New cricket captain has more to do than win

We may never know whether Swisse Ultivites have side effects causing irritibility and obnoxiousness or whether Ricky Ponting was just cracking under the pressure of being a losing captain in a batting slump. Either way, the arrogance Ponting displayed over the last few years lost him and the Australian cricket team some of their biggest fans, including me.

Statistically, Ponting is possibly the greatest Australian cricketer ever – he has made the most Test runs and the most One Day International (ODI) runs of any Australian. He has the most ODI centuries of any Australian and the most ODI catches of any Australian. He is widely accepted to be the best fielder ever (perhaps second only to South African legend Jonty Rhodes). Under Ponting’s captaincy, Australia equaled the record of 16 straight Test wins. And he has won more Tests as captain than anyone, ever.

Yet the tears haven’t flowed for his resignation as they should for a cricketer with such an outstanding record. The way the Ponting led Australian team intimidated umpires by over-appealing and prolonging appeals has bought bad blood from opposing teams and fans. They maintained (and some say increased) the level of sledging on the field even after Darren Lehmann took it to its racist conclusion against Sri Lanka in 2003 and was banned for five matches. As captain, Ponting would hypocritically call foul on opposing teams for sledging or general bad sportsmanship and then allow his team to sledge and stand his ground when he knew he was out. Alan Border was quoted in the Herald Sun today saying that Ponting, “wears his heart on his sleeve”. Although Ponting was an incredibly exciting cricketer and a joy to watch, the belligerent captain hasn’t served the game well and shouldn’t have been selected for the captaincy in 2004.

To be fair, Ponting’s judgment was not always wrong. He did clearly demarcate himself from the racist outbursts of Perth cricket spectators in 2005, stating, “there’s no room in sport for racism whatsoever”. After a call from the Federation of Indian Students, Ponting shot a video expressing his opposition to the attacks on Indian students. With International cricket’s ability to rabidly breed nationalism and racism, cricketers have a responsibility to stand up to racism wherever they can have an impact. The entire team should have been a visible part of the campaign in support of the Indian students and fell short of their responsibilities.

New captain, Michael Clarke, has his work cut out - most obviously to turn around Australia’s fortunes with the bat and ball and try to re-build a young Australian team. Critics say Ponting was no tactician but Clarke should attempt to look beyond innovative field placements in his role. He should have the courage to change the polluted culture of the side. Reject the old traditions of intimidation and sledging (and beer races on board Qantas flights to London if they haven’t already) and lay the foundations for a serious cricket squad that can set the anti-racist, anti-bullying tone for junior cricketers around the country.

Howard chalks up another election defeat at the ICC

For those of us who thought we’d never have to see John Howard again after he was turfed out of Australian parliament in spectacular fashion in 2007, the news in January this year that he may be heading up the International Cricket Council came as a nasty shock. It seems that Howard’s $330,000 pension, free travel, office and car that he receives for the rest of his life at tax payer’s expense weren’t enough. Howard wanted his dream job - President of the International Cricket Council.

Although Howard’s bowling action resembles Monty Burns and he has no cricket administration experience, when the Cricket Australia board (which includes Howard’s former Defence Minister, Ian McLachlan) came knocking looking for someone to stand up to the clout of India, Howard, being a self-confessed cricket tragic, was more than happy to oblige.

Unfortunately for Howard and Cricket Australia the racist policies he pushed as a politician have come back to bite.

In 2007 Howard banned the Zimbabwe cricket team from touring Australia in opposition to Mugabe’s regime. Although not hypocritical in itself, when you consider that in the 1980’s Howard opposed economic sanctions against apartheid South Africa, it is no wonder that the nations involved in the ICC are dubious.

While Prime Minister, Howard called Sri Lankan cricketer Muralitharan a chucker even though repeated scientific tests proved that his bowling action was legal. Howard also chimed in on a controversial match between Pakistan and England, supporting Australian umpire Darrell Hair in his decision to award the match to England amongst ball-tampering accusations.

It is not clear which objections caused some members of the ICC to block Howard as no official explanations have been given. From his harsh stance on asylum seekers to his support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, any number of Howard’s racist policies may have been factors.

Howard’s lack of cricket administration experience was unlikely to be the reason he was blocked. The newly appointed ICC President from India, Sharad Pawar, is also a politician who has a limited cricket background.

In the end only the three “white nations” on the ICC supported Howard’s nomination – England, New Zealand and Australia. Six nations - India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa and the West Indies signed a letter in opposition to Howard’s appointment. Zimbabwe did not have to offer an opinion since no vote was taken.

It is no wonder Howard felt well qualified to take up the reins of the ICC since its history is steeped in racism. Australia, England and South Africa established the very white Imperial Cricket Council in 1909. South Africa was disallowed membership from the 1960’s but Australia and England continued to run the ICC together as its only foundation members, having veto over all decisions of the ICC and displaying an elitist view towards the other nations. After several years of applying Sri Lanka was the first country to be allowed full membership in 1981.

Howard’s rejection has caused an outcry amongst Australian sports commentators who believe the move is “disrespectful” to Australia and a power-play by India. While certainly a power-play on all sides, Howard’s rejection is far from disrespectful. The Indian press are right in pointing out that it was insensitive for a country like Australia with a long history of racism, including recent inaction around the attacks on Indian students, to nominate a candidate with Howard’s record.

The ICC’s Presidential appointments operate on a rotating basis. This year it is Australasia’s turn to nominate a candidate for Vice President for the next two years who will then be appointed President for the following two years. Australia and New Zealand have been told by the ICC to find someone else. Let’s hope they accept the objections of the other cricketing nations and keep Howard watching from the sidelines.