ICC in a tail spin?

Is it the beginning of the end of the International Cricket Council? We are prompted to ask this pertinent question after the incidents that took place at the ICC meeting in Singapore recently.

At the meeting to consider the candidature of Australian former Prime Minister John Howard as the vice president of the ICC, some members of the body shot down the nomination.

According to reports the cricket boards that rejected Howard were from the subcontinent India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh as well as South Africa and West Indies.

What was unpalatable was that two of the above cricket boards had promised support, but subsequently changed their stance for no explicable reason, thereby derailing Howard's nomination that was put forward by Australia and New Zealand.

Responsible manner

One need not be a soothsayer to predict that this is the beginning of a fractious ICC and does not augur well for the future. The ICC has always acted in a responsible manner and their decisions have from all accounts been unanimous. But from now on things will take a different turn and can send the spirit of the ICC into a tail spin.

There is no doubt that Australia and New Zealand too are greatly perturbed by the lack of support for a nomination that they put forward for the position of vice president of the august body after a very careful study.

Under the ICC rules reasons need not be given for the Howard snub. It is believed that South Africa and Zimbabwe did not support because of Howard's past political position against Zimbabwe, a stand that he had to take when functioning in an entirely different capacity as a national leader.

It's a pity that politics has reared its ugly head and Howard has been clean bowled.

Given time

Reports have it that the ICC had asked New Zealand and Australia to nominate another and given them time till August 31. It will be interesting to see whether the two countries will withdraw their nomination and put forward another candidate. It will be intriguing if they take their position to re-nominate Howard?

Sri Lanka it is said had based their objections on Howard's nomination on the basis that Howard has had no experience in cricket administration. But apparently Howard's criticism of Sri Lanka's off spinner Muttiah Muralitheran where he called the bowler a 'chucker' or one with an illegal bowling action, may well have prompted the Lankan representatives at the meeting to object.

If the latter is the twisted logic used to turn down support then we are being frivolous and petty. Murli has been the subject of much criticism but he and Sri Lanka have weathered the storms. We have stood by our position that Murli is an internationally recognized legitimate bowler. We have not allowed criticism to detract our beliefs. Murli and Sri Lanka have held our heads high recognising that everybody, Howard included, has the right to query and have their say. We cannot be vindictive of our critics. It's not cricket.

Bottom line

But the bottom line is that the body that matters, the International Cricket Council has put Muralitheran through all the tests possible and cleared and given him the licence to ply his trade. Muralitheran said what he thought of Howard's remarks with an appropriate response. The matter was then put to bed. That's it and nothing else matters. The chapter closed and should not be rekindled through retribution.

What's happened is sad. Are memories so short that one forgets that Australia was one of Sri Lanka's staunchest supporters when we were desperately attempting to break the glass ceiling and enter the portals of Test cricket? It was Australia's support that finally saw Sri Lanka into the promised land of Test cricket. Is 'gratitude' in our lexicon leave alone conscience?

Howard apparently had support only from Australia, New Zealand and England. When Howard's candidature was announced in March, the former Aussie PM had made it known of his passion for the game. He said that he looked forward to working in the interests of cricket, through his service in the ICC, where the Vice President would also be in the line of succession for the Presidency at a later date.

Reasonable

Australia and New Zealand in a joint statement after Howard's rejection said: "We remain convinced it is reasonable for his nomination to be supported by the ICC Executive Board and we are deeply disappointed by the position taken at the meeting. The statement described Howard as an eminent and well-credited international statesman who Australia and New Zealand nominated after a comprehensive selection processes.

We were delighted that the most senior world figure ever considered for this role agreed to accept the nomination, the statement added. Howard's candidature was announced in March. He had then spoken of his passion for cricket, expressing commitment towards working in the interests of the game that I've loved all my life and is very dear to me'.

Had the ICC given the nod and accepted Howard as its vice president he would have assumed that office in July and would have been president of ICC two years later. This would have elevated the stature of the ICC. And what is more I am positive that his appointment would have been a great thing for emerging countries.

Fingers crossed

Everyone watching the situation will be having their fingers crossed wondering what Australia and New Zealand would do next. They have been given time till August 31 to find another nominee.

Will the Kangaroos hop and the Kiwis fly and surrender meekly or will they stick to their guns and fight the good fight and re-nominate John Howard? It will be the episode worth watching. On their decision will depend the future standing of the International Cricket Council.

On Howard's part he would not be throwing in the towel. The former PM had told Australia's Sky News that he won't be withdrawing; that he wanted to do this job; and do it well. Besides that he would have devote his full life to it.

Referral system

The International Cricket Council has made it known that the URDS - Umpires Referral Decision System would be introduced for the next World Cup tournament to be played in the sub-continent next year.

But what the ICC must first do is to pocket their false pride and give credit where credit is due. They should acknowledge that this system was the brainchild of Sri Lankan Attorney-at-law and leading cricket enthusiast Senaka Weeraratne?

If they can appreciate and accept DUCKWORTH and LEWIS why not SENAKA WEERARATNE?