JOS0010.1177/1440783319833466Journal of SociologyWade research-article8334662019

Article

Journal of Sociology 2019, Vol. 55(3) 528­–550 Tactics of the ‘Ugly Australian’: © The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: Morality, masculinity, sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319833466DOI: 10.1177/1440783319833466 nationalism and governance journals.sagepub.com/home/jos amid a cheating controversy in sport

Matthew Wade Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract occupies an ambivalent place in the Australian cultural imaginary, caught between former colonial origins and current pluralist aspirations, and retaining conservative leanings that can veer into ‘ugly assimilationism’. Elite representatives are variably celebrated as national icons or uneasy sources of collective identity, given tendencies to become ‘Ugly Australians’. Within the Australian cricket team, this combustive mix of nationalism, moralism, masculinity and instrumental deviance coalesced into a win-at-all-costs ethos, culminating in brazen cheating and causing apparent diplomatic embarrassment. More significant, however, were underlying strategies of self-confessedly brutal degradation of opponents. Strategic aggression and humiliation were abetted by governing bodies that demanded success but neglected to uphold ethical standards. Moral hazards and regulatory gaps incentivized players to self-set ‘the line’ of acceptable conduct, enabling injurious tactics that included intimidation, emasculation, mockery and mass invective. A complementary argument discusses populist posturing and moral hypocrisy that were emergent during the cheating scandal, for more worthy grievances languished amid the ‘crisis in cricket’.

Keywords deviance, governance, masculinity, morality, nationalism, sport

Introduction: ‘winning ugly’ There was an air of excitement prior to the 2017–18 ‘Ashes’ cricket series. This rivalry between and is the game’s oldest, dating back to 1882. Still, Cricket

Corresponding author: , Nanyang Technological University, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore, 639798, Singapore. Email: [email protected] Wade 529

Australia (CA) – the national governing body – wanted to further stoke impassioned sup- porters through a promotional campaign, entitled ‘#BeatEngland’ (, 2017a). Advertisements featured supporters of all ages, along with well-known players and other noteworthy figures, urging Australia to ‘Beat England!’ One patriotic toddler struggled to even pronounce ‘Beat England’, but screamed it with all his might. The Australian men’s team won the series 4–0, yet the insistent beating continued. During the post-series celebrations, two giant hands adorned the presentation podium. One was emblazoned with the Australian flag, holding up four fingers. The other was a loose fist (signifying zero), in England’s colours. Fireworks fizzed from the four raised fingers. Many saw this gaudy display as sorely lacking in grace and humility, revelling in ‘winning ugly’ to better capture attention in a crowded media market (Baum, 2018b).1 As this article explores, various modes of ‘winning ugly’ – such as undermining respect for opponents, antagonistic on-field tactics, all while feigning moral superiority – became entrenched within the upper echelons of Australian cricket, reflecting a blinkered organi- zational ethos amid the ruthless pursuit of success. The tawdry jingoism of victory would prove the least of concerns in what became a notorious season. Four months later, the Australian team were caught blatantly cheating by committing ball tampering.2 The subsequent moral opprobrium was unprec- edented. Media outlets worldwide covered the story, including The Economist, the New York Times, Forbes, China Daily, and Channel News Asia. The Hindustan Times (AFP, 2018) declared that the incident ‘heaped disgrace and humiliation on the country’, while the Washington Post (Chiu, 2018) reported it ‘managed to shake Australia to its core’. The UK’s Sunday Times, meanwhile, pulled no punches with the headline ‘CHEATS’, while the Sun went with ‘HYPOCRITES’ (Lemon, 2018b). Political leaders across the globe weighed in, signalling a loss of diplomatic ‘soft power’. This reputational damage culminated in lengthy suspensions of the , vice-captain and a junior player, along with resignations from the coach, CA’s CEO, and the chair (among other executives). Also resultant was an exodus of sponsors, revelations of other misconduct, loss of public standing and further recriminations. Surveying the damage, commentators would point to ‘a toxic, win-at-all-costs ethos at the heart of Australian cricket’ (Wilson, 2018). How this occurred demands further expla- nation. This article explores the mutually reinforcing logics of morality, nationality and masculinity, which coalesced into modes of tactical belligerence that can be described as ‘ugly instrumentality’. This interactional mode is wilfully injurious, yet resistant to regu- lation, strategically evading sanctions while simultaneously aligning itself with collective ideals (such as national pride). This tethering to admirable goals enables and obscures forms of deviance intended to induce fear, dread and disorder in the other. The employ- ment of ugly instrumentality within the Australian cricket team both exploited and – after its spectacular collapse – undermined its culturally privileged position. Therefore, a com- plementary argument explores the populist posturing, failed governance and skewed moral calculus that allowed professional cricket to become complicit in social harms.

Cricket in the Australian popular imaginary But first, to better understand this heady brew of moralism, nationalism, masculinity and instrumental deviance, it is worth highlighting cricket’s esteem within Australian popular 530 Journal of Sociology 55(3) culture. Perhaps with some hyperbole, the Test captain is commonly said to hold compa- rable symbolic importance to the prime minister. Three former Test captains have been Australian of the Year in recent decades, and elite cricketers prove among the most well- known global ambassadors. Cricket is frequently tied to national identity and often exploited for political ends, particularly through long associations between the office of prime minister and the national team. Indeed, Australia’s first PM, Edmund Barton, was a cricket enthusiast, who umpired the match that sparked the Riot of 1879. This association has typically proven favourable to conservative worldviews (Hutchins, 2001). Former PM John Howard is famously fond of the game, and idolized both Don Bradman – Australia’s greatest ever player – and Australia’s longest-serving PM, Robert Menzies (himself an ardent admirer of cricket). Brett Hutchins (2001: 57) argues that, for Howard especially, cricket signified romantic possibilities for the ‘reinvigoration of the social- conservative tradition’, upholding a personal vision ‘underpinned by nostalgia for middle- class values consistent with a British-derived, Anglo-Saxon, pro-imperial Australian past …’. Tellingly – in ways reflecting nostalgic and heroic ideals of masculinity in sport (see Whannel, 2002: 161–8) – soon after the cheating incident news outlets began to longingly quote ‘Bradman’s Creed’ on the (lost) moral purity of cricket (Wilson, 2018). Another firmly conservative former PM, Tony Abbott, played cricket at Oxford, as did former Labour PM, Bob Hawke, who also set a world record in beer drinking while there. Hawke once regularly attended matches, always willing to skol a beer before an adoring crowd. Perhaps no other figure better embodies the froth of sporting fervour, hyper-masculinity, alcohol-fuelled patriotism, and populist appeal that reverberates throughout Australian culture. Combined with rapid commercialization, this combustive mix is of increasing scholarly concern (Palmer, 2014). Cricket has also been politicized by those Ghassan Hage (2006) described as ‘ugly assimilationists’. Such persons insist others enthusiastically adopt cultural practices as markers of sincere integration, haranguing them to ‘go ahead, play cricket! … come on, love cricket … adopt cricketing values!’ Cricket is thus one path by which ‘multicultural- ism’ remains filtered through colonial logics (Hage, 1998). Ironically, no one is immune, for even Pauline Hanson – an ugly assimilationist to surpass all others – was once criti- cized by Mark Latham (2006: 79) for ‘promot[ing] herself as a politician espousing true Australian values’, and yet had confessed to the apparently heinous sin that ‘I don’t really care about the Cup.’ Hence, despite unifying aspirations, cricket (and Australian sport more broadly) remains a site of tensions between colonial pasts and pluralist futures (Beilharz, 2005).

