"CRICKET ADMINISTRATION ISN'T EXACTLY ROCKET SURGERY"

Ostensibly, John Howard, a bloke who has run a country via internecine political maneuvering, dog whistling, wedging and all-round skullduggery would be ideally suited to plate up to the step and assume the chair at the ICC.

Not according to Peter Roebuck, a columnist more accustomed to resolving diplomatic disagreements with the flat side of a bat:

Howard choice is the wrong way to go

Cricket Australia's decision to nominate John Howard as its candidate for the top job at the International Cricket Council is as pitiful as it is disrespectful. Howard's knowledge of cricket is more characterised by enthusiasm than depth or imagination. Plain and simple he is not qualified for the job.

Is Howard the wrong man for the job?

He would attract the same partisan vitriol that dogged, say, Peter Hollingworth. Just look at the comments. But how much of an impression does the Fairfax frothing (and the ABC) make on world cricket. I'm assuming that is where the vast majority of Australian criticism would come from. And doubtless Anthony Albanese is already working the rooms at CricAussie to make sure they don't nominate Howard.

That Howard does not have any obvious experience running an international cricket organisation should not matter; he has the necessary administrative and diplomatic skills. Nor should it be seen as a disadvantage that Howard is not an insider. Andrew Jennings has written at length about the Olympics and FIFA, revealing how the in-house, nudge-nudge nature of both allowed them to fall feet first into corruption, contra and dodgy deals. Is the ICC any different? Don't answer that. Maybe the ICC could benefit from "an outsider" instead of, in Arthur Daley's vernacular, "one of our own".

Maybe Howard will conspire to have Murali's wickets erased from the cricket record books.

By the way. The perceptive among you may have read Spanky's article and then suddenly scratched your head when you got to the part about "All the more reason to accept New Zealand's long-standing and impressive candidate, Sir John Anderson." (Spanky does not reveal why Anderson is an "impressive candidate", either off or on-line.)

All the more reason?

Well, it transpires that The Age online version has mysteriously omitted the previous paragraph:

Australia's position has been well-nigh indefensible. Unable to produce a serious candidate of its own, Cricket Australia ought to have graciously withdrawn. Its reluctance to back Jack Clark, its own chairman, told the tale. Clark is bright, likable and committed but lacks the gravitas and discretion required by the position. In other words he likes a drink and a yarn. Rather than withdrawing, though, Cricket Australia considered presentable internal candidates and thoughts turned to Mark Taylor and Dr Hari Harinan. Taylor counts among the most highly regarded of the games thinkers. Furthermore he can flog environmentally friendly air-conditioners without breaking into a sweat. But he has a young family and a large television contract and it was too early for him. Harinan's ambitions know no bounds but he lacks stature and exposure.

In other words Clark is a loud-mouth piss-head. Tubby is too young and, by the way, remember that ad in which you can't understand what he says? Hint. Hint. Harinan is a rabid climber.

Can't think why they left all that out.

Comments

[David Barry]

That paragraph is included in the online SMH article.

[m0nty]

I hear Richie Benaud will be at a loose end soon.

[Tony]

Dave, the last two paragraphs are also different.

[Tony]

And Dr Hari Harinan in the Age is Dr Harry Harinath in the SMH.

[Hangover Black]

Not exactly a well reasoned argument put forward there by Spanky. "Howard's knowledge of cricket is more characterised by enthusiasm than depth or imagination. Plain and simple he is not qualified for the job."
The other umpteen paragraphs that made up the column were just waffle. And it's Malcolm Gray, not Grey.

[Tony]

Spanky doesn't do well reasoned articles. He picks a side then lets fly at the opposing view with his full armoury of colourful adjectives, insinuations and unsubstantiated accusations.

[Tony]

Selective omission, too.

[Hangover Black]

He does the occasional decent article (don't ask me to link to one), but this one seems to be a case of working himself into such a lather at the thought of Howard heading the ICC, that he can't produce a credible argument. Very much along the lines of "Wild Dogs". He just isn't capable of sitting back and looking at both sides of the coin.

