benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Haha, didn't know Australia had only one culture...
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
John Howard to head ICC?
- Thread starter NZTailender
- Start date
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
Wouldn't the leader of one nation have to deal with other nations...
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Think I said it before earlier in this thread, I hope Howard doesn't end up in the role. I'm not sure why NZ rolled over and allowed him to be nominated over their candidate.
Just think he's a pretty poor human being and not necessarily the best man for the job.
Just think he's a pretty poor human being and not necessarily the best man for the job.
pasag
RTDAS
Aside from Sir Alex, who in a perverse and quite impressive way, often has no idea what he's talking about, most opposition to Howard's nomination is using every little reason or excuse in an effort to try and cover up the idea that they just don't like his politics.
But just say you don't like his politics. It's a good enough reason not to want him there.
I don't want him there (aside from the fact NZ's candidate seemed to be a better choice) simply because there's a subtle peace in international cricket and I don't want it to be ruined, perhaps irreparably. At the same time, I think I'd lose the right to be able to claim the ICC should have more of a spine, should have done this or taken this action, because Howard would have been that guy. He would be the guy that tried his hardest to make the ICC relevant again, made them more than the weak shell of an organisation they are now. But there are more important things, and that's the unity of the boards.
But just say you don't like his politics. It's a good enough reason not to want him there.
I don't want him there (aside from the fact NZ's candidate seemed to be a better choice) simply because there's a subtle peace in international cricket and I don't want it to be ruined, perhaps irreparably. At the same time, I think I'd lose the right to be able to claim the ICC should have more of a spine, should have done this or taken this action, because Howard would have been that guy. He would be the guy that tried his hardest to make the ICC relevant again, made them more than the weak shell of an organisation they are now. But there are more important things, and that's the unity of the boards.
Last edited:
Sir Alex
Banned
Not really.
PM calls for leadership primarily while ICC presidency calls for diplomacy and consensus building. I have no doubts Howard has leadership skills, but am not at all convinced with his skill in diplomacy.
As someone said before why not as well ask George Bush to do lead ICC? Why can't we just stuff in the leadership roles in ICC with political leaders based on nation-based quota?
If he had enough sense as a diplomat and knowledge as a cricket fan, he'd have steered himself clear of any controvery regardin Murali. Instead, he decided to offer his stupid comments, stirring the rotten broth again, and all this gratuitously.
Not exactly the skill sets needed for a role that needs consensus building and conflict resolution imho.
@ your remarks on me. Stop being condescending.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Wow, leading a country for more than a decade required no diplomatic skills?
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
What are you talking about?
Are you actually saying the person who runs the country has no diplomatic dealings?
Or that a cricket adminstrator is better versed in dealing with different cultures, nationalities etc than a guy who was on the international stage for more than a decade?
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Last edited:
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
I'm sure she'd be alright in discussion with a few countries...A couple might be left out though. If she was in charge Pollock would have had a full career! No more speculation thereShe preferred not to...
England seems to be taking our most unwanted now. Hanson, Greer. Cheers
Last edited:
TumTum
Banned
why post her hereShe preferred not to...
I have no problems with Johny running ICC, unless he makes some type of cricket tax
Sir Alex
Banned
Yeah, a guy who couldn't muster even 45k votes in his constituency and failed to retain it, becoming the only the third premier in Australian history to do that, is apparently touted as the pinnacle of all administrators in Australia. If he were, he'd be still ruling.
Done with this stupid debate. Thank you very much.
Done with this stupid debate. Thank you very much.
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
TumTum
Banned
Uh what?
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Haha, ridiculous.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Wait wait wait. I have an apology to make to Sir Alex. He meant the other John Howard.
Thought his performance in The Club was fine tbf.
GraemeSmith
School Boy/Girl Captain
Exactly. The people who are making the argument that his tenure as the president of Australia gives him enough experience to lead the ICC are being dishonest and they know it. If running a country apparently gives someone enough experience to lead the ICC then why not appoint George W as the head or Margaret Thatcher or any ex head of state who has no experience in cricket administration?
No one is addressing the elephant in the room here. Howard has been a right-wing politician for his entire life. How are his politics going to affect the ICC? Considering his politics I find it hard to believe that he has any interest in strengthening the ICC. He is just going to become the puppet of BCCI or whichever board happens to have the most money. For him cricket is just another business, a money making proposition and CA and all other boards are just corporations. Mark my words if he wins stuff like the IPL which makes money will take over all real cricket, there will be a huge reduction in the non profitable test cricket. I know this is the kind of stuff that is usually not considered but it must be payed close attention to when a character like John Howard is trying to become the head of ICC. And lastly what kind of message does it send around the world? Atleast 50% of the people disagree with his right-wing politics, do we really want offend half the cricketing audience by doing this? Doesn't seem worth it to me. Why not just nominate an experienced non political person like Anderson and end all this drama?
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
If you oppose him because you don't like his politics, as Gelman said, just come out and say it. To say he can't administer a an organization or lacks diplomatic skills despite being a career politician and a prime minister is highly disingenous and laughably inane.
Yea, some random guy from Maharastra has more international diplomatic skills than a Prime Mininster of a country. I'm sure talking to other cricket administrators requires a lot more subtle diplomatic skills and cultural understanding than dealing with foreign leaders on a daily basis on issues of national and international importance. Give me a break.
If you don't like him, come out and say why. Don't make up excuses to justify your opinions.
Yea, some random guy from Maharastra has more international diplomatic skills than a Prime Mininster of a country. I'm sure talking to other cricket administrators requires a lot more subtle diplomatic skills and cultural understanding than dealing with foreign leaders on a daily basis on issues of national and international importance. Give me a break.
If you don't like him, come out and say why. Don't make up excuses to justify your opinions.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Also, it's the BCCI's fault that CSA and Zimbabwe oppose Howard.