• The Ashes
• International
• Big Bash League
• Big Bash League Fixtures
• IPL
• Domestic
• Cricket RSS
• Cricket photos

The Crowd Says (39) | Page 1 of Comments

• Kersi Meher-Homji said | July 4th 2010 @ 10:16am | Report comment

  Vinay, I admire you as a writer. You remind me at times of Neville Cardus for your beautiful prose and your knowledge and love of the game.
  But hatred has coloured your thinking. I found your two latest posts full of venom and borrrring. Maybe saying the same thing twice makes it more convincing. It does not.
  I agree with you that when I came to Sydney in 1970, there was only one spice shop and one Indian Restaurant.
  I’ll go further. On some benches was written “For Whites only”.
  Can you blame this on Howard? It was in 1970 and Howard came to power in mid-1990s.
  Now there are hundreds of spice shops and Indian Restaurants in Sydney.
  I’m not saying give Johnny the credit for it. But white Australia policy was revoked in 1970s.
  In my 40 years in Australia I have been treated very well at all levels. Same with you. So why carry this anger?
  I won’t call you a “do-gooder” if you speak up for the Aboriginals. In fact, I request you to do something for them. Live with them and improve their life style.
  And don’t blame everything on Howard. There were other PMs too.
  Of course Taylor or Border or S Waugh would be my choice against Howard. But there is no reason to villify him as many other ICC Presidents, past and present, were not Test cricketers. Sharad Pawar is NOT.
  Balance was the highlight of your beautiful writing. You have lost it, mate.

  Reply

  • punter said | July 4th 2010 @ 10:40am | Report comment

    It’s called perception. I have an English friend of Sri Lankan background who emigrated to Melbourne, who has since returned to England saying he was racially abused.

    While I wouldn’t call Howard a racist, I felt most of his policies & views definately leaned towards a very conservative governement that maybe lent itself to not understanding differences in cultures or religion(very Bush like).
    But then this is only my prepeception, there are many who argue despite his lack of activity in trying to create harmony amongst different cultures, his financial stability goverenment when in power made up for this. I disagree.

    Reply
• 

  Vinay Verma said | July 4th 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment

  Kersi,sometimes we have to disagree. Hatred for Howard is the furthest thing from my mind. I am maintaining that Howard was the wrong nomination. This is a view shared by Ian Chappell,Harsha Bhogle,Pradeep magazine and many others.
  In both by posts I have not played Howard the man. I have played the ball. I do not know Howard personally I can only comment on his public life.

  My question is why did CA look outside the cricket community? Is there no cricket person suitable in Australia.
  ? If this isthe case we are in trouble.

  There was a commitment that was supposedly given by Pawar to CA to accept Australia’s nominee. Pawar made the commitment on behalf of the BCCI. As it turns out the BCCI and Pawar are at a stand-off with the BCCI saying it never gave any undertaking.

  I can understand CA’s bewilderment as they went on the premise that they had the numbers. CA did not factor in the deep-seated resentment harboured against Howard.This is naive thinking.

  How is it a vilification? I have given reasons why I think he was the wrong nominee. You are entitled to your opinion,Kersi and your personal situation may have improved under Howard and mine may have too, but that is not a reason for us to agree.

  I have no anger. I am just passionate about what I believe in and will continue to say it like I see it. This is not a popularity contest for me.

  I find it very upsetting that you would think I have a “hatred” for Howard. I have no such sentiments. I am giving the readers reasons why Howard was found unacceptable.

  Perhaps,Kersi,you do not meet the crossection of the wider community that I do. I believe I have presented a balanced argument and if this upsets you that is something that we both have to live with.

  Reply
• 

  Brett McKay said | July 4th 2010 @ 2:18pm | Report comment

  See Vinay, this is where this whole “Howard was the right/wrong man” debate loses the point. The issue should not be whether John Howard was the right or wrong candidate at all, and what we think of his political performance is, frankly, moot.

  The issue is that the ICC member nations have ignored process, and with no precedent or explanation – still – failed to rubber stamp Australia and New Zealand’s rotational nomination for the now-vacant Vice Presidency.

  With Sharad Pawar now elevated to the President role in the ICC, depite being described as being at best a “part time” ICC administrator, this sorry and sordid tale shows no sign of timely resolution, and ranks up there with some of the most incomprehensible developments to emminate from the ICC bunker.

  Malcolm Speed has this right: the rejection of John Howard has little to do with politics or suitablity, but with power, and how it may be diluted when Howard starts asking the hard questions or daring to hold nations to account.