Masculinity, morality and instrumental deviance An extensive literature has explored cricket through various sociocultural prisms, includ- ing: colonial legacies and representational inequalities (Malcolm, 2001); diaspora identi- ties (Fletcher, 2012; Raman, 2015); national identity (Hutchins, 2005); postcolonial resistance (Appadurai, 2015; Beckles and Stoddart, 1995; Heenan and Dunstan, 2013; James, 2005); race and masculinity (Carrington, 1998); generational, gendered and eth- nic difference (Werbner, 1996); popular media and racial division (Farquharson and Majoribanks, 2006; Rowe, 2011); commodification of masculinity (Parry and Malcolm, 2004); and sporting celebrity (Nalapat and Parker, 2005). Wade 531

More broadly, sport commonly serves as a conduit through which masculinities are imparted (Messner, 1992). Those aspiring to ‘orthodox masculinities’ (Anderson, 2008) learn how to comport their performative dispositions and avoid stigmatizing displays (Connell, 2000: 67–101). While arguably turning to more ‘inclusive’ masculinities (Anderson, 2010; Swain, 2006), professional sport’s multifaceted and economically motivated demands also generate complex forms of ‘pastiche hegemony’ (Atkinson, 2010), where athletes must navigate varying contexts of expected conduct. That is, if athletes must simultaneously be: traditional role models; fluid exemplars of progressive causes and social change; marketable commodities of consumer culture; and resilient outliers in extremely competitive settings, this can entrap them within conflicting inter- ests. Also relevant are cultural expectations that male athletes, in particular, retain some anti-establishment ‘laddism’ (or ‘larrikinism’). Such confluences entail that sport appears emblematic of the debated ‘crisis in masculinity’ (Gee and Jackson, 2017). Through these potent combinations sport proves useful in tracing ethical tensions under testing circumstances (Kavussanu, 2008). For example, athletes may be subject to pressures of ‘positive deviance’ or ‘overconformity’ (Hughes and Coakley, 1991). This emerges when athletes possess excessive acceptance of narrow overarching norms (e.g. on-field success) in ways conflicting with other ideals, such as adherence to fair play. In competitive settings that require ‘obsessive’ dedication, one outcome may be ‘instru- mental aggression’ that pushes upon permissible bounds (Donahue et al., 2009). Such practices subvert functional aspirations that sport can elicit tangible displays of praise- worthy qualities. Yet, such subversive deviance may also prove a source of pride, a skilled practice of ‘edgework’ (Lyng, 1990) that adds to athletes’ professional repertoires (despite undermining the institutional legitimacy of their vocation). Justifying such tac- tics thus requires oscillating between forms of ‘moral disengagement’ (Boardley and Kavussanu, 2011) – where standards of conduct are inhibited for tactical purposes – and logics of moral justification, where athletes rationalize behaviour through ‘higher goal’ aspirations (2011: 95).

Instrumentally ugly In unpacking these tensions, this study traces the tactical valorization of ‘ugliness’, where players adopted wilfully injurious modes of interaction, rationalized through ide- als of patriotism and necessities of elite-level performance. This tactical hostility proves significant given the lengthy duration of cricket matches, which heightens players’ reli- ance on self-efficacy and emotional control (Barker and Slater, 2015). Also, unlike con- tact sports where physical aggression may be customary, cricket is non-contact, which further incentivizes strategies of psychological domination. Cricket is also asymmetrical, with only two batsmen from one side and eleven fielders from the other competing at any time. This makes it easier for sides to target the opposition through ‘’, which generally refers to undermining opponents through verbal insults. In other sport- ing contexts this might be described as ‘trash talk’. Hence, a kind of ‘meta-play’ emerges, where players’ mental reserves are eroded through various means; some permitted, some tolerated but edging towards deviance, and others contrary to shared norms (Parry and Kavanagh, 2013). While constantly under 532 Journal of Sociology 55(3) debate, players largely abide sledging as an acceptable tactic, cultivating self-talk tech- niques to minimize deleterious effects on their own performance (Davis et al., 2018; Joseph and Cramer, 2011). Within the total institution-like settings of professional team sports, this variable meta-play is suffused with whatever variants of ‘moral atmosphere’ are dominant (Jones and McNamee, 2000). For the Australian team, this meta-play descended into ugly forms, including but not limited to intimidation, emasculation, mockery, ethnicity-based epithets and inciting invective from supporters. The descriptor of ‘ugly’ features as a thematic motif for two primary reasons. The first refers to the case study at hand – the Australian cricket team – who, since the mid-1970s, have occasionally been pejoratively labelled ‘Ugly Australians’. Broadly speaking, the ‘Ugly Australian’ was first characterized by the British (and Australians who subscribed to the ‘cultural cringe’) as uncultured, uncouth, unbecoming, and all unrepentantly so (Fiske et al., 1987: 130–6). Some Australians embraced this supposed ugliness, often in ways that reflexively satirized the assumed superiority of the British. Or, as with the Australian cricket team, ugliness manifested as in-your-face antagonism towards oppos- ing teams, and a marker of patriotic pride. The Ugly Australian is therefore ambivalently enmeshed with prevailing national identities, for cricket has long held significant cachet in the myth-making of Australia’s ‘imagined community’ (Anderson, 2006). The second, more conceptually significant reason is that ‘ugly’, etymologically, does not only denote aesthetic repulsion, sensory offence or moral repugnance. Rather, its Norse origins also emphasize dread and fear. The Australian team expressly sought not just to blunt opposi- tion confidence through superior play, nor unsettle them with distasteful sledging, but to instil dread that encountering the Australians would ‘end careers’ and make adversaries ‘cry and go home’ (more on this later). Ugly instrumentality therefore knows its unpleasantness, rather than being inadvert- ently wounding. It is a performance – a pantomime even – intended to induce disorder, or retaliation in ugly kind. Importantly, ugly instrumentality is not simply a repackaging of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ (Connell, 2005), but rather an interactional mode selected with acute awareness of its deviance under prevailing cultural mores. Nor do practition- ers even want to (re-)hegemonize it, for this would sacrifice strategic advantages it affords. Rather, this selectivity, sensitivity and strategic scarcity was understood by the Australian players, who carefully avoided censure while still insistently calling out oth- ers for moral failings. By also publicly aligning their abrasiveness as ‘part of being an Australian’, the team edged towards a win-at-all-costs mentality. Exploring how this occurred among figures traditionally valorized as ethical exemplars is a central concern in this article.

A tour of acrimony, misogyny and farce First, a brief account of the acrimonious circumstances that prompted extraordinary outcries and inquiries into the Australian team culture. The tour to com- prised a four-match series during March and April of 2018 and was marked by unusu- ally high tensions throughout. Five Code of Conduct violations were lodged in the first two matches alone (among other matters not dealt with formally). During the first match, South African bowler Kagiso Rabada was accused of making intimidatory Wade 533 contact with Australia’s captain, . Rabada was initially sanctioned with a two-match ban, overturned on appeal. Smith expressed dissatisfaction with the out- come, ominously noting that ‘the standard [of conduct] has been set’ (A. Collins, 2018). The Australians’ distinctly aggressive style antagonized the South Africans, with - tain recounting in a press conference that, following the first match, his team ‘went from motivated, to motivated [and] angry’ (Forsaith, 2018a). Match referee Jeff Crowe observed that: ‘Never in my 14 years of refereeing have I seen such animos- ity between two teams.’ Tensions were further raised by unsavoury tactics targeting Australian vice-captain . In years prior Warner had committed numerous indiscretions, but resolved to overcome these tendencies. In 2015, Warner married Candice Falzon – herself a for- mer professional athlete – who was widely credited with improving Warner’s overall disposition. However, during this tour, Falzon was exploited for ugly ends. In 2007, prior to meeting Warner, Falzon had a brief tryst with professional rugby player Sonny Bill Williams in a Sydney nightclub. Eleven years later, during the second match in South Africa, home spectators wore masks of Williams’ face, presumably intended to ‘slut shame’ Falzon and aggravate Warner. Falzon and Warner’s two children were also in attendance, and mask-wearing spectators were even photographed with executives, sowing further rancour (Barrett, 2018b). This kind of toxic dyadic relationship between supporters and teams is common in settings of high personal iden- tification (e.g. national pride), creating dilemmas for governing bodies in maintaining loyalties while minimizing harms (Wann et al., 1999). The masks were likely a response to an altercation during the first match, wherein Warner labelled South African player ‘a fucking sook’ after first call- ing him a ‘fat fucking bushpig’ (Lemon, 2018b) and engaging in ‘schoolboy mockery’ based on his surname (Baum, 2018a). In turn, de Kock reportedly made derogatory comments about Falzon, to which Warner reacted heatedly. Warner was also involved in a prolonged confrontation with a spectator, further heightening the tour’s relentlessly combative atmosphere (Brettig, 2018c). Despite this, Australian coach remained steadfast:

