John Howard to head ICC?

[Top_Cat]

The majority of this is spot on and really what we've been saying since post 1. Call him a ****. Oppose his rejection because he's a ****. Bring his politics into it by all means. Just don't dress it up behind "too inexperienced to run a sporting body" arguments.

Nice article but in the same breath as arguing against canonising Howard, he essentially does the same with Taylor. Why?

 

[GraemeSmith]

Nice article but in the same breath as arguing against canonising Howard, he essentially does the same with Taylor. Why?

What problem do you have with Mark Taylor? He seems like a great choice.

 

[Top_Cat]

What problem do you have with Mark Taylor? He seems like a great choice.

Why? Howard at least has a few decades of practical, high-level and complex man-management, notwithstanding his fiscal credentials. Taylor has zero experience managing anything of significance, has no relevant quals and is politically quite conservative himself. He has a undergrad degree in surveying which he did in the 80's, FFS.

Sure he gave great press conferences when captain of a sports team (which is basically the crux of the support for his nomination) but that's about it. He's pretty close to Howard, in fact, so like I said earlier in the thread, if Taylor gets up, the ICC will basically be electing Howard by proxy anyway. If the ICC members seriously want to run either of the 'no relevant experience' or 'we don't like his politics' lines, they can't have Taylor having rejected Howard.

Ugh, again, having to almost defend Howard. Hate this thread.

 

[honestbharani]

Why? Howard at least has a few decades of practical, high-level and complex man-management, notwithstanding his fiscal credentials. Taylor has zero experience managing anything of significance, has no relevant quals and is politically quite conservative himself. He has a undergrad degree in surveying which he did in the 80's, FFS.

Sure he gave great press conferences when captain of a sports team (which is basically the crux of the support for his nomination) but that's about it. He's pretty close to Howard, in fact, so like I said earlier in the thread, if Taylor gets up, the ICC will basically be electing Howard by proxy anyway. If the ICC members seriously want to run either of the 'no relevant experience' or 'we don't like his politics' lines, they can't have Taylor having rejected Howard.

Ugh, again, having to almost defend Howard. Hate this thread.

lol.. I don't think they have any issues with getting someone who is seen as "politically acceptable" even if he has ties with Howard.. They didn't want Howard himself but maybe they don't mind him being there by proxy..


I mean, its not like he or Taylor can change anything anyways..

 

[Top_Cat]

lol.. I don't think they have any issues with getting someone who is seen as "politically acceptable" even if he has ties with Howard.. They didn't want Howard himself but maybe they don't mind him being there by proxy..

Alright, forget the politics for now, how does the ICC get around his lack of experience if it was such a problem for them with Howard?

I mean, its not like he or Taylor can change anything anyways..

If the post didn't matter at all, why would anyone give a crap if Howard took the spot? Clearly it matters and is influential or it wouldn't be worth kicking up a stink over.

The over-arching point is that the reasons they've given are bollocks and everyone knows it. Yet they're persisting with that line, pretty much the exact reasons they'd have to reject Taylor. Inconsistent and dishonest.

 

[honestbharani]

Alright, forget the politics for now, how does the ICC get around his lack of experience if it was such a problem for them with Howard?



If the post didn't matter at all, why would anyone give a crap if Howard took the spot? Clearly it matters and is influential or it wouldn't be worth kicking up a stink over.

There is a difference between saying "it matters" and "it is influential"... You are confusing between the two... It matters because it means you are the figurehead.. The person who represents the ICC to the world... But it is not influential because you can't get anything done ever without the vote of the majority of the boards..

 

[Top_Cat]

There is a difference between saying "it matters" and "it is influential"... You are confusing between the two... It matters because it means you are the figurehead.. The person who represents the ICC to the world... But it is not influential because you can't get anything done ever without the vote of the majority of the boards..

Not buying it.

 

[honestbharani]

Not buying it.

That is your wish.. FWIW, I think it is a fact...

 

[Cevno]

What was Cricket Australia thinking?

Mukul Kesavan: What was Cricket Australia thinking? | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Mukul Kesavan on the matter-

 

[Shri]

My beef is with Speed, mate, not you..

HeathDavisSpeed is a gun poster. Wtf is your beef with him?

 

[honestbharani]

HeathDavisSpeed is a gun poster. Wtf is your beef with him?

The fact that he has "Speed" on his user name is not bad enough?

 

[Galactus]

boring topic

the icc should change its thinking