[patard]

Did someone mention loud-mouth piss-head? I'm up for the facking job.

Just hand me a hammer, parrot nosed cutters, cathode ray oscilloscope and oxy acetylene cutter with built in digit grabber and I'll sort this whole facking thing right out, straight smart!

The smh had this Spanky missive under a headline that went something like "This man is not suitable to run cricket" with a big fatheaded evil photo of Lord Howard to go with.

He ran Oz for the second longest term ever but he can't run cricket. Yes. Of course. Real facking complicated business that.

[patard]

I'd like to say more but I've put myself on probation. It takes a whole lot of self-control to write facking I tell ya. Doesn't quite capture the rage. But,

it will...

suffice.

[Tony]

Just as long as you don't go all Battlestar and start writing frack.

[patard]

Sorry for the apparent Tone Trombone but I thought this was more accurate than a digital multimeter:

That Howard does not have any obvious experience running an international cricket organisation should not matter; he has the necessary administrative and diplomatic skills. Nor should it be seen as a disadvantage that Howard is not an insider. Andrew Jennings has written at length about the Olympics and FIFA, revealing how the in-house, nudge-nudge nature of both allowed them to fall feet first into corruption, contra and dodgy deals. Is the ICC any different? Don't answer that. Maybe the ICC could benefit from "an outsider" instead of, in Arthur Daley's vernacular, "one of our own".

Exactly.

[patard]

Since we're mentioning don'ts, please, don't mention Battlestar Gallactica to me again. I saw it in sense around on George not long after Star Wars and that was more than enough.

My Brother in Law got the Galactica board game for Christmas and, my God it's complicated, not to mention a major cause of provocation when beers are involved. My nephew nearly went ballistic over it. Something to do with game honour in revealing you're a cylon or something. No idea. At least my head's still in tact.

[Tony]

Do you mean the original movie or the Noughties TV series? The TV version, especially the first series, was frackin grouse.

[patard]

I thought I asked you not to mention it!

I watched the original movie on George and my bro-in-law, nephew, little little sister and the rest of the brainiacs are trying to convince me to start downloading the series. The board game is based on the series.

But I won't budge until the last season of Lost is done. My head can't take all these memes and themes, all this symobolism and deep human insight. So till June, I'm not watching Gallactica.

Sounds like you'd get along with my lations. Just bring a helmet and a spot of aggro for the game.

btw, can I give a shout out to Don and anyone else I may have offended. Please understand, I can seem like a d*ckhead and in all probability actually am. But I like your comments Don, Lou, Hewy and co. Sorry for the aggro. I luvs you guys!

[Cam]

When JFK askes McNamara to be S.O.D McNamara replied he didn't have the experience.

JFK replied 'we'll there's no finishing school for Presidents either'.

Of course then they had bay of pigs and started poking around in Vietnam so maybe that's not the best example.

[patard]

Right Cam, and Václav Klaus the playwright, poet and Lab Technician became President of the Czech Republic. Her best.

Some people are born to lead no matter what the format and Howard is that sort of man.

[Cam]

I agree Pat Howard's the best PM we've had so he's horribly overqualified.

[Lou]

I don't mind reasoned or even some unreasoned criticism of Aus politics, sport, culture all that stuff, but Roebuck really should be back in the UK writing for something like the Daily Mail. He just comes across as a whining t****r 99% of the time who really dislikes Australia and anything Australian. Or am I being unfair?

[patard]

No Lou, you are being fair. Too fair.

Check this bile from Cnut Lips Penberthy. I was planning to do a post on it on my blog but I don't write offensive and idiotic posts there. I reserve that for Tone Alone.

(That's a joke Tones.)

btw I think tosser is allowed. Could be wrong. But Spanky isn't a tosser, he's a cnut. An algolagniac one. He's the Cornerstone in the smh Australia Day 2 minute hate sessions.

[patard]

Wilco.

Just wanted to say that.