We’re certainly supporting David. We want to play in a way that gets us success and for us we’ve just got to make sure we don’t cross the line, that’s the key.

The discursive significance of this ‘line’ will be discussed later. The captain, Smith, also echoed what Lehmann codified as ‘the Australian way’ of ‘getting in a contest’ and ‘being in their faces’ (Haigh, 2018):

We play our best cricket when we’re aggressive. We’re in the fight together, we’re hunting as a pack and we’re working for each other and backing our mates up on the field … That’s part of being an Australian in my opinion. (Ferris, 2018)

By this stage, the tour of South Africa had stirred such ill-feeling that even the – original drafters of the – felt obliged to step in: 534 Journal of Sociology 55(3)

The behaviour of some of the players in the current South Africa/Australia series … has fallen well below the standard required to inspire future generations of cricket-loving families. (Lofthouse, 2018)

Just five days later, Smith’s team were caught ball tampering. Though not without prec- edent, and beset by interpretational ambiguity (Fraser, 2005: 200–46), the brazenness of the cheating was compounded by the Australians’ prior insistent claims of ethical supe- riority. Warner had even previously stated that: ‘We hold our heads high and I’ll be very disappointed if one of our team members did that [ball tampering]’ (Haigh, 2018). The subsequent revelations, perhaps unsurprisingly, stoked wholly unprecedented reactions. For context, during the third match South Africa were dominant, and (according to most accounts) Warner urged teammate to use sandpaper to illegally alter the ball’s condition. Smith’s role is unclear, though it appears he tacitly assented in confessed ‘desperation’ (Brettig, 2018b). Why Bancroft was given this task is also not clear, though aforementioned pressures of ‘overconformity’ appear likely (Hughes and Coakley, 1991). Bancroft later pointed to such an explanation:

At the time did I know any better? No. Because I valued this thing called fitting in, fitting in with the team. Fitting in with my mates, earning respect from, you know, senior players and, I guess, umm … yeah, it led to a really destructive situation. (Cricket Australia, 2018)

Bancroft was an inexperienced player, without guaranteed selection and hoping to secure his place. Hence, the vice-captain’s authority may have overwhelmed any hesitancy, resulting in deviance aligned with team goals, but undermining the game’s integrity. Soon enough, broadcast cameras caught Bancroft rubbing the ball with sandpaper. Bancroft, becoming aware of suspicions, attempted to surreptitiously hide the sandpaper in his underwear, though cameras also captured this. The umpires were duly informed and queried Bancroft, who initially feigned innocence. However, the jig was up, and Bancroft and Smith were ushered into a press confer- ence at the end of play. Responses to questions indicated both arrogance and overcon- formity, evident in their initial attempts at deception through Bancroft substituting ‘sticky tape’ for ‘sandpaper’ in his partial confession. Later, Bancroft would admit that ‘Yes, I lied. I lied … and I panicked’ (Brettig, 2018b). Smith, meanwhile, confessed prior knowledge, admitting it a ‘poor choice and deeply regrettable’. However, he flatly rejected suggestions that he relinquish the captaincy. This reinforced perceptions that Smith’s team did not recognize bounds of ethical conduct, which, combined with their deliberate obfuscation, was acknowledged by CA CEO James Sutherland as necessitat- ing especially punitive action. However, before further exploring some wider ramifica- tions, it is worth cataloguing governance problems within Cricket Australia, which likely contributed to parlous conduct.

Governing by ‘smashing the boundaries’ As elaborated earlier, cricket is deeply enmeshed with political office, populism, machismo and patriotism. Only within this context can we understand the hyper-moralized Wade 535 hand-wringing responses to the tampering incident. Malcolm Turnbull, prime minister at the time, seemed positively apoplectic:

We all woke up shocked and bitterly disappointed by the news…. It seemed completely beyond belief that the Australian cricket team had been involved in cheating…. But I have to say that the whole nation, who holds those who wear the ‘Baggy Green’ up on a pedestal about as high as you can get in Australia – certainly higher than any politician, that’s for sure – that this is a shocking disappointment. (SNTV, 2018)

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop confirmed the incident ‘has been raised with me on numer- ous occasions by foreign diplomats and ambassadors … who are astounded that Australian cricketers would act in this way’ (Yaxley, 2018). UK Prime Minister Theresa May was ‘shocked and bitterly disappointed’ (Marks, 2018), while Jacinda Ardern, PM, echoed ‘it’s no wonder the public are outraged by it’ (S. Collins, 2018). John Howard declared he ‘shares the intense disappointment of millions of cricket fans’ (Lalor, 2018a) and another former PM, Kevin Rudd, claimed the impact is ‘larger than many back home may think’, causing a loss of ‘soft power’ (Holmes, 2018). Rudd also lambasted CA chair David Peever, accusing him of ‘highest-level corporate thuggery’. Concerns with the governing body had certainly grown over preceding years (Aston, 2018b). Former coach Mickey Arthur (2018) lamented that despite ‘too many behav- ioural spotfires to list’, CA ‘had demonstrated no real willingness or desire to improve the culture within their organisation’. Meanwhile, internal research concluded that the ‘likeability’ of the men’s team was in steady decline among Australians (Haigh, 2018), while it was also widely known that ‘Australian teams had the worst [global] reputation and were the most broadly disliked’ (Lemon, 2018b). Also reflective of ethically lax approaches were CA media executive Ben Amarfio’s comments in 2013, where he pos- ited that controversy may add value to a brand:

the NRL [National ] has had players assault women, players assault policemen, they’ve had drug, corruption and match fixing issues … yet they’ve just signed a TV deal for over $1bn … despite the noise that’s been created in the media, even though it’s negative, it actually creates a lot more interest in your brand…. It’s not always such a bad thing to get negative press. (Hicks, 2013)

Here was a tacit admission that reputational harm was tolerable if it might enhance the bottom line. A few years later, CA – a non-profit organization mandated to deliver social benefit to the Australian people – negotiated a broadcasting deal in excess of AU$1 bil- lion. This was achieved despite bitter negotiations in which Peever referred to Channel Ten as ‘bottom-feeders’, and where the deal’s terms resulted in fewer matches featuring the men’s team available on free-to-air coverage. A willingness to risk reputational harm was also reflected in the latitude afforded to players in the pursuit of success. For example, the 2011 Argus review included vague aspi- rations for more ‘adult conversations’ with players, ‘spelling out how they are perceived and … agreeing required changes to behaviour’ (Cricket Australia, 2011: 22). The requisite mindset demanded, however, was simply ‘a hunger to play, a hunger to improve, a hunger to win and a hunger to be the best in the world’. Remuneration was calibrated to reflect 536 Journal of Sociology 55(3) on-field outcomes, with no consideration as to whether pay-for-win incentives might create moral hazards. While there was brief mention that senior players must ‘role model the desired behaviours’, there was little indication of what, precisely, these behaviours should comprise, at least not in any ethical sense. Ultimately, only outcomes mattered, with means left vague, to be determined by the coach and newly installed ‘high performance manager’. Hence, espoused behaviour change was only shallowly conceived, creating an ethical vac- uum and insistence on success that invited positive deviance. The eventual consequences were laid bare by the ‘cultural review’ conducted by the Ethics Centre and led by Dr Simon Longstaff (2018). Still, even the Longstaff review could not resist a touch of melodrama in diagnosing public responses to the tampering incident:

