David Leggat: Anzac stalemate sideshow to on-field action

Cartoon / Rod Emmerson

Australia arrive for the marquee event of New Zealand's international summer in a couple of weeks.

On the field New Zealand will be striving to bring their larger neighbour down to size. In the leadup - and possibly still going on at the same time - there has been a different type of cricket stoush between the Anzacs taking place behind closed doors.

At stake is the International Cricket Council leadership, and style, in the near future.

The ICC president David Morgan is due to step down later this year after his two-year term.

In his place will be vice-president, Indian Sharad Pawar.

The next deputy - who will assume the top job in 2012 - will be either an Australian or a New Zealander, according to the ICC rotation, and those two countries are to put forward a name to begin the ratification process by the end of this month.

Settling on the candidate has been a challenge. Both countries feel they have good men for the job.

But trimming the choice from two to one has proved so difficult an emergency panel comprising two Australians and two New Zealanders, chaired by another Australian, Sir Rod Eddington - former chief executive of British Airways and current boss of Infrastructure Australia, and in theory wearing an independent hat - has been appointed to sort it out.

In the green and gold corner stands former Australian Prime Minister John Howard; facing him is Sir John Anderson, highly respected former chairman of New Zealand Cricket, current chairman of Television New Zealand and, at different times, other large organisations.

Howard is Cricket Australia's choice because it could find no one suitable from within its traditional cricket circles. Howard has no cricket administrative background, but likes going to watch games.

Anderson is a vastly experienced businessman of high renown, noted troubleshooter and cricket administrator of considerable substance, who knows the ins and outs of the game better than most.

It should be a no-brainer, but Australia are fighting hard for their man. They seem unwilling to acknowledge the logical course of action. It smells of big brother lording it.

Criticism from within Australia of CA's position has been strong.

"New Zealand is entitled to feel flabbergasted by its neighbour's intransigence. Australia's position is well nigh untenable," the outstanding columnist Peter Roebuck wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Howard, the self-styled cricket "tragic" for whom sorry seemed to be the hardest word as far as indigenous Australians went, is a fan, and in cricket terms that's about it.

And so there is a standoff. No one is talking publicly, and just how strained talks have become is a debatable point, depending on who you talk to.

Some say there are two intractable positions; others maintain a plan is being worked through in a businesslike manner.

There is an interesting backdrop. It concerns the type of role the ICC envisages for its leader.

Should the person be someone who gets about the globe, pressing flesh, being seen as the face of the game, or is it preferable to have a boss with his sleeves rolled up, running a business operation in a lower key manner?

Think of Howard as the globetrotter, Anderson the behind-the-scenes operator.

The successful candidate's name is due to be put forward by the end of this month, with final approval to come at the ICC conference in June.

At a time of many complex and weighty issues, it should be a simple business. It's not and it's messy. An Australian has the casting vote.

This is one situation where commonsense is on shaky ground. And that makes no sense.