Isn't it ironic that John Howard, merely by being nominated for the ICC vice-presidency, has already exposed the ICC's greatest fault. He didn't even need to attend a meeting.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Howard's philosophies, as a politician he successfully ran a country for 11 years as prime minister. Even if we were to avoid the comparison with his successor Kevin Rudd, who didn't even manage three years before he was forced to step down, it's fair to say that Howard is obviously a competent administrator.

He is also a straight talker with the potential to blow the secretive ICC wide open, which is surely the main reason behind the objection to his nomination. Forget the reasons stated by some - that he criticised Mugabe, that he called Murali a 'chucker', that he hasn't held a post with Cricket Australia - because they're all too petty to mention.

When every nomination since the rotational process came into place has been waved through - despite some of those nominees having a far more dubious moral record than Howard - an explanation is required.

Yet how often have we been given an explanation from the ICC when the real issues have come up in recent times? How much do you even feel you really know and understand about how they operate?

The ICC is meant to be for the good of the game, in which the fans and those who play it should be the biggest stakeholders. As such we deserve to know what is going on behind the scenes, but instead the organisation's biggest issues - such as the fallout with Malcolm Speed over the Zimbabwe issue - remain shrouded in mystery.

Asked on Thursday about the reasons behind Howard's failed bid, ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat replied that the governing body "does not have to give those reasons". Which rather proves the point that the game is currently being run not just by but also exclusively for the sake of its ten member boards.

Lorgat is a genial personality who started his job with the game's best interests undoubtedly at heart, but too often he has shirked the big questions and taken the diplomatic route to protect members of the ICC board.

Whereas you rather get the impression that Howard would not stand for that if he was given the chance to take charge.

What a pity.