New Zealand bowler Chris Martin (2nd left) reacts after dismissing Australian batsman Andrew Symonds. AP Image/Dave Hunt
The dispute between Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket over the antipodean candidate for chairman of the ICC in 2012 has reached an intriguing situation where Sir Rod Eddington will chair an emergency committee of two Australians and two New Zealanders to decide on an agreed candidate.
Peter Roebuck, who has been leading the charge against the Australian candidate, John Howard, and a supporter of the New Zealander, Sir John Anderson, believes that having an Australian chairing the emergency committee will assure the selection of the former Prime Minister of Australia.
Roebuck further argues that Sir John Anderson, who been a chairman of NZ Cricket and has been on the ICC Board for some years, is far and away the best candidate.
Most impartial observers will agree with this.
John Howard was a long term Prime Minister and there is no doubt that he could handle the politics of world cricket. He has some baggage, though, in that he was an advocate of sporting contacts with apartheid South Africa, a policy at odds with the policies of the West Indian countries and the nations on the sub-continent.
Given this, it is ironic that John Howard represents an acceptance of the ruling group that dominates Indian cricket, a faction Cricket Australia is keen to work with.
Sir John Anderson, on the other hand, is known to be uncomfortable with the way this faction has manipulated world and Indian cricket.
If possible, he would be in favour of reigning in the interests of the Indian faction for the greater good of cricket around the world. One example of unacceptable behaviour, for instance, is the refusal of the IPL franchises to give contracts to Pakistani cricketers.
In the best of all worlds, Sir John Anderson would be endorsed as the antipodean candidate.
The fact that Cricket Australia refuses to do the right thing by him is yet another indication of the shabby treatment over the decades of New Zealand cricket by the Australian cricket authorities.
Victor Trumper played some memorable innings in New Zealand before the First World War but Australia did not play Test cricket against New Zealand until 1946. And then there was a break of a couple of decades before the next Tests.
As a consequence, great New Zealand players like Martin Donnelly, Bert Sutcliffe and John Reid (the first John Reid) never had a chance of playing against Australia.
Don Bradman never played in New Zealand, although he was dismissed cheaply by the great New Zealand fast bowler Jack Cowie when a New Zealand team in the 1930s played South Australia on their way from England where they had played several Tests.
England played Test cricket against New Zealand regularly from the 1930s onwards, while Australia refused to do so. Walter Hammond, in fact, scored his then world record Test inning of 336 against New Zealand at Christchurch in the 1930s.
The help given to Australian rugby by the NZRU for over 100 years compared with the lack of help given by cricket authorities in Australia to cricket in New Zealand makes for sad reading.
The NZRU virtually kept rugby viable in Australia after The Split of 1907. Even as late as the 1970s, the NZRU paid for a touring Wallaby side to be outfitted at their expense when this cost was deemed to be too much for the ARU to cover.
The result of the NZRU’s generosity of money and spirit is a vibrant rivalry betwen New Zealand and Australian rugby sides that expresses itself in the commercially successful Bledisloe Cup rivalry and Super Rugby, the best provincial rugby tournament in the world, in my opinion.
This brings us back to Sir John Eddington and the decision he has to make.
Nothing can make up for the mistakes of the past. Once an arrow leaves the bow it is gone.
But a decision to annoint Sir John Anderson, because he is the best candidate, will be a sign that Cricket Australia is prepared to do the right thing in its important relationship with New Zealand cricket.
Gary Hayward
Guest
Any organisation who appoints this incompetant sycophant to run anything less than a pie shop deserves everything they get. Don't they remember what he did to Australia
Brett McKay
Guest
Rabbitz will be here all week....
Rabbitz
Guest
TT, If we need to "sort out the Indians" it is a real pity John Wayne is no longer with us.... (Sorry couldn't resist)
Sam
Guest
I've heard this rubbish from you before. I'm not going to labour rebutting it, but there are such things as 'mutually beneficial relationships'. An example is in rugby (which Spiros mentions), the short sighted view could have been taken by the NZRU when Australian rugby was struggling in the early 1970s. However they had some foresight, helping build Australian rugby has had benefits for NZ because Bledisloe Cup matches are now hugely popular in NZ, unlike 30 years ago. Had they not spent a little money supporting Australian rugby back in the early 70s then the value of the Bledisloe Cup now would be significantly lower. As for your complaints about NZ teams in Australian competitions, the NRL and A-League don't include NZ teams out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because it exposes their competitions to 4 million more potential fans, and fans equals money.
preciouspress
Guest
Well Lindommer there's an opinion. Perhaps you might wish to give the reasons behind it?
preciouspress
Guest
Well there's always a first time. I agree entirely with Spiro Zavos. He mentioned John Reid who for 3 years in the 50's was the professional for my local team Heywood in the Central Lancashire League. He was a superb attacking batsman, useful bowler and brilliant fieldsman. Those who saw him play then will never forget his talent.
