Afro-Asian Nations defeat Howard by 6 wickets

john howard for icc president

I read about it yesterday and smiled, but the headlines in today’s ‘The AGE’ (one of Australia’s most popular newspaper) made me beam from ear to ear. Cricket World HUMILIATES former PM

Yup, the emphasis on ‘Humiliates’ is intentional. Because that is exactly what it was, UTTER HUMILIATION. And rightly so. And it also was a show of strength to demonstrate to Aus and Eng that the days of yore are over, and along with that, their long-held influence over the cricketing world.

The rejection of Howard was so strong, that it didn’t even require a vote with 6 of the 10 nations signing a letter of disapproval for the Aus-NZ candidate. His only supporters (and expectedly) were Aus, NZ and England. To rub in the humiliation even further, the boards even disallowed him from addressing the Executive Committee of ICC in Singapore.

Howard’s Sins:

  • Name Calling – Shamelessly called SL’s Muttiah Muralitharan a ‘chucker’. Ever heard of any Pak, Indian or Lankan PM/President speak about any particular player from another country?
  • False Support – Very strongly supported Australian umpire Darrell Hair, who outraged Pakistan in 2006 by halting a Test match and awarding victory to England.
  • Hypocrisy –  And this is what I beleive really caused his down-fall. Consider this - He criticised Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwean regime and as a protest, did not allow the Australian team to tour Zimbabwe. However, when during the World Cup in Africa, Aus needed each and every point to qualify for the later stages, the team was allowed to play it’s matches in Zimbabwe. And now, when Howard himself needed every single vote he could gather to become ICC vice-president, he himself went to Zimbabwe to try and win their support. Guess who is the current president of Zimbabwe….yup, still Robert Mugabe.

Another interesting aspect of this fiasco has been the groups in which the participants were divided. While Aus, Eng and NZ were always expected to support the candidature, RSA, Zim and SL had raised concerns and were vociferously opposed to Howard. West Indies were the surprise package since they have traditionally sided with England. But I supppose they have decided to go with the flow too. Ind, Pak and BD had neither openly supported nor opposed Howard but it was known that Pak and BD would follow the Indian Board.

As a result of this, the Australian media has been quick to point fingers at India stating they opposed Howard to gain more control over world cricket. A foolish suggestion since the next ICC vice-president would still be someone else from Aus/NZ and India didn’t have anything personal against Howard.

I believe this time, it was a case of reverse-influencing with RSA and SL pressurising BCCI to vote against Howard. Once they succeeded in that, it was easy to get the others on board. Zim was probably also a part of the deal but did not sign the opposition document to avoid the wrath of Cricket Australia, and thus allowing it to maintain cordial relations with everyone (something it desperately needs right now).

Whatever be the case, I believe it is only poetic justice that a hypocrite and unjust person be embarrassingly and humiliatingly rejected by the very countries he ignored and ridiculed.

Image: ABC

5 thoughts on “Afro-Asian Nations defeat Howard by 6 wickets”

  1. Mahdi

    Though I didn’t read your comments, the issue is not if Howard is good or bad. Indai Pak etc lost the right to judge that when they agreed to rotating presidency of ICC. I rest my case.

  2. @Hend

    No one is denying Aus/NZ to claim the ICC presidency which is rightfully theirs. The issue is with the individual.

    Read the articles about this story on ‘The Age’ or ‘Herald Sun’ and then read the comments posted by Aussie readers. You will realise that 9 out of 10 Australians too didn’t think Howard was the right candidate for this role. Reasons:

    1. It is a common saying in Aus that Howard has put back the country by around 50 years. And although thats not literally correct, he has definitely done a lot more harm than good in the 11 years as PM. Wonder what he would do to Cricket.

    2. Australians also feel that it was NZ’s turn to have the post and NZC was out-mussled by CA. Sir John Anderson would have been a much better choice.

    3. Since when did ‘love for cricket’ made one the perfect choice to become the ICC President? If that is the case, I along with nearly half a billion Indians and few hundred million people over the world are the perfect ones to be the ICC President. Alas, no one has offered me the post yet :-).

    4. Howard is a champion of racism thanks to his policies towards Aboriginal Australians and a hypocrite thanks to his decisions to permit/or not Aus to play against Zim.

    Most importantly, after all this, ever wondered why there was such a strong reaction from CA/NZC even though Australians themselves didn’t want little Johnny for the post. Well because the move was designed to break the Afro-Asian unity. Picture this: SL, Zim and RSA have been often convinced by India to vote in its favour in crucial ICC matters. Now, had India supported Aus (thanks to their new-found partership) against the wishes of these three nations, that would have driven a permanent wedge in the Afro-Asian unity, nullifying the strenth of the long-standing Asian Bloc.

    Trust me mate, Howard isn’t liked by many in Aus as well. CA simply tried to break Asia’s hold over cricket. Too bad for them, the Afro-Asian boards saw right through it.

  3. India Pakistan SL stabbed AUS and NZ in back by going back on the agreement of rotating presidency of ICC. Shame on us.

  4. Are you expecting Mr. Sharad Pawar to be cricket friendly more than Howard? Both are politicians with experience of management over 65 years of age. Is it ICC rule to appoint an old man for the post?


Leave a Reply