The grief (and for many people it was grief) was linked to a sense of shame […] a shame that our society’s ethical malaise had moved from politics, to business, to the churches … an ever- spreading stain that had finally tainted the wearers of the hallowed ‘baggy green’. Australians looked up and asked, anew, is that whom we have become? (2018: 5)

This patriotic inflection extended into the review’s recommendations, one of which was that ‘Cricket connects the concept of “noble failure” to national myths – such as that of ANZAC Day’ (2018: 115). More pertinently, the review identified that players operated within a ‘gilded bubble’, which largely consisted of ‘a machine that is fine-tuned for the sole purpose of winning’ (2018: 9) and ‘neither invests in nor values emotional maturity’ (2018: 41). Rather, within this bubble, ‘players are called upon to “play the mongrel”’ (2018: 9). Journalists had observed these somewhat forced displays, with players adopt- ing antagonistic personas not of their usual disposition. One (anonymous) player even noted: ‘The guys in the team actually don’t have those sort of personalities, and they’re not equipped to handle the ramifications when inevitably it goes wrong’ (Haigh, 2018). The resulting overall perception was ‘the normalisation of verbal abuse in Australian men’s cricket’, along with ‘a culture of disrespect for the opposition … to a degree not practiced by other nations’ (Longstaff, 2018: 38). The review also raised concern that CA’s guiding philosophy of ‘Smashing the Boundaries’ was too readily adopted without consideration of ‘attendant harms’ (2018: 39). Across the stakeholder groups surveyed there was agreement that, when measured against their own values, the one Cricket Australia best upheld was ‘Be Relentless … Play to Win’ (in Longstaff, 2018: 43). Alternatively, the value perceived as upheld the least was CA’s willingness to ‘Listen’. The CA executive were most commonly described as ‘arrogant’ and ‘controlling’ (Longstaff, 2018: 11) within an organization fuelled by ‘ego’ and ‘alpha male culture’ (2018: 84). Instead of abiding by declared principles, CA adhered to ‘shadow values’, which prioritized winning and bottom-line outcomes above all else (2018: 93). Partial blame was placed upon the 2011 Argus review (Cricket Australia, 2011), which modelled ‘accountability’ only in narrow terms (i.e. trophies and corporate strength) and so invited ugly instrumentalism to take hold. In an ironic postscript, and further confirming perceptions of arrogance, David Peever saw fit to have himself re-elected as chair before the Longstaff review was released pub- licly. Indeed, the report was ready for release prior to the election, and already disseminated Wade 537 among the CA board. However, for reasons unknown, it was withheld from the state execu- tives who would vote on the CA board. When the damning findings were made available less than two hours after Peever’s re-election the state bodies were less than impressed, and Peever was compelled to resign (Brettig, 2018a).

On moral posturing and grievability After Smith’s tearful public appearance following the handing down of a 12-month sus- pension some earnestly claimed that ‘Australia cried with Steve Smith’ (AAP, 2018a). Peter FitzSimons (2018) cranked up the moralism, arguing that giving the tampering task to the rookie ‘was the equivalent of a Sergeant, being told by a General, to breach the rules of the Geneva Convention’. Other responses echoed this tone-deafness, including suggestions this was cricket’s ‘#MeToo moment’ (Knox, 2018). Many found such reac- tions grossly overblown. To witness such agonizing over smuggled sandpaper does, undeniably, have an element of farce and bathos. However, in a sport in which 1.4 mil- lion Australians participate, and watched by millions more, citizens are entitled to be concerned with how their elite representatives conduct themselves. Also, in a discursively comparative sense, there are collective psychic wounds felt in observing such confected outrage while, for example, asylum seekers languish in deten- tion (Peterie, 2017). These contrasts reveal grotesque skews regarding what lives we deem ‘grievable’ (Butler, 2006). For contemporaneous comparison, four days before the tampering incident, reports emerged that a 10-year-old boy detained at the Nauru deten- tion centre had ‘made repeated attempts to kill himself’ and was ‘at imminent risk of dying’ without medical attention on the Australian mainland (Doherty, 2018). Urgent pleas for aid were nonetheless contested by the Home Affairs department, yet there was comparatively far less coverage of this struggle, with stakes nothing less than life itself. The reader might object to such comparisons as a tu quoque fallacy, for there are almost always matters of greater moral significance than those to which we give our attention. However, these tensions between moral posturing against simultaneous denials of need are worth highlighting, particularly given cricket has historically proven a tool by which such divisions of moral recognition are enacted. For example, it is worth recalling that Robert Menzies infamously refused to enforce a boycott of teams travelling to South Africa in protest against Apartheid. Hutchins (2001: 63) sug- gests that Menzies’ refusal was compounded by his dumbfounding claim that South African President John Vorster was ‘no racist’, effectively rendering Menzies an apol- ogist. Australian cricket has also long struggled with indigenous inclusion (Gemmell, 2007). Despite the first touring team of 1868 comprising indigenous players there remains little representation among professional ranks. Of the 452 men who have played , only one – – has been of indigenous heritage. This conspicuous absence is discomfiting given cricket’s influence in shaping dominant cultural identities, with its impact among indigenous communities sometimes over- stated in ways favouring hegemonic self-regard (Whimpress, 1999). Though participa- tion rates have dramatically improved in recent years (Hart, 2019), this ongoing lack of diversity among the highest ranks may have contributed to the hubris evident in psychologically harmful tactics. 538 Journal of Sociology 55(3)

‘We know where the line is’ Enacting instrumental aggression requires inducing within oneself the necessary mindset to perform such displays. David Warner was explicit in emphasizing these forms of ‘deep acting’ (Hochschild, 2012):

As soon as you step on that line it’s war. You try and get into a battle as quick as you can. I try and look in the opposition’s eyes and try and work out, ‘How can I dislike this player?’ … You have to delve and dig deep into yourself to actually get some hatred about them. (Cricket Australia, 2017b)