  I could care less about who is or isn’t the right man for this job. The ICC is now on the brink of irrelevance, and an opportunity to restake its fading credibility is being deliberately and devisively ignored…

  Reply
  • 

    Vinay Verma said | July 4th 2010 @ 3:43pm | Report comment

    Brett, lets start on the premise that we wish to see cricket prosper and values upheld. There has been no transparency with anyone.Not the BCCI or CA. Ca is talking about a rigorous process of selection and nomination. You and I are both speculating because that is all we have to go on. I am presuming this rigoros process was a rigorous arm twisting..Let me refresh the reader’s memories when Howard was first appointed..Spiro, Peter Roebuck, and myself all said that Howard was the wrong choice.

    Now that he has been rejected CA, Peter and Spiro have argued the case for due process in the rotational nomination. What is this rotational nomination..It is something agreed to by Sharad Pawar and David Morgan. Based on this Sharad Pawar presumably assured CA that Howard’s nomination would be rubber stamped. This appears a decision taken by Pawar and Morgan. The BCCI now says it never consented to rubberstamping anything..so do CSAF and all the other boards.
    You and I both know that CA believed,and rightly so,that Pawar was speaking on behalf of the BCCI as he was their nominee. However Pawar could not speak for all the other Boards. In fact Pawar today may not have the full support of the BCCI either.

    And this is an important point. What many people do not know is that the BCCI is controlled by the Government in power in India. This is the ruling congress party. 19 of the 27 State Associations are run by Congress party or coalition nomionees.

    The BCCI only answers to one person and that is Madame Sonia Gandhi..yes that is what they genuflect to ..MADAME. She has to raise an eyebreow and even Ivan Milat could be elected.

    I am finding it hard to believe that CA did not detect the mood. They are now between a rock and a hard place because they approached Howard and cannot very well cut him off now. This is what gets me..Is there no one else suitable within the Cricket fraternity?

    As for asking hard questions it does not need Howard. James Sutherland or Giles Clark,or Ijaz Butt could ask these questions. So why have questions not been asked these last two years. Why is there silence from CA and SAF and the ECB…Iam on record as questioning Pawar’s suitability for the last two years..I asked Jack Clarke the question..”Why are you so cosy with the BCCI.” To which the reply was that we have a good relationship.

    So I have been asking questions for a long time and I know how the BCCI is compromised. I see that the PCB is a basketcase and everything Macolm Speed says I have no problem with. And let us be realistic…Howard cannot dilute the power the BCCI has.This is like saying that Lichtenstein cal dilute the US power.

    It is quite simple. The ECB,SAF and CA have gone along with India because of the financial spinoffs. So really apart from the fact that Howard is unacceptable to the majority the questions we should ask is why the three ,CA,CSAF and ECB have kept quiet.
    Perhaps the time has come for all cricket nations to make their own decisions. Pawar is the wrong person to head the ICC and so is Howard..I don’t want any politician withing 10000 kms of the ICC.

    Reply

    • Andyroo said | July 4th 2010 @ 6:45pm | Report comment

      Interesting reading Vinay.

      For all it’s faults I now think the “no goverment intervention” rules from FIFA may be something it has done right.

      Reply

• Ivan Ho said | July 4th 2010 @ 2:18pm | Report comment

  Most of the article is about racism, mostly unfounded. The point on ‘do gooders’ dates to the 80s if not before. I have lived in a few countrys, visited a few more. You’ll find it everywhere if you look BUT Australia will do me very nicely mate, thanks very much.

  Reply

• Richard said | July 4th 2010 @ 2:22pm | Report comment

  Well argued Vinay. I agree with you that John Howard was not a good nomination for this post. He is a divisive character who polarises opinion. He no longer enjoys widespread popularity in Australia or elswhere. He may love cricket but he is not accomplished in the sport. His stand against Mugabe was correct, but hardly took courage in a world which universally condemns the man. I was disappointed that Australia appeared to ride roughshod over New Zealand in insisting upon Howard as the joint nomination. All in all not a good choice. Strangely though I was most put out when the sub-continent countries apparently led a move to ignore tradition and override the ANZ choice when it was apparently our turn. Maybe it’s time to overhaul the process, because by ignoring the tradition of assent in these matters, India and its supporters will have thoroughly insulted us if they choose to stick to that pretense in the future.

