CA crumbles, drops Howard nomination: Cricket Australia's misjudged power-play

[Feed]

The rejection from the powerful Afro-Asian bloc notwithstanding, a defiant former Australian Prime Minister John Howard today refused to withdraw his candidacy for the ICC president's post. More...

[achilles]

Leave some room for dignity, dear John !

[saneindian]

This time he will lose the support of NZ as well. Where was 'justice' when the CA bullied NZ board into accpeting Howard's nomination. Did the CA give any reasons why Anderson , the kiwis board's nominee for the VP post rejected.

[achilles]

^^^ Exactly. Bullying is fine with Mr.Clare from CA as long as it suits them? Nice.

[Karan114]

This time he will lose the support of NZ as well. Where was 'justice' when the CA bullied NZ board into accpeting Howard's nomination. Did the CA give any reasons why Anderson , the kiwis board's nominee for the VP post rejected.

They are hiding behind the "rigorous process" line, as if NZ really had a chance to get their (far better) candidate through.

[achilles]

Chingoka told the Age it "goes without saying" that whoever Australia and New Zealand choose in place of Howard as the vice-presidential nominee must be "somebody who's come through hands-on in cricket." The move to nominate Howard, Chingoka said, was akin to "asking me to come and edit the Melbourne Age without any experience in the journalism industry. ''There is a lot of talent in Australia and New Zealand. I could give you at least six names from Australia who have been on the Australian board or the board of the ICC, who are very competent and would be immediately suitable, I can give you two or three names from New Zealand who would be immediately suitable.''

So among a zillion ex-cricketers, why did Australia-NZ push only for John and continue to push for him???? No space science. They would like to put India back in the place it was before 2004. This time however, their high-handedness fell flat in the face. Don't mess with us :isalute:

[b555]

i heard they r re appealing this jackass should never become vice president

[Desi Cartman]

lol at people talking about experience in administration of cricket or playing any cricket ..

In a newspaper article, Mr Speed said that if John Howard was rejected for inexperience, then even Sharad Pawar does not qualify to be ICC president as he knows little about cricket administration. Mr Speed also said that ICC presidentship will be part-time job for him because he is a serving minister in the government of India. “The man who is to be the next ICC president, Sharad Pawar, is the minister for agriculture in the Indian government – a serious full-time job, feeding 1.2 billion people. He is a good and fair man but he will be working part-time as ICC president and, take it from me, he knows little about cricket administration,” he said.

[mastana]

Yeh buddha aise nahi manega. :hitler: Isko toh GPL(g**** pe laat) chahiye. :hehe:

[yoda]

Sharad Pawar has at least been BCCI president. Has John Howard done any work for CA to begin with? This is like Vajpayee being nominated by India :hehe:

[DomainK]

Sharad Pawar has at least been BCCI president. Has John Howard done any work for CA to begin with? This is like Vajpayee being nominated by India :hehe:

Precisely. The man has no credentials. How only known association with cricket have been some controversial statements, abusing Murali and attending some of Australia's matches. The man is a total misfit for the position. He showed his utter lack of respect for ICC after he openly called MUrali a chucker even after the ICC cleared him.

[achilles]

Australia needs to stop making themselves look ugly. This whinefest needs to stop. Seriously guys, stop thinking from your... When 7 boards don't want your man, THEY DON'T WANT HIM. Keep your attitude and ego to yourselves. Don't try to manipulate people.

[cowboysfan]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew]YouTube- tammy wynette stand by your man[/ame]

[bhajji]

how can shard pawar become a president, he is never ever eligible for such designation.

[achilles]

how can shard pawar become a president' date=' he is never ever eligible for such designation.[/quote'] He has run cricket in this country and has been the President of Maharashtra Cricket Association before he stepped into the BCCI. I think that is experience enough. On the flipside, Howard has ZERO experience.

[yoda]

how can shard pawar become a president' date=' he is never ever eligible for such designation.[/quote'] do you even read a thread before posting?

[Guest Gunner]

Those people who think Sharad Pawar has "experience" and "capacity" to be ICC president... Subah'nallah... :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: He is an embarrassment.

[IKnowU]

Those people who think Sharad Pawar has "experience" and "capacity" to be ICC president... Subah'nallah... :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: He is an embarrassment.

With or without him nothing was going to happen anywayz. No gain No loss.

