as JWH remembers that India contributes 50% of ICC's revenues and the rest of the cricket playing nations make up the balance, he can have all disagreements with the Frith's of the world.

  • mattkel on March 4, 2010, 23:27 GMT

    I think you'll find that 'Little Johnny' called Murali a chucker, not to get public support, but because he indeed was a chucker until the rules were changed to accomadate his action.

  • Jeptic on March 4, 2010, 23:02 GMT

    hey Rev-joker...he makes positive comments about India because he wants their support. HE IS A POLITICIAN!!!!!

  • raghavmadan on March 4, 2010, 13:56 GMT

    In my humble opinion Mr. Firth, maybe they should change the name of the bilateral series. It surely cannot be called Ashes if the Ashes urn is not what they are playing for.

    Maybe they can call it the Howard-Blair cup?

  • taraka911 on March 4, 2010, 13:44 GMT

    He took the first opportunity to call Murali a chucker to get political and crowd support....it was a cheap publicity stunt...therefore i do not hope for great things from him for Asia!

  • ElGerrardo on March 4, 2010, 13:20 GMT

    I think he's got the passion and the brain to actually do something positive about the ICC. Whether he is able to achieve anything or not given the limited time frame of the post and the general disorganisation of the body is hard to tell, but I certainly think he's got a good a shot at it as anybody. He might not have been the best qualified in terms of cricketing experience, but given the politicial nature of the ICC, I don't think this should carry much to weight. All in all - good luck Johnny!

  • Teddy on March 4, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    Why J Howard ? The histrory of cricket could not find anyone else who can fit to this position. Cricket is becoming a politics we cant handover this game to a political person. Authority & Board members - Think twise before its too late.

  • on March 4, 2010, 12:46 GMT

    i just remembered that mr hogwart once called saqlin mushtaq "little chucker", still what a nice contribution he would be to icc board to maintain some form of order which he likes.

  • vswami on March 4, 2010, 10:04 GMT

    What exactly is "game's welfare"?

  • shannonr on March 4, 2010, 7:49 GMT

    Thanks for leaving politics out of it, Mr. Frith. I agree that Howard's lifelong love of the game and genius for compromise make him well-qualified.

    For those who can't forget politics, consider the vital contributions ex-politicians of both nominal "sides" have made throughout history to civil affairs, in spite of (and sometimes because of) any divisiveness in their political careers.

    For those still concerned, remember that, on an international scale, Australia has two almost indistinguishable 'left of centre' political parties, and Howard was the long-standing leader of one of them. For all he did wrong, he did more right, or the Australian people would have had him out on his ear.

  • AnilMaskey on March 4, 2010, 7:31 GMT

    More than anything else, it's his pure love for the game that makes me optimistic about his tenure. But I'm scared that people like Mr Modi, who see cricket only as an opportunity to make money, won't let him work for the better of the game.

  • cook on March 4, 2010, 7:00 GMT

    I also think he is a good choice. For someone like him wanting to get involved in cricket is a good thing. As far as I know he follows cricket very closely so he isn't going into the position blind. Good luck to him.

  • Rev0408 on March 4, 2010, 6:21 GMT

    I think he'll be fine in the position - Murali might think he needs to win over Asia but if Howard continues to make positive statements like he did about India the other day, I don't see him having that problem.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Rev0408 on March 4, 2010, 6:21 GMT

    I think he'll be fine in the position - Murali might think he needs to win over Asia but if Howard continues to make positive statements like he did about India the other day, I don't see him having that problem.

  • cook on March 4, 2010, 7:00 GMT

    I also think he is a good choice. For someone like him wanting to get involved in cricket is a good thing. As far as I know he follows cricket very closely so he isn't going into the position blind. Good luck to him.

  • AnilMaskey on March 4, 2010, 7:31 GMT

    More than anything else, it's his pure love for the game that makes me optimistic about his tenure. But I'm scared that people like Mr Modi, who see cricket only as an opportunity to make money, won't let him work for the better of the game.

  • shannonr on March 4, 2010, 7:49 GMT

    Thanks for leaving politics out of it, Mr. Frith. I agree that Howard's lifelong love of the game and genius for compromise make him well-qualified.

    For those who can't forget politics, consider the vital contributions ex-politicians of both nominal "sides" have made throughout history to civil affairs, in spite of (and sometimes because of) any divisiveness in their political careers.

    For those still concerned, remember that, on an international scale, Australia has two almost indistinguishable 'left of centre' political parties, and Howard was the long-standing leader of one of them. For all he did wrong, he did more right, or the Australian people would have had him out on his ear.

  • vswami on March 4, 2010, 10:04 GMT

    What exactly is "game's welfare"?

  • on March 4, 2010, 12:46 GMT

    i just remembered that mr hogwart once called saqlin mushtaq "little chucker", still what a nice contribution he would be to icc board to maintain some form of order which he likes.

  • Teddy on March 4, 2010, 13:11 GMT

    Why J Howard ? The histrory of cricket could not find anyone else who can fit to this position. Cricket is becoming a politics we cant handover this game to a political person. Authority & Board members - Think twise before its too late.

  • ElGerrardo on March 4, 2010, 13:20 GMT

    I think he's got the passion and the brain to actually do something positive about the ICC. Whether he is able to achieve anything or not given the limited time frame of the post and the general disorganisation of the body is hard to tell, but I certainly think he's got a good a shot at it as anybody. He might not have been the best qualified in terms of cricketing experience, but given the politicial nature of the ICC, I don't think this should carry much to weight. All in all - good luck Johnny!

  • taraka911 on March 4, 2010, 13:44 GMT

    He took the first opportunity to call Murali a chucker to get political and crowd support....it was a cheap publicity stunt...therefore i do not hope for great things from him for Asia!

  • raghavmadan on March 4, 2010, 13:56 GMT

    In my humble opinion Mr. Firth, maybe they should change the name of the bilateral series. It surely cannot be called Ashes if the Ashes urn is not what they are playing for.

    Maybe they can call it the Howard-Blair cup?