John Howard to be next VP of ICC

Further on Speed, this was what he had to say about Pawar's credentials for the top job on June 1,

"Sharad Pawar is a very sensible, experienced man who I think has now got a good grip of cricket administration and politics," Speed said.

So in a period of 1 month, Pawar becomes someone having little knowledge of cricket administration?

So my initial thoughts about Speed look right now.

tac wrote:I think TO has touched on the core problem here . . .it was a gentleman's agreement to rubberstamp the rotation policy. Unfortunately, a number of representatives of the various the cricket boards are NOT behaving like gentlemen . . .

yup. australia should not be putting up a total tool for presidency and expect the rest to just sing along

Here is the link,

Malcolm Speed backs John Howard for ICC presidency

If Howard was as bad as Mugabe you would have a point ...if he was as bad as Pawar , Sonn Dalmiya or Mali ...you would have a point

The Presidency of the ICC holds little "real" power ...you are VP for two years ...then President for two more ...then you are the ex President ....You sit on a board that has representatives from the Test Nations ....the board makes democratic decisions ...the President doesnt hold any special powers

If the Presidency did hold "special powers" then any changes Howard makes that are "racist or colonialist" would only be in place for two years any way ...and Im sure there would be sufficient sooking from the injured parties that nothing controversial would be brought in anyway

The One wrote:

tac wrote:I think TO has touched on the core problem here . . .it was a gentleman's agreement to rubberstamp the rotation policy. Unfortunately, a number of representatives of the various the cricket boards are NOT behaving like gentlemen . . .

yup. australia should not be putting up a total tool for presidency and expect the rest to just sing along

Percy Sonn . . . .

phurt...our ACB are brainless toffs - why else woould have they nominated the lying little rodent

embee wrote:If Howard was as bad as Mugabe you would have a point ...if he was as bad as Pawar , Sonn Dalmiya or Mali ...you would have a point

The Presidency of the ICC holds little "real" power ...you are VP for two years ...then President for two more ...then you are the ex President ....You sit on a board that has representatives from the Test Nations ....the board makes democratic decisions ...the President doesnt hold any special powers

If the Presidency did hold "special powers" then any changes Howard makes that are "racist or colonialist" would only be in place for two years any way ...and Im sure there would be sufficient sooking from the injured parties that nothing controversial would be brought in anyway

whatever your personal impressions of howard in relation to the others named, if 7 out of 10 nations think they will have a real problem dealing with him, why do you suppose they should accept him? like i said they only have a problem with this particular individual, not all possible anzac candidates. why is australia so hell-bent on getting someone with absolutely zero cricketing background and someone who creates a lot of negativity amongst other member states to be its nominee? frankly, its puzzling

If 7 nations had legitimate concerns about Howard's nomination then you'd be right

Only ONE has ...and that's Zimbabwe...or more specifically ...Mugabe has

The rest have fallen in on a "favors called in" voting bloc

What do the other 6 have to fear from Howard? I find that puzzling

have a good think about it embee

why not ron howard?

embee wrote:What do the other 6 have to fear from Howard? I find that puzzling

are you serious? what part of his political life suggests that he has any tact (i am not even mentioning warmth) when it comes to dealings with non anglo-saxon nations? to top it all off he has absolutely zero experience in cricket administration. what makes you think he has any qualities at all to be head of a multi-national cricketing organisation? its pretty obvious he was selected only because of his political background, a background which is unsavoury to most cricketing nations

Bhogle's take on it ....lots of words not actually saying much ...sits on the fence ...and has a sledge at the BCCI




So cricket sits on the precipice again? Rabble rousers and respected cricket writers are sharpening their phrases, warning of the impact of a brown-white divide; there is talk of digging in heels and taking warlike positions. After a temporary lull, the peace flags are down. Is it us-and-them all over again? I fear we over-react, get blind to our failings and discover pure venom in differing ideologies and cultures. I suspect we need to be a little more realistic, a little more understanding of the decisive way the world is changing.

Remember, we are a very small sport, no more than 10 countries really, and with inequitable distribution of wealth and opportunity it is not very difficult for power blocs to emerge. The ICC is a very political organisation but so is every single sporting body from the IOC to FIFA. To believe otherwise is naive.

It might seem, therefore, that on the surface Zimbabwe and South Africa led the opposition to John Howard, but that his nomination would not have failed had India supported him. Ah, India again! That is where I believe the resentment lies. It is not surprising, for India is seen in some countries as a nouveau riche brat flexing his muscles at every opportunity.

