Howard not the only PM passionate about cricket
Columnist By Kersi Meher-Homji, 4 Mar 2010 Kersi Meher-Homji is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Cricket, ICC, John Howard, John Major
Prime Minister John Howard presents the trophy to his team captain Cameron White. AAP Image/Alan Porritt
John Howard, chosen for the ICC Presidency in 2012, is not the first Prime Minister to be a cricket tragic. Sir Robert Menzies and Bob Hawke were among others.
Hawke was a promising cricketer who played at high grade levels in both Australia and England. He made headlines when playing for The Parliamentarians against The Press in 1984 in Australia.
In that match, the 53 year-old Hawke top-edged a hook on his face and smashed his glasses. And the media had a field day splashing his “spectacular” photos.
But the most accomplished among them all was John Major, England’s Prime Minister in 1990s.
At the age of 12, Major had won a prize for being the Best Young Cricketer of the Year awarded by London’s Evening Standard newspaper after taking 7 wickets for only 9 runs in a school match, including a hat-trick.
From then on, he developed into a promising fast bowler, an attacking batsman with a penchant for hitting sixes, and a safe slip fielder. He was considered a fine prospect to play for county team Surrey.
Sadly, a car accident when he was 20 put an end to Major’s cricket aspirations. His legs were broken in several places and he never played serious cricket again.
Was that his most tragic cricket memory? Not quite.
He recalls that when only 11, he was given out leg before wicket for a first ball duck, despite hitting the ball in the middle of the bat. Major never forgave the school master who lifted the finger.
Some years later in Nigeria, Major was proceeding serenely towards his maiden century when an aeroplane appeared from nowhere and landed at square leg.
The shock landing severely damaged the pitch and the match was abandoned, with the future Prime Minister 23 runs short of his century and his dream. A Major tragedy, indeed.
Despite his increasingly heavy involvement in politics, Major regularly watched cricket for a few hours at The Oval and was made the patron of the Surrey Cricket Club Youth Appeal.
His heroes remained great Surrey cricketers such as Alec Bedser, Jim Laker and Tony Lock, and also the graceful English batsmen, David Gower and Robin Smith.
What the other John, Australia’s John Howard, lacked in cricketing ability, he made up by his love for the game.
But would his passion for cricket and his administrative ability in politics compensate for his lack of background in international cricket?
I would say, “No, Mr ex- Prime Minister”!
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Cricket, ICC, John Howard, John Major
March 4th 2010 @ 6:26pm
Whiteline said | March 4th 2010 @ 6:26pm | Report comment
People should be selected on merit. Vinay, what exactly do you think the role encompasses?
Having answered that, are you in a position to make a call on the merits of Atherton, Kumble et al without going through a thorough process?
Just asking the question….
March 4th 2010 @ 7:47pm
vinay verma said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
Whiteline,before I describe what I think the role should be let me state I am against any current or expolitician being the head of the ICC. The next head is Sharad Pawar,India’s Agricultural Minister. I would suggest that Pawar stays at home and fixes the plight of the farmers in India.
The President of the ICC has to first of all have the good of the game at heart. Secondly he should protect and nourish the traditions and history of the game. Thirdly he has to find a balance for all three forms of the game. With the mantra being that Test Cricket is the heart and soul of the game. Twenty20 has a place and an economic spinoff just as the 50 overs game has. None of the Test playing nations should be marginalised. Transparency is the key to good governance. Cricket is yours and mine and we have a right to know what happens at the ICC meetings. It would be public if they had nothing to hide. I suggest there is a lot of dirty laundry in the ICC closet. Just ask yourself the question why Michael Holding has chosen to distance himself from the ICC.
As to the merits of Atherton he has proved himself a shrewd analyst and has demonstrated a willingness to uphold the traditions. He has played at the highest level and would also be acutely aware of the politics of the position. Howard or Pawar would not understand the pressures an elite cricketer faces. And the nature of a political animal is such that they believe if they have the numbers they are right. I believe we survive in spite of politicians and not because of them. Now if Nelson Mandela was younger I would endorse him. So if a politician has to head the ICC then he must be exceptional. Neither the soon to be and the one annointed in 2012 fit the bill.
March 4th 2010 @ 8:02pm
vinay verma said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:02pm | Report comment
Whiteline,just amplifying my point about balance for the three forms this is what Sobers had to say as quoted in the Times of India:
Sobers, who made 8,032 runs with 26 hundreds at a shade under 58 per innings and grabbed 235 wickets in 93 Tests, urged the cricket authorities to exercise caution while promoting the immensely popular Twenty20 form of the game.
“Twenty20 game is good entertainment and people will go for it but you have to be careful how far you let it go. It does not breed Test cricketers,” said the cricketing great in the presence of Wadekar who shared the dais.
Sobers was also concerned about the easy money on offer in cricket and felt some of the cricketers just didn’t deserve it.
“There’s a lot of lump-sum given to the players. Some of them deserve it but others don’t. I don’t know the reason and I don’t want to comment on it,” he said.
