Should Howard be appointed ICC chairman in 2012?
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 23 Jan 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Cricket, ICC, John Howard
Wallabies captain George Gregan (right) joins Prime Minister John Howard on his early morning walk in Canberra, Wednesday, Aug 16, 2006. The Wallabies will play the All Blacks in new Zealand on Saturday in the Tri - Nations Cup. AAP Image/Alan Porritt
It’s the turn of Australia and New Zealand to put forward their candidate to become chairman of the International Cricket Council in 2012. According to The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald, the candidate, who is assured of the appointment, will be John Howard, the former long-serving Prime Minister of Australia.
When Howard was approached by reporters for a comment on the rumour, he gave a politician’s ‘no comment’ response.
Cricket Australia has confirmed that a candidate has been selected, but its spokesman refused to say whether this candidate is Howard. The SMH was told: “We do have a preferred candidate. He is dedicated to cricket and willing for his name to go forward.”
Peter Roebuck, in a robust column in the SMH, has presumed that the preferred candidate is the former Prime Minister. He gives Howard a terrible verbal mauling, the sort of onslaught that Howard’s pitiful off-spinners would receive from anyone capable of lifting a bat in anger.
John Howard, according to Roebuck, is not qualified for the job, ”plain and simple.”
Howard’s knowledge of cricket is “more characterised by enthusiasm than depth or imagination.” He is “an aged and conservative white politician with scant knowledge of the intricacies of the game.”
Roebuck clearly believes that Howard is not up to coping with the politics of cricket, especially the power plays that have been launched by the Indian cricket authorities who are seemingly intoxicated with the economic power they wield in world cricket.
This is a strange argument to make against a man believed by many to be the most consummate Australian politician (in getting his way and manipulating people to do what he wants) since Sir Robert Menzies, another cricket tragic.
I wonder if Roebuck would have made this argument if someone like Bob Hawke (too old now, of course) had been put forward for consideration. My guess is that Roebuck would have approved of that appointment.
Roebuck also argues that Howard has been put up to “to counter the all-consuming and much resented power of the Indians.”
I believe the opposite is true.
Howard is the choice of Cricket Australia – and apparently foisted on Cricket New Zealand – because he will go along with the Indian power brokers.
A source in New Zealand told me that Cricket Australia is determined to stay as close as possible to the Indian power brokers because Indian cricket is an Aladdin’s treasure trove for the Australian game.
Howard, the consummate politician, can be expected to ease Indian concerns about anti-Indian behaviour in Australia, and Australian concerns about anti-Australian behaviour in India. The art of the politician, and Howard was one of the best, is to pour soothing and unctuous words on troubled situations.
The alternative to Howard, New Zealand’s Sir John Anderson, has been known to be quite forthright about some of the unsavoury behaviour of leading Indian cricket officials.
Sir John is Roebuck’s and New Zealand nominee for the job.
He would be the ideal appointment. Those of us of a certain age remember him as a big-bummed fast bowler and fearsome hitter in Wellington first grade cricket. He had a distinguished career as a banker, being chief executive of the ANZ National Bank.
He has any number of board positions now, including the board of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, chairman of Television NZ and secretary of the NZ Cricket Foundation.
Sir John, I’ve been told, has had an operation to help a bad back and the suggestion is that he might not want a job that entails numerous long distance air flights.
But he has been New Zealand’s nominee, and in the best of all worlds, is the man for the job.
But having said that, if John Howard is the choice of the Australian and New Zealand cricket authorities, then he should be supported.
I can’t see how someone who has successfully navigated the shark-infested waters of Australian politics won’t be in his element in the equally dangerous and murky waters of international cricket politics.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Clarke stars as Australia beat Sri Lanka
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
- Cricket, ICC, John Howard
Viscount Crouchback said | January 23rd 2010 @ 4:55am | Report comment
One has to laugh at the “aged and conservative white politician” line. I do hate it when (invariably white and ageing) self-styled “progressive” journalists come out with such poppycock. What would Roebuck find more tolerable – a teenage rastafarian? Howard’s age and race are irrelevant and his politics are relevant only insofar as they affect his ability to do the job.
Your take on India sounds about right, Spiro. It’s common knowledge that the Australian board jumped into bed with the BCCI some time ago. Only the English and the New Zealanders have been holding out. Many of the more bizarre episodes in cricket over the past 18 months, e.g. the Stanford debacle, have arisen as a result of the ECB’s desire to counter Indian influence and to win some more friends at the ICC. This is also why the English are willing to host the Pakistanis on such generous terms this year.