[vks]

Happy news to cricket Fans
IPL(Indian Premier League) LIVE coming on google
visit:http://freshnewz.co.cc/

[Yobbo]

New series of battlestar is great TV, pat.

[The Don has risen]

I have had the unfortunate experience of trying to talk to one J Howard on cricket. One of his advisers I knew said he was a cricket nut.

Roers is absolutely correct.
Howard knowledge is not very deep and as a fan he reminds me of one of my kids.

you need some-one of substance who not only understands the game but also the politics.

[nick]

Yep.
Australia's second longest serving PM.
So not a man of substance and obviously not too knowledgeable about that politics stuff.
BS. You've written some tosh Don, but that takes the biscuit.

[patard]

Thanks for the tip Tones and Yobbo, I'll get downloading Battlestar Galactica asap.

[The Don has risen]

His knowledge of cricket and CRICKET politics is poor to put it mildly. That was the gist of Roers article.

Being the second longest PM is irrelevant. There have been plenty of PMs that have had no substance.

[Cricket Betting Blog]

I nominate John Major.

Or failing that, what about Ron Howard instead of John, he'd liven a meeting up!!

[patard]

Don, Tone's post argued that the fact that Howard's lack of knowledge of the politics behind cricket works to his advantage, i.e. he isn't encumbered with the baggage and nepotism that bias the decisions made by many cricket administrators.

You obviously want someone well connected with the present hierarchy, why you do so you haven't made clear. What's the advantage?

With regard his knowledge of cricket, surely that is something that a manager delegates to those specialists who do have the required knowledge. The lawmakers etc. But again, I'm not sure what you mean by "knowledge of cricket", what's your requirement here?

Your final point likewise needs explanation if you are to convince us. What is your definition of "substance" especially given that you claim Howard has none.

One example I would counter your point with is the Interfet intervention in East Timor. Surely that is an example of "substance". Years of hypocritical and shameless Oz, mostly Labor, policy overthrown with a peace keeping mission to ensure the new independence and sovereignty of East Timor.

It wasn't a populist position, risked enmity between our large Muslim neighbour, but based on principle and determination to see that the massacres stopped.

Surely an example of substance.

Further the successful operation examples the fact that Howard doesn't need to understand the intricacies of military action, he has specialists he trusts and authorises to make those decisions. It examples that Howard navigated the minefield of the various political agendas with aplomb, resulting in an outcome that we as a Nation can be proud of.

Rudd may well be someone who has no substance, Fraser another, but to state that Howard has categorically "no substance" is easily countered.

Perhaps you could expand upon your objections.

[Tony]

Don,

Now come on! You couldn't be more wrong. It's Robes, not Roers.

[Tony]

CBB,

When Ron Howard's tenure is about to end you can be damn sure that for the next term he would appoint his brother Clint.

[patard]

The Age Spanky article is actually a briefer re-write of his expansive effort in the smh.

Spanksters major beef with Howard is as follows:

The notion that an aged and conservative white politician with scant knowledge of the intricacies of the game can act as a counterbalance is far-fetched. Howard does not know enough about cricket or cricket business and, besides, is a divisive figure.

In essence Spanskter's primary argument against Howard comes to these 4 points:

1) Howard is old
2) Howard is conservative
3) Howard is White
4) Combined with all of the above Howard is a politician

Spankster elaborates on less important qualities to be factored against Howard. Spankster asserts that Howard:

1) has scant knowledge of cricket
2) is not fully versed in the intricacies of cricket
3) Spansketer restates points 1 & 2 as if it were a further point rather than echoing what he just said: Howard does not know enough about cricket
4) Howard has no cricket business acumen

Spankster's Argument Clincher:

Besides the 8 points above the game breaker is that Spankster finds Howard "...a divisive figure."

To sum up, Spankster is against anyone being involved in the cricket hierarchy if they are one of or all of the following: old, conservative, White, or an ex-politician.

It is quite clear that Spanky is ageist, politically biased and a racist anti-White.