Dig deep for ‘hatred’? Typically, idioms of ‘digging deep’ evoke discovering unknown capacities of admirable qualities. Love and empathy – even if limited to kin and kind – can have such depths, but ‘hatred’ remains shallow, an unreflective rejection of the other (Ahmed, 2004: 122–43). Also, while ‘putting on a game face’ is common across many sports, stoking ‘hatred’ remains unusual within cricket, a game not typically associated with such antagonism. However, there had long been concerns that the Australian team were devolving into ‘graceless bullies’ (McGregor, 2012). A decade before Warner’s ‘hatred’ statement, Andrew Symonds acknowledged that ‘one of his roles’ was to find ‘[psychological] weak- ness in the opposition’ and ‘gang up on someone’ (Brettig, 2015). Players also resisted efforts to tone down their combative on-field demeanour, with former captain warning that: ‘If you keep toning us down, you’ll make us the same as everybody else…. Do you want us to win, keep winning games and be the best cricket team in the world, or do you want us just to be like everybody else?’ (Brettig, 2015: loc. 3907). More recently, Mickey Arthur (2018), former coach, described the Australian Test team’s conduct as ‘boorish and arrogant’, and criticized their lack of cross-cultural reflex- ivity in appointing themselves arbiters of ‘the line’. This apparent ‘line’ of ethical conduct was a recurring issue, with the Australians claiming to always play ‘hard but fair’. However, their inability to articulate precisely where this line lay – while nonetheless insisting they exploit its full range – revealed edgework laden with hubris. In 2015, after Warner was fined for telling an Indian player to ‘speak English’, Lehmann would frankly admit that ‘We’re always going to teeter pretty close to [the line], that’s just the way we play’ (Coverdale, 2015). , similarly, claimed ‘We know where the line is. We headbutt it probably, but we don’t go over it’ (Barrett, 2018a). Warner’s own rationale was that ‘There are some times you do nudge that line a fair bit, and the odd occasion you might step over, but you do have to realise that we’re out there to win’ (Moonda, 2014). was far more reflective, acknowledging that ‘pre-planned bullying’ was ‘certainly over the line’, and something of which ‘we’ve all been guilty’ (Lemon, 2018b). Questions about particular incidents were often met with rejoinders that worse had been committed previously, without sanction. When former captain Michael Clarke, for example, told an opponent to ‘Get ready for a broken fucking arm’, Lehmann defended him, stating ‘I like our boys being aggressive as long as they don’t cross the line – I cer- tainly like to play hard cricket. I’ve no problems with that at all’ (BBC, 2013b). even suggested this was the moment where the public ‘accepted [Clarke] as an Australian hero’ (Haigh, 2018). For his part, Clarke framed his conduct as ‘banter’, Wade 539 saying that ‘the England players know we certainly respect them. I’ve heard a lot worse said on a cricket field’ and ‘I cop as much as I give, that’s for sure.’ This rationale of reciprocal harm is invoked frequently, where exchanging hostilities becomes a perverted measure of ‘respect’ (for one would only bother threatening a worthy opponent). Nonetheless, observers expressed frustration with the Australians’ self-appointed role as keepers of ‘the line’:

They’re saying they didn’t cross the line … But where is the line? Who sets the line? Where does the line come from? … Who does the line belong to? … We don’t have a line because we try to just play cricket. (, South African Coach, in Forsaith, 2018b)

I think their line and our line are slightly different things – let’s leave it at that. (, England Captain, in Hoult, 2017)

As apprehended by the rest of the cricket world, the answer is that the line is not fixed, but floats a millimetre ahead of wherever Australia chooses to stop. (Baum, 2018a)

As coach, Lehmann sometimes even instigated conflict himself. In 2013, he targeted England’s – whom Lehmann accused of poor sportsmanship – declaring that ‘I hope he cries and goes home’ (BBC, 2013a). Lehmann added: ‘Our players haven’t forgotten [Broad’s alleged misconduct], they’re calling him everything under the sun as they go past, so I would hope the Australian public are the same.’ The Courier Mail enthu- siastically took up the call, headlining Broad as a ‘Smug Pommie Cheat’ (Wilson, 2013). Suffice to say, not only legitimizing, but urging ‘everything under the sun’ constitutes grossly irresponsible conduct, and Lehmann was duly fined by the International Cricket Council (ICC). Broad would only drily remark that after Lehmann’s crowd-baiting he was ‘pleased my mum wasn’t in the stadium’ during the following match (Wilson, 2013). Lehmann also appeared to lack recognition of inclusive masculinity or sensitivity to ethnicity, and was the first player charged by the ICC for racial vilification (Farquharson and Majoribanks, 2006). Joe Aston (2018a) reported Lehmann once called him a ‘shirtlifter’ (a homophobic slur) and referred to – the first Muslim player in a team that has always lacked diversity – as a ‘shoe-bomber’. Khawaja (2017) himself argued that deep-seated structural racism effectively shut out a generation of tal- ent, along with expressing the frustrations he felt growing up in trying to identify with teams featuring ‘the same type of men who would sledge me about my heritage’. England player , also Muslim, similarly recounted that an unnamed Australian player once called him ‘Osama’ (Wu, 2018). After the tampering incident, where Warner was identified as the instigating figure, Gideon Haigh (in Holmes, 2018) noted ‘every time Warner has transgressed on the field, Lehmann has been his defender and enabler’. It was therefore disingenuous, Haigh argued, to claim this merely the work of a ‘few bad apples’, rather it was nurtured in the team culture. Haigh pointedly observed:

[Warner] has picked out vulnerable players … the weak, or the young, or the inexperienced … and I think his coach has encouraged him to do that…. There is a belief that this is the Aussie way to do it: you get in their faces, you get under their skin, you make it unpleasant to play against you … that’s a very recent bastardization of how we play the game. (Haigh in Holmes, 2018) 540 Journal of Sociology 55(3)

Strategic humiliation The initial impetus of this tactical ‘bastardization’ can be traced to 2016. After five consecutive losses the team were excoriated by CEO James Sutherland and High Performance Manager Pat Howard, and team selections changed dramatically (Wilson, 2018). Smith stated ‘I need some players willing to get in the contest and get in the battle’, urging they embrace ‘the old Australian way of puffing your chest out and making your presence felt’ (Brettig, 2016). Players began highlighting their ‘smarter’ sledging (Brettig, 2018c), with Cameron Bancroft observing that aggressive sledging was so tactically normalized it became ‘Who can hurt someone’s feelings the most?’ (Brettig, 2018d). Through forms of ‘moral disengagement’ (Boardley and Kavussanu, 2011), players would readily, even flippantly, acknowledge their sledging was ‘brutal’, yet aligned it with orthodox Australian identities:

Generally it’s just what the Aussie way is, it’s pretty brutal … if you can get that 1% edge over an opposition, you’d be silly not to [sledge]. If there’s a moment we can exploit someone’s mental capabilities well then yeah, we’re going to go about it.’ ( in Brettig, 2017)

But is it ‘silly’ to consider that employing personal abuse for a ‘1% edge’ is perhaps not worth pursuing? Few things are more dangerous than being unthinking and ruthless. However, when queried on this, responsibility for ensuring sound conduct was deferred to umpires. Close observers were scathing towards such evasions, labelling it the ‘scoun- drel’s refuge’ (Baum, 2018a). Nevertheless, with blithe ‘you’d be silly not to’ conviction, the aggression continued. England players Jimmy Anderson (2017) and James Taylor (BBC, 2018) respectively described the Australians as ‘bullies’, ‘brutal’ and ‘without doubt’ the worst offenders in world cricket. Moeen Ali stated they were ‘the only team I’ve played against my whole life that I’ve actually disliked’ (Atherton, 2018). Mickey Arthur (2018) acknowledged that ‘some of the things said to the English players … was scandalous’, while the South Africans recalled encountering the Australians as ‘definitely the most abuse we’ve got on the cricket field’ (Cricket Australia, 2016). England coach Trevor Bayliss requested stump microphones be tuned less sensitively when playing Australia, so viewers would not hear abusive exchanges (BBC, 2017). Prior to the fateful South Africa series, the Australians themselves requested on-field microphones be faded. When this was refused, the players protested by audibly promoting competitors of the match sponsors during on-field discussion (Barrett, 2018a). Nevertheless, the Australians stubbornly asserted their good standing. After the alter- cation between Warner and de Kock, Smith insisted his team would not change:

It’s about continuing to play a good, hard aggressive brand but knowing we don’t want to cross the line … in the last two years I think we’re the team with the least indiscretions – code of conduct or anything. (Lalor, 2018b)

