John Howard to head ICC?

[gwo]

Sir Alex, you completely miss the point.

It doesn't really matter what 6.3billion odd people in the world think as to who should be heading up the ICC.

The point is it is time for the relevant Aus / NZ authorities (yes not the public, which is why Peter Roebuck who liked Anderson more than Howard supports Howard now) to make the decision (as stipulated by the ICC).

That's it. India, Zimbabwe and South Africa's boards need to get that through their thick skulls before they discuss this any further.

For the record, I would have liked to see Anderson picked before Howard, but that NOT being the decision the Aus/NZ cricket boards made means that what I think is irrelevant too.

Get it?

 

[Sir Alex]

Sir Alex, you completely miss the point.

It doesn't really matter what 6.3billion odd people in the world think as to who should be heading up the ICC.

The point is it is time for the relevant Aus / NZ authorities (yes not the public, which is why Peter Roebuck who liked Anderson more than Howard supports Howard now) to make the decision (as stipulated by the ICC).

That's it. India, Zimbabwe and South Africa's boards need to get that through their thick skulls before they discuss this any further.

For the record, I would have liked to see Anderson picked before Howard, but that NOT being the decision the Aus/NZ cricket boards made means that what I think is irrelevant too.

Get it?

New Zealand and Australia reserves their right to nominate the guy they like, but ICC members reserve the right to reject such nomination if they deem the candidate to be unsuitable.

In other words, ICC members aren't obliged to put up with someone a substantial number of them disagree with that choice. That is something guaranteed by the ICC constitution.

It's sad you are confusing legitimate protest with thick skulledness.

 

[GotSpin]

Howard has come across as an insensitive and clueless individual especially considering his stupid remarks on Murali. Being an ICC president requires one to be atleast at the outset knowledgeable and ability to balance gigantic egos which am afraid a person like Howard is seldom likely to achieve.

He may have captained Australia but helming affairs of a multinational organisation like ICC without appearing to be prejudiced, requires different skill sets altogether.

Fairly absurd argument. While he may not be experienced in the cricketing world, he surely knows his way around politics better than most.

 

[Sir Alex]

Fairly absurd argument. While he may not be experienced in the cricketing world, he surely knows his way around politics better than most.

Don't be facetious, the individual boards aren't expected to evaluate in depth the 'political credentials' of the candidate proposed ahead of his experience as a cricket administrator and a tactician. They've solid evidence of how poor he's been in the latter two departments.

He's not leading Australia here, but a consortium of different nations. It seems Cricket Australia have failed in selling their proposition, if they indeed think they've a candidate who can cut across all these perceived negatives.

 

[Cruxdude]

Morgan and Pawar back nomination process | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

 

[Andre]

Don't be facetious, the individual boards aren't expected to evaluate in depth the 'political credentials' of the candidate proposed ahead of his experience as a cricket administrator and a tactician. They've solid evidence of how poor he's been in the latter two departments.

He's not leading Australia here, but a consortium of different nations. It seems Cricket Australia have failed in selling their proposition, if they indeed think they've a candidate who can cut across all these perceived negatives.

Just out of interest, what is behind your intense dislike for Howard?

Cause it doesn't seem you know a heck of a lot about him or what he can bring to the role - just sounds like you intensely dislike him and therefore he should not get the job.

Absolute joke that Zimbabwe still get a vote on the ICC board, by the way.

 

[Cevno]

Morgan and Pawar back nomination process | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

So much for Mr Peter Roebuck bringing India into the mess.

For some elements of the aussie/english media and Propoganda ,it is always BCCI'S fault if something goes wrong and their boards are saints.

So if India is Backing them now, and the anti-howard block requires one more vote then i guess they will have to look at pakistan or Bangladesh or even West Indies.
Bangladesh are likely to follow India's line and WICB Australia's so i guess it will have to be Pakistan then.

 

[Sir Alex]

Just out of interest, what is behind your intense dislike for Howard?

Cause it doesn't seem you know a heck of a lot about him or what he can bring to the role - just sounds like you intensely dislike him and therefore he should not get the job.

Absolute joke that Zimbabwe still get a vote on the ICC board, by the way.

1. He doesn't know abcd of cricket or how such matters pertaining to it are run.
2. His completely tactless, undiplomatic, ill informed remarks on Murali, which showed his 'ability' to handle a precarious situation, or lack of it.

 

[Sir Alex]

Morgan and Pawar back nomination process | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

Lol, BCCI clearly needs Aus board more than any board at the moment, as they supply with perhaps the most money spinning tours and players for IPL. Not at all unexpected and perhaps disprove the unity of the Asian block.

On principle, they could've opposed Howard's nomination, but business sense prevails. I don't think Pakistan or Bang will oppose his nomination.

 

[silentstriker]

Morgan and Pawar back nomination process | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

Nah it's still the BCCI's fault. Obviously.