This is the sum total of his case against Howard. It would have been simpler and more efficient time wise for the reader were Spanky to simply state: "I hate John Howard, conservatives, old people and White people in general." But he had a word count to achieve and thus get his stipend and so we get the rest of Spanky's blatherings around the above central points.

I assume that The Age did their best not to smoke Spankster out, being even further to the left of the smh if that were actually possible. Unfortunately it is.

[Tony]

Scyld Berry has a grab about the appointment in the Pommy Telegraph:

England will also follow with interest the current contest between two heavyweight Antipodeans to become the next ICC vice-president in July. The Australian board have nominated the former prime minister John Howard, while New Zealand have nominated their former board chairman, Sir John Anderson.

Although the ICC vice-president normally does little more than get his feet under the table before becoming president two years later, the job will be an important one from July 2010. Sharad Pawar, the Indian government minister who takes over this summer, has seldom attended ICC meetings in his capacity as vice-president, so Howard or Anderson would chair them in his place.

Howard is a self-confessed 'cricket tragic' who often tried to bolster his political popularity by being seen with the great Australian team during his 11 years as prime minister. Anderson, an accountant by training and a long-time member of ICC committees, took a strong line against Darrell Hair after the Australian umpire declared that the 2006 Oval Test had been forfeited by Pakistan in England's favour – which may endear Anderson to the Asian Test-playing countries.

[Big Ramifications]

It is quite clear that Spanky is ageist, politically biased, and a racist hate-Whitey.

Spot on. Patard, sort of buried in your magnificent post, but not stated:

Spanky has a big horn for illegal refugees. Not sure why, but we all know the type. Oh yeah, also not sure why he writes the occasional article on the matter, but I’m digressing too much.

John Howard didn't have a big horn for illegal refugees.

"John Howard Pauline Hanson 1954 Refugee Convention Sikh Warrior wild dogs Tampa SievX WHARRGARBL!!!"

[Big Rammer's mum]

They're not illegal, son.

[The Don has risen]

Sorry I have hit a lot of old Howard voters.

He doesn't understand cricket as a game. He does love it but has no understanding of it which makes attempted conversations on the subject quite cringing.

A person of substance is a deep thinker.

Enough said.

[Russ]

Don, deep thinkers don't become PM. Ministers, sometimes, but not the PM. It is a pragmatic role, suitable for a canny politician with a strong personality. Howard was that, he wasn't a lot of othe desirable things ,but he was that.

Would he make a good ICC president?

Depends, what do you want in an ICC president? What role do you want the ICC to play in the game? At the moment it is like the UN, completely under the control of its member bodies, particularly the big-4 member bodies. In Howard's favour, he has always been driven by power, and would leverage what power the ICC has to bring about reforms.

On the other hand, I don't know, and have seen no evidence for the types of reform he might be interested in pursuing, if any at all. Perhaps CricAus wants someone to push their agenda, and supposes Howard is the right candidate. If so, what is the CricAus vision, and do we want that?

I don't think Howard's cricket knowledge or lack of it is the issue. The issue is whether the vision Howard would have (if any) and that of the people putting him forward as a candidate (his power base) is the direction you want cricket to head in. Personally, I am not sure. CricAus strike me as being the most conservative of any of the boards of control, the most driven by spin and the least visionary. That may or may not be a good thing.

[The Don has risen]

Howard wouldn't have a vision unless he had a brief on it.
Look you think he is a deep thinker.
I do not.

He doesn't understand the BASICS of cricket. warning signs.

He doesn't understand the politics of cricket. Further warning signs.

You like because you voted for him.

Good I voted for him in 96 and against hi last election ( I was actualy in his electorate).

I have met him and tried to engage him in conversation about cricket . It is very hard.

Kim Beazley also loves cricket. I would stay the same about him.
I have only met one pollie who actually understood what cricket was about.

One.

[Tony]

Well, waiting...

[Russ]

Don, when you talked to Howard, did you bother to listen to what he said, or just ignore everything he said to fit your own prejudices like you did (do) to me?