  Reply
  • 

    Vinay Verma said | July 4th 2010 @ 3:57pm | Report comment

    Richard,this tradition you speak of is something that was agreed two years ago and tradition to my way of thinking is something that takes decades to build. I would not be surprised if Sharad Pawar agreed to this rotation system because it suited him to get the Presidency. Did he discuss it with the BCCI? He has not been involved in the BCCI since early 2009 when he vacated for Manohar. Would you trust a politician? I certainly would not trust Pawar,let alone any other politician.
    Only grief if you take a politician’s word.

    Why was this tradition not written into the constitution? Perhaps because it was never going to be honoured. Pure speculation.

    Reply

• Ali Khan said | July 4th 2010 @ 4:04pm | Report comment

  I dont get the point of this article. There are many reasons why Howard should have been chosen and there are many on why not, however the premise that this article is attempting to stand on is baseless.

  Reply
  • 

    Vinay Verma said | July 4th 2010 @ 7:04pm | Report comment

    Ali Khan tell me what you don’t get. And what do you read as the premise and why do you think it is baseless. I would be happy to hear.

    Reply

• preciouspress said | July 4th 2010 @ 5:27pm | Report comment

  In my opinion Howard should not have been nominated. It should have been anticipated that his record on apartheid, boat people, and insensitivity e.g in regard Murali, would cause offence to the majority of ICC members.

  I find it interesting that almost all the Australian media skate over these negatives and accuse India in particular of wishing to sustain a corrupt and incompetent ICC. Once the same media resented the power being vested with the MCC. Now power has shifted to the sub-continent, we see a similar resentment. There is no doubt that the ICC would benefit from having a respected and competent Australasian Chair. Howard is not that person. Nor is his admirer, Mark Taylor.

  Reply
  • 

    Vinay Verma said | July 4th 2010 @ 7:44pm | Report comment

    preciouspress, my names were of the top of my head and I dont even know if any of these people would want to have anything to do with the ICC.

    You are right there are sections of the media that love the idea of India being the big bad wolf. On the other hand there are respected commentators who know and understand India.

    Reply

  • stuff happens said | July 4th 2010 @ 9:52pm | Report comment

    I entirely agree that Howard’s appointment was not in the interest of the future development of cricket around the world.His record on human rights issues, as you say, is appalling and don’t tell me this did not influence the thinking of the non white countries in the ICC.
    That Howard received so much support for CA says a lot about the attitudes that sadly still exist in some sections of the Australian community

    Reply

• Cricket Burble said | July 4th 2010 @ 5:29pm | Report comment

  Interesting piece. While I agree with your point that “cricket is best administered by those who have an understanding of the game” you seem to assume that means people that have played first class cricket. While that is advantageous, cricket administrators need to be employed for their ability to manage the game appropriately and someone who has spent the start their professional life managing a global, intricate and highly politically company is more likely to be successful than someone who’s spent 20 years playing a game rather than learning business.

  I think I’m right in saying that there is no salary attached to the ICC President post, certainly the Vice-President post doesn’t seem to be paid. And until the ICC pay the appropriate rate, they’ve got no hope of attracting the business talent they need to make the tough decisions required. They need people from outside to look at things with a fresh perspective, but those involved now will of course not like that idea…

  Reply
  • 

    Vinay Verma said | July 4th 2010 @ 7:02pm | Report comment

    Cricket Burble, No I am not assuming they ought to have played first class cricket. That is an asset but by no means a prerequisite. Someone like Ian Davis who was CEO of Slazengers and played Tests would be ideal and please I do not even know the man personally. It is only a suggestion. As were all the others.

    The last line of my article says remuneration would have to be made.

    Reply

• Rameriz said | July 4th 2010 @ 5:35pm | Report comment

  This is typical hypocrisy. Indian cricket fans make monkey calls against Andrew Symonds, but Australians are branded “racist”. India is a country with shocking prejudice againt “Untouchables”, but you cite the stickers of some bogans as evidence of innate racism here. Dig deeper yourself and you will see that racism is everywhere, the worst of it ouside Australia – that’s why so many people want to live here.

  Reply

• Viscount Crouchback said | July 4th 2010 @ 6:49pm | Report comment

  I dislike all this race/cultural stuff. I accept that perhaps John Howard is a divisive figure – and so perhaps the Australians were naive to propose him – but it still seems unnecessary to turn a simple sporting matter into a kind of critique of Australian race relations. We need to get over the race/culture/colonial hang-ups and try to look at things rationally and objectively.

  Now, putting on my own rational head, I think I probably concur with Vinay that the most prudent course of action would be to admit defeat on Howard and to nominate instead a respected, non-divisive figure like Mark Taylor. I also think that future relations between the Indians and everyone else might be easier if there were more ex-cricketers in positions of influence on all sides – most ex-cricketers seem to rub along pretty well, perhaps because they have proved themselves on the field and so feel no need to prove themselves off it.

