The findings of Cricket Australia’s long-awaited cultural review has been made public, and it makes for uncomfortable reading for the game’s administrators, finding CA are commonly perceived as “arrogant” and “controlling”.
Commissioned following the infamous ball-tampering scandal in Cape Town earlier this year and conducted by the Ethics Committee, the review into Cricket Australia was released this afternoon, and its 42 recommendations for the organisation made public.
While the review did not find CA established a ‘win at all costs’ culture – instead concluding there was a “program that would lead to ‘winning without counting the costs’” – it does not paint a pretty picture for administrators.
“With the exception of CA’s own Board and senior executives, the broad consensus amongst stakeholders is that CA does not consistently ‘live’ its values and principles,” the report states.
“CA is perceived to say one thing and do another. The most common description of CA is as ‘arrogant’ and ‘controlling’. The core complaint is that the organisation does not respect anyone other than its own. Players feel that they are treated as commodities. There is a feeling amongst some State and Territory Associations that they are patronised while sponsors believe their value is defined solely in transactional terms.”
That notion of an organisation that says one thing while doing another is unlikely to have been helped by CA chairman David Peever, who said today that he takes “full responsibility” for the events which transpired in South Africa – despite standing for re-election just last week.
CA chairman David Peever. (AAP Image/Penny Stephens)
There are a number of key recommendations amongst the 42 contained in the review, including the establishment of a three-person ethics commission and the Australian Cricket Council, a “consultative body that will bring together cricket’s major stakeholders, twice per year, to consider issues of strategic significance to the game.”
While the majority of the recommendations are being either supported or considered by CA – and a number have already been implemented – there is one which has been rejected by the organisation.
Under Recommendation #17, the review advocates for Test and ODI players to be released to play Sheffield Shield or grade cricket – something CA has knocked back on the grounds it “assumes that International T20 competition is of lesser importance.”
In what amounts to essentially a ‘no dickheads’ policy, the report has also recommended that selectors take into account a player’s character in addition to their skill.
Other notable recommendations include:
5. Honours like the Allan Border Medal become best and fairest-type awards, and that spirit of cricket awards be elevated
7. CA and the Australian Cricketers’ Association establish a constructive working relationship
8. Grade, state and national teams to be assessed on the spirit of cricket by umpires
9. Umpires to be given greater powers to deal with:
• Continuous abusive sledging
• Deliberate breaches of the Laws of Cricket
• Deliberate conduct inconsistent with the spirit of cricket
11.Ensure cricket pitches are prepared in a manner that:
• Allows batting and bowling sides a fair opportunity to compete effectively
• Maintains regional variety and diversity of playing surfaces
12. The current performance bonus be converted into a payment which recognises:
• Contributions to the maintenance and development of grassroots cricket
• Positive relationships with fans, sponsors, etc
14. The role of vice-captain be de-coupled from that of ‘heir apparent’ for the captaincy, and that other captaincy contenders be given opportunities to demonstrate leadership in other roles
15. Players with leadership aspirations be given formal leadership training
23. The CA Board be subject to the organisation’s code of conduct
37. Staff members of the High Performance Unit be banned from taking part in industrial negotiations with players
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the review found that while the status of the Australian men’s cricket team has been tarnished, the women’s national side has been untainted by the events of Cape Town.
(AP Photo/Halden Krog)
“Australian cricket has lost its balance… and has stumbled badly,” the report reads.
“The reputation of the game of cricket, as played by men, has been tainted. Women’s cricket remains unaffected…
“The leadership of CA should also accept responsibility for its inadvertent (but foreseeable) failure to create and support a culture in which the will-to-win was balanced by an equal commitment to moral courage and ethical restraint.”
In addition to the organisational review, a separate player review has led to the creation of a Players’ Pact, a charter which is “the overarching statement as to how cricketers in Australia should play the game, respecting its traditions.”
The Players’ Pact reads as follows:
We recognise how lucky we are to play this great game.
We respect the game and its traditions.
We want to make all Australians proud.
Compete with us.
Smile with us.
Fight on with us.
Dream with us.
You can download a full copy of the organisational report into Cricket Australia here.
Brendon
Roar Rookie
What other sport has a "cultural review"? Would European football do that? They didn't even do that over the massive corruption in UEFA and FIFA. Would the BCCI? Nope. They must be laughing at out stupidity in India. A country that is trying to develop and leave the 19th century behind and here is a bunch of idiots conducting a review into a professional sport with ideals that would be considered quaint in the 1890's. Would the NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL do that? Nope. What is it with Aus cricket fans that makes them the most obnoxious, self-righteous, pompous people on the planet? I truly hope cricket dies as a sport in this country. I sport I've spent my whole life playing and following. I know I will steer my kids away from cricket and towards sports like baseball and basketball.
reuster75
Roar Rookie
You can define character fairly easily - you create a set of values that people must adhere to and exclude people who don't. These values are easy to create - mustn't cheat, must respect their opponent and not "sledge" (i.e. insult) them, respect the umpire's decision as final (although this has gotten better with introduction of DRS) as captain ensure over rates are completed on time, respect your team-mates. The problem in Australian cricket is that 'character' currently just means 'good bloke who doesn't challenge the status quo'.