[Feed]

CA crumbles, drops Howard nomination: Cricket Australia's misjudged power-play BCCI along with other Afro-Asian bloc emerged victorious, after a virtual war of words as Cricket Australia finally surrendered and dropped John Howard for the ICC VP's post. More... CA crumbles, drops Howard nomination John Howard: Cricket Australia's misjudged power-play Michael Roberts John Howard ct. Africa b. Asia for nought … reads the scorecard in the command rooms of the ICC this week. What we have seen is a motivational-mix of power, prejudice and pride marshalled by nationalist sentiment operating to reject John Howard's candidature. But a similar mix can be attributed to Cricket Australia's policy and in media responses in Australia. Cricket Australia's power brokers made a fatal misjudgement. When John Howard, seeking another sphere of limelight and power, actively canvassed for the position representing Antipodean cricket at the ICC, Cricket Australia thought he would be just the figure to clip the wings of the contemporary cricket world's superpower, namely, India. He was thrust forward, to quote John Clarke, Chairman of Cricket Australia, as a "counter-balance." So they snubbed and insulted New Zealand by ditching their experienced cricket administrator, Sir John Anderson, who was already pencilled in for the job. This act of treachery caused considerable heartburn in Kiwiland. But once they succumbed to the regional voting system, they were irrevocably hitched to the Australian wagon and now they are doubly punished. The Australian power-play was misguided. If Anderson had been their candidate, he would have walked into the job of Vice-President and eventually become President according to the conventions prevailing. The protocols have been disregarded now in a measured move because John Howard was, and is, a tainted figure in many eyes, notably in many Indian eyes. It is Indian opinion that swings the balance not that of Zimbabwe, so Howard and his Australian supporters are simply fooling themselves if they try to claim the moral high ground by emphasising that his public criticism of Mugabe was a major factor in his rejection. The hostility to Howard stems from his consistent right-wing position of issues concerned with Asian immigration from the time of the Fraser years and the manner in which, as Prime Minister, he stole Pauline Hanson's racist garments as one move in a process which ensured that the Liberal Party would be re-elected. He further tainted his image in cricket circles by sticking his oar into the Muralitharan controversy in 2004 and calling the renowned bowler a "chucker." This was a populist move designed to garner votes, but there is little doubt that he himself was a true blue Aussie with all the prejudices of those cricket fans who were self-righteous in their efforts to cleanse the game of "chuckers". This campaign had commenced in full measure in late 1995 when Muralitharan was no-balled by Darrell Hair. Evidence from Australian circles indicates that it was a pre-determined conspiratorial move that involved key figures in the Australian cricket camp. Likewise, there is enough reason to suspect that several members of the Australian umpiring fraternity were behind Emerson's no-balling of Muralitharan at Adelaide in January 1998. Murali, let me stress, is an icon in the Indian world not merely Sri Lanka. What the Asian world observed in the period 1995-2004, therefore, was an Australian witch-hunt directed against Muralitharan in circumstances where Australia was kingpin in the cricket world. This persistent chase was the vanguard of a broader campaign against "chuckers". Most chuckers were deemed to be spin-bowlers from Asia. One suspect was young Harbhajan Singh. Indian cricket-followers were only too aware of this history of Australian prejudice with its own particular hues of imperial arrogance and racism. Howard's remarks on Muralitharan's bowling action placed him squarely within those earmarked in their books as the "circle of the prejudiced." In discounting this background by their adoption of Howard as their nominee, Australia's cricketing power-mongers revealed how insular they were. In responding now, in July 2010, to Howard's rejection with expressions of moral disapproval and a reading of the ICC board's action as a form of racist prejudice, Australians do not seem to comprehend that these strands of xenophobia and prejudice in Asia-Africa have arisen because of a recent history of prejudice and bullying from the Australia as cricket superpower, not just 300 years of White colonialism (though that informs the scene as well). These expressions of Asian and African nationalism, moreover, have been more than matched by the national sentiments driving Aussie reactions. The terms that loom large in the reportage are "a calculated insult" and "a snub." This terminology is the stuff of patriotism, an indication of pride *****ed. It is a "snub' because Howard had been Prime Minister of Australia and, as such, a totem for the collective people as an institutionalised nation. Thus, national sentiments are at loggerheads on this issue, carrying with them several complex strands of prejudice. In my surmise, however, Miss PREJUDICE has been second fiddle behind Mr POWER-PLAY in the wheeling and dealing that went on within ICC corridors. Cricket Australia's power-play has been checkmated by another power-play marshalled by nation India and backed by other nations, black and brown. For commentary in Australia to cry "foul" is to forget the motes in their own eyes and their own blemished histories. For them to take a moral stance and demand verbal clarification of the reasons why Howard was rejected is as naïve as imbecile. Power-plays are not moral tales.

[Roshanrocks]

:hatsoff: wot an article