Republican
Guest
I do not believe NZ should continue to assume state like staus unless they indeed decide to commit to the Federation, which is a moot point and one which is increasingly debated across the ditch, in the light of economic gain rather than out of any real desire to be joined at the convict hip. Their historic gleaning of special treatment in all manner of sports amongst others, tapping into our Leagues and National Championships and resources in a mercenary fashion that sees sees them have their pav and eat it also, makes any contribution they have made to Oz Union pale in comparison. Why on earth should we be helping equip them, a sovereign country afterall, defeat us at Cricket or anything else for that matter? They do just fine off their own bat and that they continue to derive such privelege in their relationship with us, I have never understood, since no other foreign neighbour does and let's be honest, NZ and Oz are neighbours purely under sufferance. Cheers
Brett McKay
Guest
and Sam, that very point you raise makes the case for Sir John Anderson all the more compelling, to stand up for the rights of nations ranked outside the top four or five...
Sam
Guest
I don't think CA care because the BCCI treat them fairly well as Australia is such a big drawcard. It is the smaller, less powerful cricketing nations that are really at threat - New Zealand, Bangladesh, West Indies and Sri Lanka. Look at the damage the BCCI's stance on the Rebel Indian League did to those countries.
Fred Magee
Roar Pro
I dont think he is the right man to do it. I think he would make a bad situation worse.
True Tah
Guest
I was under the impression their was opposition in the cricketing world to the increasing dominance of India and the Indian Cricket Board...wouldnt Howard be the man to sort out the Indians?
stuff happens
Guest
I agree Fred Magee, but maybe CA thinks the man who gave Australia Tampa, Siev X, the appalling treatment of asylum seekers and the 'invasion' of our own aboriginal communities is just the bigot they need to lead the bully boys of Australian cricket.
Fred Magee
Roar Pro
The decision is such a no-brainer that it concerns me that CA is taking such a stance. Not only is there a lack of any experience in cricket administration but in my view, Howard (and his Government) has been responsible for creating a dangerous undercurrent in this country. An undercurrent based on the fact that people from certain races should be treated with suspicion and that to live in Australia, you need to fit a certain blueprint (eg; correctly answer Don Bradman's Test batting average and you earn the right to be a citizen). With the fragmented and at times volatile nature of the cricket world at the moment, it is far from a wise decision by CA to put forward someone like John Howard. The ramifications of such a position could be great.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
The need for a ICC chairman in 2011 who is not weighed down by the endorsement of one of the great current cricket powers, England, Australia, South Africa and India, has been highlighted by the two disgraceful incidents at the WACA, Afridi's bizaree ball-biting act and the intrusion on to the field of a spectators who tackles one of the Pakistani out-fielders. Someone like Sir John Anderson can play an honest broker role for the ICC that John Howard would find difficult to do in this situation. I like the idea, too, of bringing John Howard on to the board of the Cricket Australia to give him a taste of cricket politics, which is as poisonous as anything Canberra can offer.
Rickety Knees
Roar Guru
Ditto Spiro - completely agree. Especially your point on NZ Rugby's contribution to Australian Rugby. I view CA as being arrogant and lacking in goodwill for anybody except themselves. IMHO CA should be promoting the game in NZ to the extent that they should include a North Island and a South Island team in the Sheffield Shield.
Brett McKay
Guest
Like him or loathe him, this is a case where Peter Roebuck is dead right. If CA are so keen to get John Howard into cricket administration, then give him a senior role in Australia first. If he's well performed there (and I've no reason to think he wouldn't), then send him to the ICC as a rep down the track. If CA wouldn't or can't put Mr Howard in a local position first, then it's hard to see how he's a better candidate than Sir John Anderson. Great piece by the way Spiro, the cricket media bar Roebuck has been strangely quiet on this matter...
True Tah
Guest
Bit puzzled by having Rod Eddington on the committee, given his track record with BA, Ansett, Allco, News, Rio Tinto, unless you are after a professional yes man.
Lindommer
Guest
With you all the way, Spiro, until you mentioned Roebuck's name. This man's opinion should never be countenanced.
davido
Guest
I agree. Althoug it is enough to make me question my choice that rabid Roebuck supports Anderson.