  But I do also think that the Indians need to view cricket as the Germans viewed Paris in 1940 – a precious jewel demanding careful preservation. At the moment, they seem to view cricket more as the Russians viewed Berlin in 1945 – a spoil of war ripe for plundering.

  Reply
  • 

    Vinay Verma said | July 4th 2010 @ 7:31pm | Report comment

    Viscount, I thought long and hard before I broached this issue. I felt compelled to write on this and have done so for a daily newspaper in Australia. I have tried to show why Howard is not acceptable and am at pains to be apolitical. My replies to Brett above explain the gist. Politics and religion are two sensitive topics and it is a no-win situation.

    Cricket is indeed a precious jewel and I have picked up on your immense passion for Cricket and Rugby. I too would much rather write about the beauty and passion of the game and its practioners than about the sordid and grubby underbelly of the game. But it would be remiss and cowardly if I refused to acknowledge that the administration of the game is dubious and needs transparency. I have been strident in my criticsm of the BCCI and will continue to criticise without fear or favour.But I will not pay lip service and gloss over the unpalatable.

    Most educated and liberal Indians will acknowlege that Pawar is not the man to head the ICC. My ideal candidate would have been someone like Anil Kumble. Politicians are by nature opportunistic and with an eye on their term and the numbers they command. The ICC in its mission statement espouses of all things good governance. Enough said.

    There is also a confrontational air which is fanned by sections of the media that needs to have stories 24/7. Both in India and Australia. Where the purient is King.

    But if you read respected writers in India they are aware of the corruption of Indian politicians and they are not afraid to say it. On the flip side there is resentment when Indians are perceived to be incapable of good governance. I will not go into examples but all countries have good and bad corporates. With the sheer numbers there are more of both in India. In many ways India is a first world country and in many basic ways it is still third world.

    I would be overjoyed if India can take the lead and truly protect the traditions of this great game. Modi’s demise and the scandals surrounding the IPL has caused many in India to rethink and take stock. Tendulkar and Dravid remain committed to the values and traditions and in the end only the cricketers can reclaim the game from politicians and dubious entrpreneurs.

    In a perverse way the IPL is giving Indian cricketers the opportunity to rub shoulders with the Likes of Kallis, Steyn, Pietersen,Morgan,Dravid,Kumble and Tendulkar..and the chance to appreciate the skill of proven Test Players.

    All countries need to cut back on the exploitation of the game. I believe there will be 160 odd Twenty20 games in England this season. There will be 90 in 6 weeks of the IPL and increases are also contemplated in Australia.

    There has to be fewer games and they must all count for something. Contest and context have been my catch cries for a long time.

    Reply

    • Viscount Crouchback said | July 4th 2010 @ 7:47pm | Report comment

      “On the flip side there is resentment when Indians are perceived to be incapable of good governance”.

      Oh, I hope no one is foolish enough to make that assumption, Vinay. Indeed, that’s one of the things that baffles me about the BCCI. I’m no expert on Indian politics but I am well aware that Manmohan Singh is one of the world’s most respected leaders – smart, prudent, wise, modest. India obviously has people who are perfectly capable of running cricket brilliantly – it’s just that other, noisier people seem to hold the power.

      In many ways the BCCI reminds me of English football – awash with money but basically dysfunctional and run by people who are fundamentally self-interested. I’d like to see the UK government get a grip of the FA and I’d like to see the Indian government get a grip of the BCCI.

      But no, criticism of the BCCI ought not to be taken as implying criticism of the Indian character, just as criticism of Sir Dave Richards and his ridiculous cronies at the FA ought not to be taken as implying criticism of the English character.

      Reply
      • 

        Vinay Verma said | July 4th 2010 @ 7:57pm | Report comment

        In Manmohan Singh and Chidambaram we have two of the finest economic strategists in the world Manmohan Singh is also scrupulously clean..unfortunately there are many Members of Parliament,across many parties, who have fielded candidates with dubious and compromised connections.

        The Indian Government can clean up the BCCI in one fell swoop but contrary to popular perception cricket is not a priority for Manmohan Singh’s government. Health,education and Infrastructure are on top of the list.

        The BCCI has gone from croneyism to being run for the benefit of its own and now they are being forced to introspect. In the end the BCCI will have to come clean. How long that takes is anyone’s guess.But the rage must be maintained

        Reply