Did I say Howard was a deep thinker? no.
Did I say I liked him? no
Did I say I voted for him? no
Did I even say he'd be a good president? no, and wouldn't unless I knew what he might stand for.
Did I say he could fit aspects of the role? yes, because it is ultimately a political position, and Howard is ultimately a politician.

Have you even bothered to define what you believe a good president ought have as his (or her) agenda? That would be a start, I think. I doubt it will matter a lot regardless, frankly, because a two-year rotating presidency won't ever allow someone the room to achieve any actual reform.

[Tony]

Don,

Still waiting. Who's the one?

[The Don has risen]

Tony I can't say I was replying to you at all.

Indeed I believe I didn't respond to any of your arguments merely addressed my own which are in accord with Roers.

I think Roer's candidate is a good one and one the ACA should support.

I can see a number of people didn't like the last election so let us leave it a that.

I will ad one things not all politics are the same.
Merely because someone is good at one ( Yes Howard was very good at it in Australia) does not transmit into another area.

[patard]

So you voted for Maxine McKew at the last election. This doesn't go to your advantage in the astute judgement stakes sorry to say Don.

I see the ABC's gift to Bennelong isn't polling so well and looks like she's going to get trounced at the next election. At least the other voters in Bennelong admit their errors and try to correct them. Others are doggedly determined to compound them.

[Russ]

Don, first, Russ, not Tony, second, how does a statement like "you like because you voted for him" make sense unless it is addressed to someone?

Who is "you"? Everyone who disagrees with you?

[Tony]

You still haven't told me. Who's the One? You know, the only pollie you've met who actually understood what cricket was about?

[Tony]

Neville Oliver?

[TKYCraig]

Aparently it is a done deal and Mr. Howard (ex PM) now becomes Mr. Howard (ICC Chairman)< a>.

quote.... Under the ICC presidency rotation, an Australasian candidate fills the role for a two-year term from 2012... unquote

So its a done deal then, kind-of, by default. Perhaps our least worst choice given the tale of Jack Clarke above.

[TKYCraig]

damn it... still havent got those links working correctly!!!

[TKYCraig]

Sorry... another glaring error. Mr Howard, ICC PRESIDENT.

Obviously no issues with Presidents on that front!!!

PS... Where's my Republic?

[Tony]

President of the Republic of ICC. There's irony.

[Russ]

Good to see Roebuck is true to form, back-pedaling on his farcical earlier piece now Howard has got the nod.

Also, the Age Online now has that mysterious omitted paragraph, you can tell, because it is in a different font.

[patard]

Spanky regularly goes into these Smeagol/Gollum schizophrenic dialogues played out in the leftard presses and ABC.

But Spanky Gollum is just setting poor old Spanky Smeagol upsees as the last paragraph indicates that Spanky's Gollum is just rearming for the death riding of the nasty. Wicked. Tricksy, False, Old White Menses:

Howard needs to arrive at the ICC with his full powers. Otherwise the game will soon regret that Anderson was not given the chance his record indicates he deserved.

Read ->

Spanky Gollum: Howard wants the precious. Always he is looking for it. And the precious is wanting to go back to him... But we mustn't let him have it. We ought to wring his filthy little neck.

What perplexes me most though is what sort of debris is left after a bloodless revolution?

South Africa is endeavouring to build a new nation from the debris of a bloodless revolution.

Unused bandaids? Phantom blood stains? Intact buildings without bullet holes? Ungrinded coffee beans in the parliamentary kitchen cappuccino machine? Sounds simply ghastly.

[Cam]

Roebuck's apologists frequently trot out the 'misunderstood' label when defending him.

The question has to be asked- if he is misunderstood on a frequent basis, hasn't he chosen the wrong post cricket career?

Surely one of the key areas of journalism is the ability to convey ideas clearly. Or is ambiguity an asset?

[Someone]

Cricket administration isnt exactly rocket surgery.. He-he-he :)