What’s in a nickname?
The Warriors or Redbacks or Tigers adds personality to a team. It’s a godsend for marketers too – an emblem and slogan become an easier choice. And, most obviously, it’s simpler for fans, commentators and others attached to the game.
“What are you doing this afternoon?”
“We’re off to watch the Warr… Western Australia men’s team”
There’s no ring to it.
So, why the change?
The board argues that the names were first introduced in the mid-1990s to attract a new and young audience. Now, apparently having achieved this, the nicknames – the Western Fury and the Western Warriors – have been retired.
It seems a curious decision. Even if there has been a sharp spike in membership – which is unlikely but could be the case due to the rise in prominence of women’s cricket and the success of the Big Bash League – a change in name to something so generic is unlikely to generate further growth.
And what of the Perth Scorchers?
Technically they’re still a branch of Western Australian cricket. So why not maintain consistency and change this name too?
It seems Western Australia has followed Cricket Australia’s lead. The Southern Stars, the national women’s team, are no more, and last year Cricket Victoria dumped their monikers, the Bushrangers and the Spirit in favour of the men’s and women’s team respectively.
A superficial look suggests the reason is for the sake of simplicity, but perhaps the answer lies closer to political correctness. It takes so little to offend nowadays.
Teams around the globe, whether spurred by internal and external forces, have changed names and logos due to the discomfort generated by potentially polarising monikers.
The Cleveland Indians of the NFL are an example. Although they didn’t change their name, they did abandon their synonymous logo, Chief Wahoo, due to racial undertones. The Washington Redskins, although unyielding, have been under the public pump since the 1960s.
The Warriors, the Crusaders, the Bushrangers – they’re aggressive names with an attachment to violence.
So did Western Australian cricket opt for blandness with its name changes to improve brand consistency? Or was it a proactive move to subdue a potential political storm?
The Late News
Roar Rookie
not easy when you live in the bush!
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Always good to content I can agree with you on, Don.
Waggers
Roar Rookie
I'm a WACA member, and my experience is that followers of WA cricket, referred to them as the Warriors all of the time. The same as we refer to the Eagles, the Dockers, the Wildcats, the Glory etc etc
Rellum
Roar Guru
Most of the people who I see there are well under 60. All ages
Micko
Roar Rookie
Nonsense how? I love the Shield but how many people under 60 do you know who regularly attend Shield games?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
#Micko. Do you think? I go to the Shield regularly and I would say less than 20% would be over 70.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
"Sadly, the Shield and ListA teams barely register with adult fans, much less the young" Renaming the comp to Sheffield Shield from its traditional name of Pura Cup has likely caused confusion and disengagement.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I suspect it is more because T20 is now the marketing hook. Sadly, the Shield and ListA teams barely register with adult fans, much less the young. Its just not needed any more, or producing any benefit. Kids at least know what Western Australia is, even if they don't know it has a state cricket team. Going back to the traditional name makes sense - especially now the sporting landscape is not just cricket in summer, a local footy code (Australian Football in WA) in winter. The landscape is glutted with nicknames. Eagles, Dockers, Glory, Wildcats - and that's just the major male teams; adding Scorchers to that it surely enough.
Onside
Guest
He was referring to Jerry's Hatrick ( before you were born )
U
Roar Rookie
What a waste of time. The name was fine and the suits should worry about other stuff
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Certainly not applicable to the kids at my school with a cricket specialist programme. The next generation is well and truly on board.
Rellum
Roar Guru
usually geriatric Well that is nonsense
Paul
Roar Guru
hi Andrew, I think you've suggested a number of possible reasons for the change, despite what the Board says. At the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot, as long as people who want to know which team is which, can do so. It might be okay to use nicknames for people living in Australia, but there are plenty who follow cricket around the world, the same as people overseas follow Super Rugby. The powers that be, caused confusion by ONLY referring to teams by their nicknames - the Blues, Bulls, Crusaders, Sharks, Stormers, etc. I still have no idea which city/state/province some of these teams represent.
Brian
Guest
I guess its a small step towards a logical one of replacing WA with the Scorchers.
Max power
Guest
No one called them the warriors so who cares ?
Micko
Roar Rookie
The most logical conclusion: most cricket supporters who support the Shield comp are die hard fans, usually geriatric, who don't care about a silly nickname for marketing.
Gee
Roar Rookie
No Big V on the Victorian LA uniform now for some reason either.
Craig
Guest
Cleveland Indians are a MLB team not NFL for a Roar Pro this is a poor mistake.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I'm waiting for the team formerly known as.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I would assume the State sides are not seen as commercial entities anymore so they don't require marketing monikers. Probably saves a little money.