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.
preciouspress
Guest
Whilst it's doubtful any President of the ICC could 'control' cricket, I can't imagine how Howard can advance the game so many of us love. It's Australian cricket that Howard loves - Bradman not Weekes; Miller not Botham; Ponting not Tendulkar. Although his comments on Murali and apartheid South Africa should have been sufficient cause for his rejection, his jingoism isn't just colour related. Watch again as he presents the winners medals to the winners of the 2003 Rugby World Cup, England.
bigman
Guest
John Howard to be the next ICC boss. Who will be after him Robert Mugabe. Howard is a racist tool & has no place in running any organisations other than white supremist groups.This is a total discrace by Australian & NZ cricket. Howard is a very divisive person who only pushes his own narrow minded views from the past. Howard proved in no uncertain terms that he is motivated by controlling power for "whites only". International cricket is making a big mistake if it allows Howard control of their beloved game. Fans will leave this game due the divisiveness Howard will bring with him.
Brett McKay
Guest
John Howard confirmed as the Australasian candidate this afternoon... http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/02/2834380.htm
apaway
Guest
John Howard will fail in this role for the simple reason that he has a long-documented intolerance of any race that does not conform to his narrow-minded Calvinist white bread view of the world. His appalling treatment of asylum-seekers should rule him out of any job where he may have to rub shoulders with anyone from a part of the world that doesn't view the Union Jack as the ultimate emblem of superiority. The reason being that this time, they will be people of considerable power, instead of powerless desperate, homeless masses.
Tom
Guest
As I said, if Howard had been any other race there would have been hell to pay. It is racist insofar as that it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand. I really cannot think of any possible reason why such a comment would be included; surely the fact Howard is not qualified for the position is of far greater importance than his race.
rugbyfuture
Roar Guru
.... Tony Abbott
Chookman
Guest
Viscount Crouchback - one does not have to be a leftie to be left of John Howard - although being to the right of him would be a feat .
preciouspress
Guest
If you judge 'white politician' as 'outrageously racist'. I sympathise with your condition.
preciouspress
Guest
Thanks for your response which has surely enabled me to 'pigeon-hole' Viscount Crouchback.
Tom
Guest
Regardless of the suitability of Howard as a candidate (and I personally do not think he should get the position), why isn't more being said about Roebuck's outrageously racist statement that Howard is a white politician? Why does this have any relevance whatsoever to his suitability to the position? Imagine the outrage if he had used 'black' or 'Asian' or 'Middle Eastern' in the same context.
Viscount Crouchback
Roar Rookie
An Anglophile? Good heavens, strike him off the list at once!
Viscount Crouchback
Roar Rookie
Come on, precious, Spiro has Roebuck bang to rights. I've read enough of Roebuck to know that he loves to bang the "progressive" drum. In fact, I could pigeon-hole his politics to a ridiculous degree: almost certainly republican, in favour of multi-culturalism, and fanatical about the notion of ditching fusty old ideas (as he would see them) in favour of "progess" and "modernity". In fact, he brings to mind those famous high-born English 20th century Communists - the likes of Anthony Blunt - who rebelled against every aspect of their upbringing. That's not to say that Roebuck is a Communist - merely to say that he is self-evidently to the Left of the political spectrum. Spiro, on the other hand, is rather more enigmatic on the political front. And thank God for that. We read enough political nonsense in the rest of the newspaper without the likes of Roebuck ramming his views down our throat. I might add that most Englishmen were rather tickled by Howard's flinging of the medals in '03. The Englishman (unfairly, I think) expects such antics of Australians and is most gratified when his pre-conceptions are affirmed.
preciouspress
Guest
Spiro, Me thinks you protest -----. Interesting that you can infer political bias in a fellow journalist whilst you claim pure impartiality. I also note also you do not address Howard's dubious track record and particularly the examples raised in my early comment.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Preciouspress you should not presume that because I sort of endorsed John Howard as a possible chairman of the ICC that I am a diehard Liberal Party supporter, and that my friends are of the same ilk. Wrong. I am a typical swinging voter with no hard or fast allegiance to either party. I adopted this position years ago when I was a political reporter in New Zealand and Australia. As it happens, Rodney Cavalier is a good friend of mine. My point about Peter Roebuck's suggestion that Howard was not up to being the chairman of the ICC was the thought that cricket's best writer (in my view) was exercising a political judgment, rather than a judgment based on the capabilities of the person concerned. This is why I pointed out that if someone like Bob Hawke had been put up for the job then he would probably have been endorsed by Roebuck. Interestingly, Viscount Crouchbank, who generally disagrees with me on virtually everything, agreed with me on this. Sir John Anderson should be the Australasian candidate. But if this is not the case, my position is that John Howard is an adequate second choice. He will not stand up to some elements in the Indian cricket establishment (which might be why Cricket Australia seems to be promoting him). He would certainly take a hard line against the cricket establishment in Zimbabwe, which is something that Peter Roebuck would certainly endorse and something that cricket badly needs.
jimbo
Guest
How many sporting codes are going to nominate ex-prime minister Howard as their next leader to get some cheap publicity. Every one knows he'll answer "no comment" to whatever you make up and throw at him. First Rugby League, now Cricket, next the NBA - they're in need of some publicity as we get close to the finals. Maybe we should get John to head the FFA when Lowy retires
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Whiteline,totally agree that the ex-cricketer should have a demonstrated understanding of the business side of things. I thought about that when suggesting the players I did. You are right that the "old boys" play silly games. There is one being played right now with regard to some International cricket being played at the Olympic Stadium. NSW Cricket is run by an ex cricketer who ought to know better. I also think a sense of History is absolutely essential. A lot of the History being considered at the moment seems to be post 2000. Former cricketers have been involved in the ICC but not generally in positions of administrative power. They have been involved in Technical and Rules committees. Michael Holding resigned in disgust from one such committee.
preciouspress
Guest
Spiro, unsurprisingly would support Howard's nomination to the ICC chairmanship. Reversing his speculation as to the basis of Peter Roebuck's opinion. I would say - I wonder if Zavos would have supported the nomination of Bob Hawke, John Faulkner or Rodney Cavalier. My guess is that Zavos would not have approved of their appointment" Surely Howard's jingoistic support of Australian sporting teams and individuals over the years would make him ineligible for any such international role. Would the Sri Lankans forget his unnecessary intervention in the disgraceful Muralitharan affair or the English forgive him for his lack of grace when presenting the winners with their medals at the 2003 World Cup.
whiteline
Guest
I'm not against an ex-cricketer being given the post but... it has to be someone who has business and diplomatic sense. Perhaps Vinay's suggestions may have that. CA and the associated states suffer a bit from too many 'old boys' who continue to play war games in the Boardroom and around the management table. Whilst I'm not advocating either of the suggested candidates in the article, sometimes someone without history can see solutions that those who have spent their livelihood in the game can't.
Marcel
Guest
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.
mjg
Roar Rookie
I thought this was a joke at first too. My Australian nominee would be Allan Border, if he's prepared to accept.