India has stumbled onto leadership through a combination of demographics and an unshackled middle class. A country long seen to be tame and accepting is now being looked upon as devious and manipulative. That should surprise no one because leaders around the world use their power to manipulate and to subjugate. It is not a worthy trait to possess, but India is neither the first nor will it be the last.

When they controlled the ICC, England were both condescending and manipulative. Having lost two series to India in 1971, at home, and in 1972-73 away, they forced through temporary legislation restricting the number of fielders on the leg side to five, thus negating India's spinners. They regularly looked down at our part of the world, and I have personally been at the receiving end of three instances of offensive and insulting behaviour at Lord's. This is not to say the English are terrible and villainous, perish the thought, just that power makes certain people behave a certain way.

The closest similarity to the financial power India currently enjoys in cricket is that which the United States had over world politics after the Second World War. The US openly took sides, openly protected its allies, created discord among those who dared stand up, funded rebellion, and through such manipulation maintained its leadership position. Like with India, it was the financial muscle of their markets that was at the heart of it. We in India know that well through 1971 and the crippling financial sanctions that were imposed because we thought we were mature enough to possess nuclear power.





The East India Company was manipulative, so were the Mughals who inflicted rather more gruesome ends on those who opposed them, and indeed so were the Rajputs and the other Indian princely states. Indian politicians are deeply manipulative, as were George Bush and Dick Cheney and Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, and I would venture to say it is almost an inevitable outcome of possessing power. And so India's cricket officials are currently flexing their muscles, and should the cycle change again, as it delightfully does, Australia will flex their muscles too. Don't think otherwise. Power tends to create tyrants out of perfectly reasonable people. Mandela and Gandhi were exceptions.

And yet, I would love it if India was different, if it could indeed take the lead in governance and transparency, focus on making cricket a richer sport rather than dragging it through controversy. In recent times Indian cricket has been in the news for annulling signed contracts, for being in dispute with the income-tax authorities and other legal entities; every time the question of television rights comes up, it is accompanied by many battles in court. Conflict of interest and lack of transparency, though they are global features as we saw post-Iraq, almost define Indian cricket. While many leaders are manipulative, the truly great are statesmanlike and India have that opportunity; one they are currently squandering.

But the message for the erstwhile rulers is that the world is changing. This is not a catcall of joy, merely an economic fact, and I will be disappointed if it is misinterpreted. On Thursday the Group CEO of HSBC said, "… the shift from the West to the East is unstoppable... It starts in India and goes all the way down to Australia..." Cricket, a very tiny part of the world, merely mirrors that.

A group of 10 cannot afford to be at war with each other, cannot take up strident positions. There must be other ways. Acceptance and cooperation can open the doors to those.

horace wrote:why not ron howard?

Because I said so.
Next?

PS Did you open the file?

a fairly reasonable position

this is bishen bedi's position

"
Former Indian cricket captain Bishan Singh Bedi says the way Mr Howard's nomination was rejected by the ICC was crude and may have harmed the game.
He says Indians need to look at themselves before calling others racist.
"You know we Indians are the biggest racists in the world. If you look at the daily newspapers, the number of killings that are going on in the name of race and caste and all this rubbish," he said.

Bedi of course is well known for sharing Howard's views on Murali.

horace wrote:this is bishen bedi's position

"
Former Indian cricket captain Bishan Singh Bedi says the way Mr Howard's nomination was rejected by the ICC was crude and may have harmed the game.
He says Indians need to look at themselves before calling others racist.
"You know we Indians are the biggest racists in the world. If you look at the daily newspapers, the number of killings that are going on in the name of race and caste and all this rubbish," he said.

The truth always hurts and the ostrich loves soft sand.

most of the universe agrees on that...

I have always admired bedi as a player...has always seemed a good bloke

Same here ... Top fella.
Though I'm given to understand that there's not much regard for him in his native BanIndia.

I suspect my work here is done

embee wrote:I have personally been at the receiving end of three instances of offensive and insulting behaviour at Lord's.

If he's anything like as big a twat in real life as he is at commentary he probably needs to look beyond the colour of his skin....

My lasting memory of John Howard is the awards ceremony incident after the rugby world cup final. What a sook.

So what have we learned from this debacle?

That Cricket Australia has its head in the sand.

That Indians, especially their cricket officials, will play the race card any possible opportunity. And many Indians refuse to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with that, because some time ago, some people, some of whom are dead, did some racially questionable things to some Indians, some of whom are now dead.

And that many people in the upper echelons of cricket are as corrupt as all f*ck.

Nothing new to see here, move along.

And accept that assholes will be assholes.

Henry Nolonga wrote:My lasting memory of John Howard is the awards ceremony incident after the rugby world cup final. What a sook.

One of my all time best sporting memories...