On any available measure this claim was simply not true.3 Moreover, incessant antago- nism even extended to off-field meta-play. Warner, for example, once publicly described Wade 541 a visiting English team as having ‘scared eyes, and the way Trotty [Jonathan Trott] got out was pretty poor and weak’ (BBC, 2013b). A few days later, suffering from acute anxi- ety, Trott would depart the tour. Trott (2016: loc. 384) recounted crippling fears during this time: ‘I felt I was being questioned as a man. I felt my dignity was being stripped away… It was agony.’ Warner was subsequently criticized for seeking to ‘humiliate a fellow cricketer’ (BBC, 2013b). Still, others followed in the manner established. Nathan Lyon voiced hopes to ‘end some careers’, even targeting specific players:

I know Joe Root got dropped [from the team] last time he was here so it would be good to get him dropped again…. We knew Matt Prior wanted to fly home before the game started and he was one of the senior players. He was scared. (AAP, 2017a)

Arguably, this gamesmanship originates with former captain ’s philosophy of ‘mental disintegration’. However, in Waugh’s view (2005), rather than advocating for personal abuse, this strategy was about ‘own[ing] the headspace’ of an opposing player, exercising such tactical dominance and skilful execution that the opposition would fall into defeatist mindsets. Of course, mental disintegration proved easier to realize between 1999 and 2009, when the Australian team were utterly dominant. Later years saw pro- gressively weaker squads while expectations remained high, further incentivizing devi- ant practices. The specific content of sledging is rarely revealed, in part for supposedly honour- based rationales of ‘what happens on the field stays on the field’, but also because it may cause further harm to the aggrieved party (Fraser, 2005: 61–3). A pertinent exam- ple of this occurred during the 2017–18 Ashes series, where it was widely acknowl- edged that England’s Johnny Bairstow was subjected to acutely personal abuse, though no specifics were ever given. As Geoff Lemon (2018b) explained: ‘The England camp didn’t want drama, the Australian camp didn’t want publication’ and journalists were also reluctant to go ‘kicking a wasp’s nest’. Bairstow himself would only acknowledge that things were said that must never be said again (Lemon, 2018b). Unfortunately, this silencing bind leaves itself open to exploitation. Former South African captain A.B. de Villiers confirmed that Australian sledging typically involved ‘lots of personal stuff’ (AAP, 2014), and Peter Lalor (ABC, 2018) noted this hostility was unique to the Australians:

I think the ‘Ugly Australian’ tag is, unfortunately, justified … you don’t actually need to hear what’s being said on the stump mics, but I can tell you that at times it would make your hair curl. It can get pretty gruesome out there, can get pretty ugly, and they don’t have many friends in world cricket – the Australians – over the way they play, because they play too hard.

Altogether, these psychological techniques devolved into wilfully ugly kinds, where Australian players ‘set out to make [conflicts] happen, strategically, calculatedly, as a matter of declared policy’ (Baum, 2018a). Perhaps unsurprisingly, after the cheating was uncovered and players dragged through confessions, there was little sympathy outside Australia. Widespread Schadenfreude prevailed, for moral hypocrisy had finally been exposed. 542 Journal of Sociology 55(3)

An era bookended by tears Following his suspension, Steve Smith delivered a full mea culpa, through tears. Cameron Bancroft also fought back tears as he expressed regret. Two days later, David Warner broke down in confessional display, Darren Lehmann resigned, and CA commis- sioned the cultural review. The captain, vice-captain, coach, the most junior player, each in evident states of mental fragility, had all been publicly purged, but continued to pro- fess their love for the sport and for the nation. Also soon to depart were the CEO, chair, two board members, the high performance manager, the head of integrity and the chief media executive. Concerns were raised whether the players’ ‘rituals of self-abasement’ were distractions from addressing more endemic issues (Gideon in Holmes, 2018). Michael Clarke likewise chastised those who – particularly in their treatment of Warner – assumed that: ‘He’s a tough guy; you can bruise him but you’ll never break him’ (De Silva, 2018). Certainly, such callousness merely re-imposes the hyper-masculinities that need dismantling. Moreover, it highlights popular media as partially responsible for fos- tering anti-hero archetypes like Warner, who are held aloft when winning, but later used as targets of cleansing vitriol. Warner himself acknowledged his casting as the ‘panto- mime villain’, to which he acquiesced, thinking the role necessary for the team’s benefit (Lemon, 2018a). Hence, in ways both pantomime and parable-like, a team that prided itself on sending opponents home crying were now themselves in tears. To see the Australian captain shedding tears recalled similar scenes in 1984, when Kim Hughes announced he was resigning the Test captaincy. Hughes suffered much derision, his tears thought to signify failed masculinity. Hughes’ fate was to be remembered as ‘the crybaby, the effeminate cricketer’, the one fathers warned their sons not to become (Ryan, 2017: 362). This cru- elly unsympathetic legacy persisted for many years. One writer suggested it ‘might have impressed psychologists who admire men getting in touch with their feminine side’ but, ultimately, Hughes made ‘a complete clown of himself’ (Mitchell, 2002). Another even argued that ‘the backlash was so severe that it helped kick-start the last 25 years of Australian success … [bringing] a new spirit of toughness to the team’ (Bull, 2008). If recent behaviour was to be the price for success, perhaps better to have foregone it entirely. Still, if Hughes’ tears marked the beginning of one era, it is fitting that Smith’s tears mark its end, and perhaps the reimagining of Australian cricket in ways that undo entrenched ugliness. Indeed, we might start by undoing the stigma attached to tears, achieved in other settings once stereotypically associated with orthodox masculinities (Underwood and Olson, 2018).

Conclusion: beyond mocking ‘niceness’ and ‘raining epithets’ This article has explored the blend of moralism, nationalism, masculinity and instru- mental deviance that coalesced into a win-at-all-costs ethos within the Australian cricket team. Forms of positive deviance descended into self-confessedly ‘brutal’ and personally injurious tactics. Close observers concur on the intimidating, emasculatory, invasive and even ethnically prejudiced lengths to which ‘sledging’ was taken. Such Wade 543 strategies exploited both regulatory gaps – by letting players self-set ‘the line’ of acceptable conduct – and cricket’s esteemed cultural position, by aligning aggression as ‘part of being an Australian’. This patriotic moral posturing was then mirrored in reactions to the tampering incident, where seeming national indignity overwhelmed far more worthy sources of shame and grieving. But finally, prior to his resignation, Darren Lehmann conceded it was time the Australian team rethink their approach, identifying New Zealand as worth emulating ‘in the way they play and respect the opposition’ (Barrett, 2018c). No small irony here, for former Australian player – in comically hyper-masculinist fashion – had previously mocked the New Zealanders’ friendliness:

They were that nice to us in New Zealand and we were that uncomfortable … I said in the team meeting: ‘I can’t stand for this anymore. We’re going at them as hard as we can.’ … All they were was nice to us for seven days. (in Fairfax Media, 2015)

It was also not long before debates about ‘how Australians win’ undermined the recom- mendations of the Longstaff review. Michael Clarke led the charge, suggesting we must:

Play tough, Australian cricket because – whether we like it or not – that is in our blood… If you try and walk away from it, yeah, we might be the most liked team in the world, [but] we’re not gonna win shit. We won’t win a game. (Healy, 2018)

Likewise, when one player was asked during the Longstaff review about New Zealand’s more genial approach, he responded with ‘and how are they going?’, implying that sledg- ing was ‘an essential part of the kit they need to win’ (Longstaff, 2018: 90). But for now, at least, these dissenting voices appear to be in the minority. Hope remains that the Australian team have finally dispensed with ‘this lousy fiction that if you’re not raining down epithets and curses on your opponents, you are not showing sufficient passion for your team and country’ (Baum, 2018a). Time will tell whether they retain the courage to be kind.