Matt H
Roar Guru
The report writers obviously made a spelling error there. Instead of picking players "on character", it was meant to say picking players "called Marsh". Seriously though, this type of thing is hard to measure. Whose character? Langer says Bancroft is a great bloke. Is that enough evidence? Langer says the Marshes are great blokes (which by all reports they are, by the way). Is that enough? I really hope definition of "character" and who has it is not controlled by the same coaching and admin staff that are already within the "gilded bubble". They will just use it to exclude players who do not fit into the pre-existing bubble culture. Maxwell, Cowan, Khawaja in the earlier days? Stuart MacGill, Matthew Elliott, Brad Hodge, etc. Then we end up with the same white male, blokiest blokes who ever bloked, reinforcing their own stereotypes, etc. Having a diversity of backgrounds and attitudes helps strengthen a culture and avoid the "bubble". It gives some life experience too as young men see that not everyone has attitudes and values that are identical to their own. Otherwise they just sit around and have their own attitudes confirmed and reflected back at them. A good coach is supposed to be able to integrate the various personalities and values of his team to produce something greater than the whole. I doubt Lehman had much in the way of skills, tolerance or inclination to achieve that. Does Langer? Time will tell, but his statements so far are ambiguous. He has had subtle digs at Renshaw about attitude (and not so subtle before he was coach), has reinforced what fine young men his Marshes and Smith, Warner and Bancroft are, which by comparison and omission implies that others outside the core group are not such 'fine young men'. But I may be reading too much into it. Langer has been in the job five minutes and it has been a terribly difficult five minutes at that. I am prepare to cut him a bit of slack.
CricGuru
Guest
If character is now a requirement, how do CA then select Bancroft, Warner and Smith after their suspensions? Surely committing an act against the spirit of the game, and the fact they were odds on to be caught doing so, constitutes a grave lack of character. But then again, the whole episode, including the singling out of the three suspended players was such a farce that it can be argued that the CA Board and especially Sutherland showed a lack of character. Seems we're stuck in the film "The Wizard of Oz", where everyone will be going on a quest to find some "character".
JGK
Roar Guru
I am a bit suspicious of "character" being a KPI now. It is a nothing word and inevitably will be an excuse to pick favourites or not to pick people you don't like personally. What sort of character are we talking about. Someone like Shane Warne has a pretty dubious characteristics in his personal life. And he freely admits sniping against team mates. Would any of these disqualify him in the new world?
JGK
Roar Guru
I think it is pretty clear that Howard has been sacrificed.
Mickyt
Guest
Howard should have been wiped as "performance". He finish with Business Class to Heathrow probably with a summer junket via the Amalfi Coast before or after. I am curious on ticket sales for the summer. While I dip my hat to the current crop restoring the faith - Sutherland and Howard they are weak.
Paul
Roar Guru
Who at CA is responding to this report? I'm also wondering why this is a response with little if any State or Player Association involvement? Isn't that completely against what the report wants to kill off - the DH's at CA making it up to suit themselves and telling everyone else how things are going to work? Surely the best way to respond is to get the key reps together for a few days and come up with a unified response, which is then implemented across the board.
Paul
Roar Guru
Two Paul's rolling their eyes!
Paul
Roar Guru
It's better than Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! oi! Oi! Oi!
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I haven't had a chance to read the report yet. Let me guess, it boils down to too much focus on the brand and not enough on the sport.
Mitcher
Guest
On Pat Howard, is anyone else disturbed that’s he’s seemingly being allowed to plan his own farewell tour? I think most are glad to hear he’s on the way out, but he’ll just hang around until after the Ashes? Same with Sutherland. Arrogance defined.
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
The situation has become so dire that the word “redacted” is being used freely. I didn’t even know it was a word. Terrible times indeed.
uglykiwi
Roar Pro
Do we really keen? Any chance we can watch netball instead? They are athletic's that will bleed for your country!!! Not the male cricketers!!
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
CA have not been about winning at all costs, or even trying to win within ethical limits, its been do anything for a buck. Their agenda has been is to try and commercialise the game and increase their earnings. CA were blessed with a massive increase in overseas TV revenue , they did little to earn. All this overseas money is because of international teams touring here, well only two of them India and England. Their big ticket item is the Big Bash, which they thought could become as big as the IPL, and they split the Sheffield Shield to cater for that. Ultimately they had to sell off the national team partially to pay TV to finally get a big increase in revenue. Lehman was there to make sure the team would not put up opposition to day night test matches and the pink ball. If the Indians or the English had said to CA , we won't tour here unless someone does something about the sledging , they would have made the Australian team the most polite in cricket history. In the end they acted because of commercial reasons because of their sponsors threatening to withdraw.
Paul2
Guest
"without a doubt" *rolls eyes*. Yeah, ok.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
More meetings, more snouts in the trough & more pc. On the positive side, it won't do as much damage as the Argus Review. And, as ever, this cynic wonders what the point of an 'independent' review is if the body being reviewed has the right to ignore its recommendations.
tauranga boy
Guest
More should be done to encourage indigenous youth to play cricket to a higher level. THEY CAN BE REALLY GOOD AT IT but aren't given much incentive.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
I think R 16 should be accepted. If CA wants to be top in T 20, pick players specifically for this form of cricket and leave them in the T20 for international competition.
Rellum
Roar Guru
A quote from the report "Unfortunately, the focus on winning and the success of the Australian Men’s Team has pushed the rest of Australian cricket into a subservient role. For example, that national HPU has been given virtual carte blanche in its quest to produce a winning national team. For example, the sensibilities of Sheffield Shield teams can be overridden – with State players edged out of their places in a Shield side (sometimes for just an innings) to give an Australian player a brief outing – not for the benefit of the Shield side but for that of the national team. We have been told of groundsmen have been required to prepare practice pitches – spending time and effort only to see an elite bowler send down only seven deliveries before reaching the mandated ‘quota’ – and therefore stopping. This kind of behaviour speaks of gross disrespect to those who are not natives of the ‘gilded bubble’. It sets an example in which the ends appear to justify the means." It is great to see this in writing just those of us who have been banging on about it for ages can have some hope that it will be addressed. Clearly not with the current leadership and set up but hopefully the next one.