March 4th 2010 @ 8:10pm
drewster said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
Just to Change the tone of the debate. What a battle it would be with Howard as ICC President and Bob Hawke as the Players Union Representative. Two so called “Cricket Tragics” from either side of the political scale, Facing off on cricket politics. Now thats what i’d call a “Test Match” GO Hawkey!
March 4th 2010 @ 8:16pm
vinay verma said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Drewster,and Pauline hanson as the media Liason!
March 4th 2010 @ 11:05pm
Whiteline said | March 4th 2010 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
Vinay,
I understand where you are coming from and I respect all that you have said. Whilst i don’t have a strong opinion either way in regards to Howard, sometimes someone from outside a system or organisation can see a little more clearly than those with emotional attachments to the game, product or industry.
The respective Associations in Australia are full of former players and while in certain areas this is advantageous it is also wise to bring in a few ‘outsiders’ without historical and emotional bias.
I don’t believe you necessarily need a cricketer to be the head of the ICC what you do need is a leader who respects the contributions of other formers cricketers who may be on the panel with them and use their respective strengths to get the desired result.
If Garry Sobers (to use a name you’ve referred to) is a fantastic leader, diplomat and businessman then his cricket experience would be a tremendous bonus. But if he is none of these then his cricket record will matter little after the first few months.
To use an old cricket anology, a great player doesn’t always make a great coach.
March 5th 2010 @ 6:32am
vinay verma said | March 5th 2010 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Whiteline,this debate over the President of the ICC has far reaching implications for the very future of the game and that is why I have weighed into it. The job should focus on the greater good rather than satisfying vested interests of a particular country. Howard saying he respects the “passion” of the subcontinent is as credible as Warne saying he has found a new appreciation of “Indian culture”. For passion and culture read “money” Money used properly can help the game.
The ICC is obsessed with taking the game to America and China.This is a time to stabilise the game in the West Indies and Pakistan;Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. These four cricket boards are broke and need fixing.This is the direction the ICC should take. A proper Test Championship. A Twenty20 World Cup every 4 years not every 18 months. Clean up the financial irregularities in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Get serious about matchfixing. Clean out the drug cheats and have Technology for all forms of the game..Ross Taylor’s LBW in the Twenty20 was a howler.Fix the pitches and speed up the over rates.There is a lot for the ICC to do. The member countries have to give more power to the ICC..otherwise it will remain what it is. A rubber stamp to do the bidding of the country with the most money.
Some great players do make good coaches. Greg Chappell oversees our future Champions and the next crop looks promising. Mitch marsh and Josh Hazlewood are ones to watch. Lillee remains the most revered fast bowling coach. Agreed that some like Viv Richards and Kapil Dev were unable to pass on their genius.
Who else did CA approach? They could have nominated Paul Sheahan or Ian Davis..one a successful Principal and another the head of a sporting multinational..and both fine cricketers.I have seen first hand the damage a politician can do in a country like India and I need not detail all this as I have done many times in the past.
I would also have been more comfortable with the NZ candidate. There is a certain gracelessness about Australia getting its way over a smaller neighbour,despite the smaller neighbour having a better candidate.
March 5th 2010 @ 7:35am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | March 5th 2010 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Vinay,
What a scoop for The Roar! You quoted Jason Gillespie’s father Neil a day before his interview appeared in today’s Sydney Morning Herald.
By the way, I disagree with Neil’s comments on racism in Australia. I came from India along with my wife in 1970. Our children are born here. Not ONE instance of racial prejudice to us. Nor to our non-white friends, their children and grand children over here; regardless of who the PM was.
This is besides the point.
Now that John Howard is chosen for ICC Presidency, let us give him our full support. Criticise him only when he falters. Be proud that an Australian will head the International Cricket body. Face it, he was a very capable leader as Australia’s PM, although perhaps a poor off-spinner.
March 5th 2010 @ 8:11am
Whiteline said | March 5th 2010 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Hi Kersi
I appreciate your balance given to this debate. I agree that we need to give support to Howard as as we all know, he’s there now (or in 2012) and we can’t change it.
Vinay, I think you should consider Kersi’s view and perhaps give the guy a break, just like you do with Ricky Ponting despite his obvious disabilities as a captain, diplomat and leader.
March 5th 2010 @ 9:40am
vinay verma said | March 5th 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Kersi,Whiteline the following from the Indian Express 2nd march:
In a list of 100 most trusted people compiled by Readers’ Digest magazine, Sachin figures at the eighth position – the highest among people related to cricket and next only to chess champion Viswanathan Anand (overall 6th).
In the same list, IPL Chairman Lalit Modi, arguably the most controversial cricket administrator, has been ranked 93rd — the lowest rank for any cricket-related person in the list.
” While Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, ranked 97th, is also related to the field of cricket in his capacity of Chairman of BCCI (Board for Control of Cricket in India), but he’s more of a politician.
So much for trusting politicians. Give me Ricky Ponting any day.