Image problem … Ricky Ponting’s team has not captured the hearts of the public due to issues such as the dissent shown by Shane Watson and Doug Bollinger, and the ultra-polished image of Michael Clarke. Photo: AP, Getty Images The national side is increasingly seen as the face of a commercial juggernaut – and fans feel alienated, writes David Sygall. The Australian cricket team has an image problem. It’s one the players and Cricket Australia find hard to understand. It’s an issue that extends beyond on-field controversies, polarising leadership and perceptions of arrogance. It’s not just about poor scheduling, advertising overload, high ticket prices or confusion about the game’s future. It won’t be fixed by a stage-managed makeover, nor by the team winning match after match. The players are only part of the cause. But, as the faces of the juggernaut, they bear the brunt of public frustration. They are winners but they are not as loved as they should, could or want to be. CA’s research says the team’s image is sound. Yet something is going wrong. And even experts are challenged to define the problem. It suggests there are many factors. The first stop must be the team itself. ”There is a perception that they have a streak of arrogance and a lack of grace about the way they behave,” says the ABC’s Jim Maxwell, who has covered cricket for 30 years. ”It’s not universal but it’s hard to ignore. [Captain Ricky Ponting] with his look of chewing the gum, unshaven, spitting in the hands, his dishevelled cap … it’s not perceived well by everyone. ”My 15-year-old son was on the fence getting autographs [at the Sydney Test] and, with a few exceptions, he thought the Pakistanis were far more accommodating and friendly. They come across as more relaxed and not so caught up with their celebrity. ”I don’t think there’s any doubt that the senior Australian players recently have been so caught up in the cricket and their business deals that there’s not much left over. ”It’s not to say they’re unlikeable. There’s just a different agenda these days. You’d just hate to think it would lead to them losing the common touch. They should always be grateful to the people who support them. You can run the risk sometimes of losing touch with that reality.” The common touch with a dash of class was among Steve Waugh’s strengths. He was heavily criticised at times for a gruff leadership style yet, on an ABC radio poll recently, was voted overwhelmingly the most popular captain of the modern era. Former CA and CNSW board member Brian Freedman – a long-time associate of the Waugh brothers Steve and Mark through his role as president of grade club Bankstown – says Steve ”didn’t win that poll on personality. It was because he was tough and uncompromising. People like that. So there’s no simple answer to why the team’s less popular than it should be. On one hand, the public wants them to be tough but if they go a touch too far, everyone gets into them. Many fans want their cake and to eat it, too.” Freedman describes the team’s sportsmanship as ”reasonable” although, ”We are probably lacking some of the gracious personalities we used to have.” The big problem, in his view, is that the players are physically and symbolically distanced from the public. ”They are certainly more aloof these days,” he says. ”Steve and Mark used to play grade cricket at least a couple of times every season. We had a rule at our club that everyone had to bring a plate of afternoon tea. The last time Steve played for us he was Australian captain, and he turned up with a child under one arm and a plate of caramel slice in the other. There’s none of that any more. ”The players move in more rarefied air these days. There’s all the physios who make them rest, pull them out of the state games and so on. It has had a negative effect, I believe. It’s moved the players further away from the people. ”Money is the king now. Managers get their 20 per cent … and push the players into more and more money-making opportunities. It makes the players less accessible and ‘relatable’. Those sorts of issues weren’t around as much even 10 years ago.” Other factors, Freedman suggests, are less complex. ”I was talking to [CA chief executive] James Sutherland about why Shane Watson’s not as liked as he should be,” he says. ”I’ve known Shane since he was a kid, and he’s a lovely fellow. We thought it might be as simple as him not smiling enough.” Perhaps the players take themselves too seriously and are losing touch with average people. But cricket icon Len Pascoe puts the blame for the mixed feelings squarely on administrators. He is deeply troubled with cricket’s direction, and is convinced the players have become scapegoats. ”Cricket’s always been a working man’s game, and when it becomes too expensive for many people to go to, alarm bells ring,” he says. ”The crowds were small in Sydney. ‘Thommo’ [Jeff Thomson] and I were just talking about it. We’re very concerned.” Television coverage and the stadiums have become loaded with advertising, he says. Match scheduling is out of control. ”Who wants to go to a game of cricket when it’s a menagerie of advertising on billboards, scoreboards, sightboards, everywhere you turn?” Pascoe asks. ”It’s intrusive. ”Same with the commentators. There’s too many of them, and it’s become a boys’ club. They’re over-talking in their description of the game and living in their own pasts. Give it a rest and just call the game, like [Henry] Blofeld, [John] Arlott, [Richie] Benaud and [Alan] McGilvray did. Kerry Packer had a wonderful ability to gauge the mood of the viewers. He knew when enough was enough. That’s all been lost. ”All these bits of the jigsaw puzzle are changing the way the team is perceived. There is no more mystique. The game has been denuded. It needs to breathe. And because the players are the public face, they are copping the brunt of people’s frustration.” Pascoe believes the players are being pushed to meet the ”insatiable demand of the marketing machine” and the perception of the national team is suffering as a result. Backroom deals filter through to affect the team’s public image. Huge money and responsibility have lead to CA being increasingly vigilant in protecting its brand. It has been challenged recently to reassess its approach because of two factors: the retirements of famous players such as Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Adam Gilchrist and Waugh, and the emergence of Twenty20. ”The value of CA’s brand suffered in the eyes of potential sponsors when they lost those individuals,” says Associate Professor Jane Summers, a sports marketing expert at the University of Southern Queensland. ”Those players’ image and value was bigger than the team brand. CA’s response has been to place more focus on the team, rather than individuals within it. It needs a product that can withstand the loss of big names so they still have something valuable to sell to their sponsors.” Under pressure to protect the team’s brand, players cannot risk exposure that contravenes a unified image. This leads to a perception of one-dimensional commentary from the players in the media. ”CA is very cognisant of the fact that the team has to have an almost neutral persona,” Summers says. The individuality – even the beloved eccentricities – of past players could return through Twenty20. A discussion is brewing about how differently the players might be viewed across the game’s different forms. ”They are completely different products with different expectations of their representatives,” Summers says. ”We’ve seen it already with Andrew Symonds. His personal brand and the Test team’s brand didn’t mesh.” Whatever CA’s research says, there is clearly a need for consideration and action if the national team is to regain the public affection it once enjoyed. ”For a team that has been devoid of the types of scandals associated with the NRL and AFL, the public’s perception of them isn’t nearly as good as it should be,” says Gordon Coulter, a corporate and sports public relations partner with Wrights PR. If asked to help improve the team’s image, what would be his advice? ”I would encourage them … to be themselves a lot more, to show more of their true personalities. The team today lacks the star power and class of some of the previous teams but it would help their image if they were more natural and related better to average people. ”In the past, you had teams of champions with distinct and often pleasant or classy personalities. They were allowed, and had the time, to express themselves. They played very competitively but people didn’t find it offensive. I think the team today just doesn’t identify with the public the way it used to.”
Continue reading here:
The team it’s hard to fall in love with