I think the ACU’s stance is rather shameful. It continues to chase wonga even though cricket is awash with cash. There are distinctly average cricketers being awarded vast county contracts at the moment. The game doesn’t need more money. It needs a benevolent custodian to consolidate its commercial progress whilst preserving the essence of the sport, i.e. Test cricket. As such, I hope Sir John gets the nod.
M-Rod said | January 23rd 2010 @ 7:56am | Report comment
(Sir) John Howard brings to the role nothing more than a skill for machiavellian politics forged over a lifetime in the business. His tenure as PM was characterised by a deep conservatism masked by an appeal to shrill populism, which saw him avoid making difficult and long term beneficial decisions. His appointment to such an important position will see cricket heirarchy racked by a culture of division, favouritism and opportunism that will do nothing to advance and secure the interests of International cricket ahead of the corporate media and indian entreprenuerial power brokers who see the sport as a commodity to be manipulated and re-engineered for their financial gain.
Sam said | January 23rd 2010 @ 7:58am | Report comment
I do fear the future for cricket as it becomes increasingly unipolar. The concept of reaching a consensus on international issues seems a distant dream. If cricket is to ever grow outside the sphere of the old British colonies than a better way than India’s ‘my way or the highway’ brand of cricketing diplomacy is going to be needed. I hope Howard doesn’t get it, seems a step backwards to have a politician as the figurehead (and sounds like thats what he’ll be – because the BCCI is the real head of world cricket) of the game.
hammer said | January 23rd 2010 @ 9:36am | Report comment
If roebuck’s column describes the process factually then CA should hang it’s head in shame – I hope the kiwis stick to their guns – Howard isn’t the right man for this post everyone knows it CA are just being pigheaded
vinay verma said | January 23rd 2010 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Spiro,the current President elect of the ICC is Sharad pawar and he is due to take over in May2010.He is India’s third highest Minister and has been known to be a “consumate” politician. This is an euphemism for manipulative. We do not need more politicians,of any persuasion,in charge of the ICC. We need more ex cricketers of stature. Like Mark Taylor,or Richard Hadlee or Anil Kumble. In the future someone like Rahul Dravid would be ideal. We also need strong men who will do what is good for cricket. At the moment the ICC is a rubber stamp that does India’s bidding.
There are two distinct blocs..India/Aust/SAfrica on one side and the ECB on the other. Pakistan,Sri lanka,West Indies and New Zealand are at the mercy of India. I feel in time the ECB,will also side with India. The lure of billions is simply irrestible to administrators who ten years ago would not have dreamed of the money now on offer.
Players and their unions also need to show more restraint otherwise the money on offer now will not be sustainable in the future. Cricketers nee to understand that there is a limit to how much the game can afford to pay them and also nourish the grassroots.
davido said | January 23rd 2010 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Oh dear. I thought this was a joke at first. A has-been politician for the ICC?
I would have thought the ICC was corrupt and incompetent enough as it is. Politicians are the last thing it really needs. Mr Pawar has shown us that.
drewster said | January 23rd 2010 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Have to agree with Vinay on this one. The game needs ex players to be in charge. His nominations are definately men held in high regard in cricket circles and have a much better understanding of what is required to progress the game forward. Having politcians with the ability to manipulate situations for the sake of a dollar or a vote is not what is needed.
The ICC is a joke at the moment full of contradictions, ICC (Incompetence Controlling Cricket)
Chookman said | January 23rd 2010 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
As the Prime Minister of Australia he was divisive, racist, and visionless in his actions. He also demonstrated scant respect for honesty and integrity in the face of opportunism. An anglophile, he brings the possibility of divisiveness to destroy cricket relationships. I am an Australia who loves cricket and fear for what would happen if John Howard has any role in its administration. Just NO!
Viscount Crouchback said | January 24th 2010 @ 11:37am | Report comment
An Anglophile? Good heavens, strike him off the list at once!
mjg said | January 23rd 2010 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
I thought this was a joke at first too. My Australian nominee would be Allan Border, if he’s prepared to accept.
Marcel said | January 23rd 2010 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
John Howard has no clue about cricket and no genuine interest in the game. The whole “cricket tragic” thing was very clearly invented in the later stages of his career to try and make him more appealing to the “common man”. I only have a passing interest in cricket but at least when I attempt a few deliveries they make it down the other end.