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes 1. Some might suggest that the #BeatEngland campaign and presentation ceremony were con- sistent with long-standing rivalries and marketing strategies. However, they reflected a tone not previously seen. Typically, promotional rhetoric for the Ashes focuses more on inward- looking appeals, such as: the praiseworthy qualities of the players; valorizing the ‘spirit of cricket’; nationalistic sentiments; and deference to history. Any antagonism towards the opposition is subsumed under these themes rather than being the central appeal. Compare, for example, CA’s #BeatEngland campaign with the ‘It’s not just cricket’ campaign of the previous series, developed by the England and Wales Cricket Board (2015). While there are certainly parallels – primarily the overwrought drama – the ethical inflection is clearly differ- ent. One is inward-looking, and valorizes patriotism only if it produces laudable conduct. The 544 Journal of Sociology 55(3)

other is outward-looking, jingoistic, and antagonistic. As for the presentation ceremony, there emerged consensus that the staging was unbefitting of the occasion. Mike Carlton labelled it ‘insulting triumphalism’, while others described the display as ‘classless’, ‘gross’, ‘gauche’, childish’, ‘unsportsmanlike’, ‘garish’, ‘horrendous’, and ‘reinforces the view that Australian cricket is full of boorish bogans’ (see Fasso-Opie, 2018; Morgan, 2018; Scroll, 2018). 2. Ball tampering is making unlawful changes to the ball’s material condition, for strategic advantage. 3. Australia was far from the lowest accumulator of sanctions for unsporting conduct. A sound measure of overall team discipline can be found in the number of ‘demerit points’ issued to players by the ICC. In the 18 months from when the demerit system was first introduced, Australia fared average-to-poor, with five players receiving demerit points. New Zealand, for comparison, had zero players incur demerits (ICC, 2018). The Longstaff review (Longstaff, 2018: 52) similarly confirmed that ‘since 2013, and including the South Africa incident, David Warner is the Australian player who has been found guilty of the most international match Code of Conduct infringements, followed by Steve Smith’.

ORCID iD Matthew Wade https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8401-2428

References AAP (2014) ‘Australian Sledging Is Personal Says South African Captain’, The Australian 27 August, URL (consulted September 2018): https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cricket /australian-sledging-is-personal-says-south-african-captain-ab-de-villiers/news-story/5634ce 511b7e15e7485d362fdca6b9b4 AAP (2017a) ‘Nathan Lyon Wants to “End Some Careers” in Fierce Sledge’, WWOS 21 November, URL (consulted April 2018): https://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/11/21/09/27/aussies-want-to -end-careers-of-poms-lyon AAP (2017b) ‘Smith Happy with Sledging-induced ’, SBS News 27 November URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.sbs.com.au/news/smith-happy-with-sledging-induced -wicket AAP (2018a) ‘ACA Labels Tampering Bans “Disproportionate”’, The Guardian 3 April, URL (con- sulted April 2018): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/03/aca-labels-ball-tampering -bans-disproportionate-and-calls-for-reduction ABC (2018) Caught Out, ABC TV 21 April, URL (consulted September 2018): http://www. .net.au/tv/programs/caught-out/ AFP (2018) ‘Smith’s Shame’, Hindustan Times 26 March, URL (consulted September 2018): https://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/smith-s-shame-australia-media-slam-rotten -cricket-culture-after-ball-tampering-row/story-cdVzCZtmqoWs7Dq2uPtOKO.html Ahmed, S. (2004) The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Anderson, B. (2006) Imagined Communities. London: Verso. Anderson, E. (2008) ‘“I Used to Think Women Were Weak”: Orthodox Masculinity, Gender Segregation, and Sport’, Sociological Forum 23(2): 257–80. Anderson, E. (2010) Inclusive Masculinity. Abingdon: Routledge. Anderson, J. (2017) ‘Bullies Australia Are Taking the Mickey’, The Telegraph 30 November, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/11/30/bullies-australia -taking-mickey-will-not-take-abuse-likes-david/ Appadurai, A. (2015) ‘Playing with Modernity: The Decolonization of Indian Cricket’, Altre Modernità 14: 1–24. Wade 545

Arthur, M. (2018) ‘The Truth about Aussie Cricket Culture’, Players Voice 29 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.playersvoice.com.au/mickey-arthur-truth-about-aussie -cricket-culture/ Aston, J. (2018a) ‘Darren Lehmann the Problem in Australian Cricket’s Boofy Culture’, Australian Financial Review 28 March, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.afr.com/business /sport/darren-lehmann-the-problem-in-australian--boofy-culture-20180328-h0y307 Aston, J. (2018b) ‘Australian Cricket All about Values!’, Australian Financial Review 2 April, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.afr.com/brand/rear-window/lamborghinis-and-hot -breakfasts-australian-cricket-all-about-values-20180402-h0y882 Atherton, M. (2018) ‘Moeen Ali: Australia are Abusive and Rude’, The Times 14 September, URL consulted (September 2018): https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/moeen-ali-australia -are-abusive-and-rude-they-re-the-only-side-i-ve-disliked-wlptsxxvk Atkinson, M. (2010) Deconstructing Men and Masculinities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barker, J. and M. Slater (2015) ‘It’s Not Just Cricket’, The Psychologist 28(7): 552–57. Barrett, C. (2018a) ‘Australia’s Ambush Marketing Ploy on Stump Microphones’, Sydney Morning Herald 3 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/australia -s-ambush-marketing-ploy-on-stump-microphones-20180303-p4z2n0.html Barrett, C. (2018b) ‘Cricket South Africa Apologise over Williams Masks’, Sydney Morning Herald 10 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket /cricket-south-africa-apologises-over-sonny-bill-williams-masks-20180310-p4z3px.html Barrett, C. (2018c) ‘Tearful Lehmann Looks to New Zealand as Model’, Sydney Morning Herald 29 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/i-need-to -change-tearful-lehmann-looks-to-new-zealand-as-model-20180329-p4z6sr.html Baum, G. (2018a) ‘Cricket’s Case of Line and Stench’, Sydney Morning Herald 9 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/cricket-s-case-of-line-and -stench-20180309-p4z3oj.html Baum, G. (2018b) ‘Raised Fingers Make for Ugly Australians’, Sydney Morning Herald 9 January, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/raised-fingers-make -for-ugly-australians-20180109-h0fr20.html BBC (2013a) ‘Stuart Broad Is a Blatant Cheat – Darren Lehmann’, 21 August, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/23778598 BBC (2013b) ‘David Warner: I Went Too Far with Jonathan Trott Comments’, 25 November, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/25089317 BBC (2017) ‘England Coach Trevor Bayliss Wants Stump Microphones Turned Down’, 3 December, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/42214959 BBC (2018) ‘Australian Cricket Scandal’, BBC5Live, 29 March, URL (consulted April, 2018): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p062s5t4 Beckles, H. and B. Stoddart (eds) (1995) Liberation Cricket. : Manchester University Press. Beilharz, P. (2005) ‘Australia: The Unhappy Country, or, a Tale of Two Nations’, Thesis Eleven 82: 73–87. Boardley, I.D. and M. Kavussanu (2011) ‘Moral Disengagement in Sport’, International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 4(2): 93–108. Brettig, D. (2015) Whitewash to Whitewash. Melbourne: Penguin Brettig, D. (2016) ‘Let’s Get Loud, Says Australia Captain Steven Smith’, ESPNCricInfo, 19 September, URL (consulted September 2018): http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/17584414/let-get -loud-says-captain-steven-smith-demanding-players-find-their-voices-energy Brettig, D. (2017) ‘We’ll Maintain Sledging Assault – Handscomb’, ESPNCricInfo, 30 November, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21615843/australia -maintain-sledging-assault-pete-handscomb 546 Journal of Sociology 55(3)