As is the BP spill.

 

[silentstriker]

Roebuck says "Inevitably the boards of India, South Africa and Zimbabwe are leading the campaign to prevent the antipodean nomination taking up his position" - India (the BCCI) has not made a comment regarding this issue so far as far as I am aware. It is South Africa, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka who have voiced objections thus far.

Obviously it's inevitable to pick the BCCI when you lack a real source and need a bogeyman.

 

[benchmark00]

1. He doesn't know abcd of cricket or how such matters pertaining to it are run.
2. His completely tactless, undiplomatic, ill informed remarks on Murali, which showed his 'ability' to handle a precarious situation, or lack of it.

lol. How ridiculous your posts have been in this thread.

You're judging his ability to do the job on his thoughts on one particular cricketer?

Heard Malcolm Speed thought Graeme Smith is rubbish on the off side.

 

[Jono]

Obviously it's inevitable to pick the BCCI when you lack a real source and need a bogeyman.

Haha it just justifies every sarcastic "Damn BCCI" post made on this forum.

So typical.

 

[GraemeSmith]

Seriously how spineless is the New Zealand Cricket Board that they just bent over backwards and let Howard be nominated? The fact that australia was trying to nominate such a controversial figure should have made their job of getting their candidate through so much easier. Howard becoming the head is like the worst idea ever. Why not pull George Bush out of retirement and make him the head? At the very least he is funny. Bravo to SA, Zim, SL for trying to block him (eventhough Zim's reason for blocking him are incorrect and misguided, but the fact that they are blocking him is all that matters). Hopefully sanity will prevail, it's all up to Bangladesh & WI, I don't think Pak is going to vote against him as CA & BCCI will just bribe them to buy their vote. BCCI again shows how cynical it is by going after profits rather than doing the right thing. Once again I hope sanity prevails, otherwise this will probably be one of the worst things to happen to cricket

 

[GotSpin]

^ What?

 

[Sir Alex]

Roebuck says "Inevitably the boards of India, South Africa and Zimbabwe are leading the campaign to prevent the antipodean nomination taking up his position" - India (the BCCI) has not made a comment regarding this issue so far as far as I am aware. It is South Africa, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka who have voiced objections thus far.

Shocking journalism from Such an experienced person. Pathetic.

 

[Andre]

1. He doesn't know abcd of cricket or how such matters pertaining to it are run.
2. His completely tactless, undiplomatic, ill informed remarks on Murali, which showed his 'ability' to handle a precarious situation, or lack of it.

He couldn't play cricket very well.. But a completely different kettle of fish is playing to knowing. He's actually quite a knowledgeble cricket fan, I dare say he's got as much history in the game as a lot of the administrators going around at the moment, so that doesn't wash.

Haha, and as for handling 'pressure' situations... You don't run a country (very successfully IMO also) for 11 years without having 'ability' to handle a 'precarious' situation.

Couldn't give a rats if you don't like him to be honest, just tell us that's why you don't want him to have the job instead of making up a whole load of garbage.

 

[Sir Alex]

lol. How ridiculous your posts have been in this thread.

You're judging his ability to do the job on his thoughts on one particular cricketer?

Heard Malcolm Speed thought Graeme Smith is rubbish on the off side.

That's news to me, could you pl provide source for the same?

Further suggesting a player has technical issues Is NOT the same as saying a player is basically a cheat.

 

[Sir Alex]

He couldn't play cricket very well.. But a completely different kettle of fish is playing to knowing. He's actually quite a knowledgeble cricket fan, I dare say he's got as much history in the game as a lot of the administrators going around at the moment, so that doesn't wash.

Haha, and as for handling 'pressure' situations... You don't run a country (very successfully IMO also) for 11 years without having 'ability' to handle a 'precarious' situation.

Couldn't give a rats if you don't like him to be honest, just tell us that's why you don't want him to have the job instead of making up a whole load of garbage.

I have said this before. Running a country like Australia is different from running ICC which is a hotpot of different nations, and different cultures. Do you seriously think an ICC president can accuse the world's most successful player a cheat and expect to get away with it?

I am interested in knowin his credentials as a cricket administrator.

 

[benchmark00]

That's news to me, could you pl provide source for the same?

Further suggesting a player has technical issues Is NOT the same as saying a player is basically a cheat.

Was Howard not correct in saying Murali (under the former laws, as well as the majority of bowlers) threw it? (leaving this issue here because I don't want to go down this route).

Clearly you have a problem with him, obviously for your own personal issues. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But you haven't actually said anything of any substance to say why he wouldn't be good in the role, other than beating your chest and saying no no no he's a despicable man!!

Even Howard bashers concede he was a great politician.

Personally, I think he'd be brilliant in any form of administrative role where politics is involved. And certainly this role would suit his skill set just fine afaic.