Brettig, D. (2018a) ‘Culture Reviews Revealed to States Minutes after Cricket Australia Chairman Re-elected’, ESPNCricInfo, 25 October, URL (consulted December 2018): http://www .espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/25076354/culture-reviews-revealed-states-minutes-cricket -australia-chairman-re-elected Brettig, D. (2018b) ‘Desperation Drove Australia to Cheat – Smith’, ESPNCricInfo, 24 March, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22897995/desperation- drove-australia-cheat-steven-smith Brettig, D. (2018c) ‘Warner in Heated Exchange with Spectator after Dismissal’, ESPNCricInfo, 23 March, URL (consulted September 2018): http://www.espn.com.au/cricket/story/_/id /22882574/david-warner-heated-exchange-spectator-dismissal Brettig, D. (2018d) ‘We’ll Use Philander Tweet on Field – Bancroft’, ESPNCricInfo, 19 March, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.espn.com/cricket/story/_/id/22830320/use-philander -tweet-field-cameron-bancroft Bull, A. (2008) ‘The Crying Games’, The Guardian 18 August, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/aug/18/olympics2008.olympicssailing2 Butler, J. (2006) Precarious Life. London: Verso. Carrington, B. (1998) ‘Sport, Masculinity, and Black Cultural Resistance’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues 22(3): 275–98. Chiu, A. (2018) ‘“Sandpapergate” Cheating Scandal Rocks Australian Cricket’, The Washington Post 28 March, URL (consulted September 2018): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news /morning-mix/wp/2018/03/28/sandpapergate-cheating-scandal-rocks-australian-cricket-it -beggars-belief-says-prime-minister/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a5ee61e7afe6 Collins, A. (2018) ‘Steve Smith Hits Out at Kagiso Rabada Appeal Process’, The Guardian 21 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/21 /pretty-interesting-steve-smith-hits-out-at-kagiso-rabada-process Collins, S. (2018) ‘PM Jacinda Ardern at post-Cabinet press conference’, NZ Herald, 19 January, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/102606095/its-just-not -cricket-pm-jacinda-ardern-weighs-in-on-ball-tampering-scandal Connell, R. (2000) The Men and the Boys. Berkeley: University of California Press. Connell, R. (2005) Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press. Coverdale, B. (2015) ‘Warner Fined over Rohit Spat’, ESPNCricInfo, 19 January, URL (con- sulted December 2018): http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21310121/warner-fined -rohit-spat Cricket Australia (2011) Australian Team Performance Review (Argus review), 19 August. Jolimont, Vic.: Cricket Australia. Cricket Australia (2016) ‘Sledging Was Worst I’ve Copped: de Villiers’, 17 October, URL (con- sulted April 2018): https://www.cricket.com.au/news/ab-de-villiers-sledging-abuse-australia -south-africa-2014-test-series-worst-personal-clarke-steyn/2016-10-17 Cricket Australia (2017a) ‘Beat England’, 22 November, URL (consulted April 2018): https:// summer.cricket.com.au/beatengland/ Cricket Australia (2017b) ‘Warner Regretful Over Ashes Comments’, 22 October, URL (con- sulted April 2018): https://www.cricket.com.au/news/david-warner-regrets-ashes-comments -australia-v-england-inward-anger/2017-10-22 Cricket Australia (2018) ‘Bancroft Interview: The Full Transcript’, 26 December, URL (consulted December, 2018): https://www.cricket.com.au/news/cameron-bancroft-full-transcript-interview -fox-cricket-adam-gilchrist-sandpaper-cheating-scandal/2018-12-26 Davis, P.A., L. Davis, S. Wills, R. Appleby and A. Nieuwenhuys (2018) ‘Exploring Sledging and Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Strategies in Professional Cricket’, The Sport Psychologist, 32(2): 1–33. Wade 547

De Silva, C. (2018) ‘Michael Clarke Worried about Remaining Members of Australian Squad’, WWOS 30 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://wwos.nine.com.au/2018/03/30/10/19 /current-players-must-be-protected-clarke Doherty, B. (2018) ‘Court Orders Boy, 10, at Risk of Suicide on Nauru Be Treated in Australia’, The Guardian 21 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.theguardian.com/australia -news/2018/mar/21/court-orders-that-boy-10-at-risk-of-suicide-on-nauru-be-treated-in-australia Donahue, E.G., B. Rip and R.J. Vallerand (2009) ‘When Winning is Everything: On Passion, Identity, and Aggression in Sport’, Psychology of Sport and Exercise 10(5): 526–34. England and Wales Cricket Board (2015) ‘It’s Not Just Cricket. It’s the Ashes’, URL (consulted September 2018) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7d7aol5EOc Fairfax Media (2015) ‘Brad Haddin Says “Nice” Black Caps “Deserved” Sledging’, Sydney Morning Herald 30 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.smh.com.au/sport /cricket/cricket-world-cup-2015-brad-haddin-says-nice-black-caps-deserved-sledging -20150330-1maudu.html Farquharson, K. and Marjoribanks, T. (2006) ‘Representing Australia: Race, the Media and Cricket’, Journal of Sociology 42(1): 25–41. Fasso-Opie, K. (2018) ‘Giant Four-fingered Salute Slammed as “Gross” and “Tasteless”’, New Daily 8 January, URL (consulted September 2018): https://thenewdaily.com.au/sport /cricket/2018/01/08/ashes-four-fingers/ Ferris, S. (2018) ‘Smith, Proteas at Odds over “Personal” Sledging’, Cricket Australia 5 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.cricket.com.au/news/steve-smith-personal-sledging -comments-australia-south-africa-first-test-warner-de-kock-du-plessis/2018-03-05?mode=wv Fiske, J., B. Hodge and G. Turner (1987) Myths of Oz: Reading Popular Australian Culture. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. FitzSimons, P. (2018) ‘Smith Has Been Stood Down, but He Must Answer These Key Questions’, Sydney Morning Herald 25 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.smh.com .au/sport/cricket/smith-must-resign-but-not-before-he-answers-these-key-questions -20180325-p4z641.html Fletcher, T. (2012) ‘“Who Do ‘They’ Cheer For?” Cricket, Diaspora, Hybridity and Divided Loyalties amongst British Asians’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47(5): 612–31’ Forsaith, R. (2018a) ‘Australia’s Aggression Made South Africa “Motivated and Angry”’, www.news.com.au, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket /australias-aggressive-made-south-africa-motivated-and-angry/news-story/d1754129ef- 33de9c0ec20d532bcc22fd Forsaith, R. (2018b) ‘Umpires Must Spell Out the Line: Gibson’, Sydney Morning Herald 8 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/umpires-must-spell-out -the-line-gibson-20180308-p4z3ct.html Fraser, D. (2005) Cricket and the Law. New York: Routledge. Gee, S. and S. Jackson (2017) Sport, Promotional Culture and the Crisis of Masculinity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gemmell, J. (2007) ‘All White Mate? Cricket and Race in Oz’, Sport in Society 10(1): 33–48. Hage, G. (1998) White Nation. London: Pluto Press. Hage, G. (2006) ‘The Ugly Assimilationists’, OnLine Opinion, URL (consulted April, 2018): http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4896&page=0 Hart, C. (2019) ‘Indigenous interest in cricket is rising and D’Arcy Short wants to make the most of it’, ABC News 15 February, URL (consulted February 2019): https://www.abc.net.au /news/2019-02-15/interest-in-indigenous-cricket-surges/10813010 Haigh, G. (2018) Crossing the Line. Melbourne: Slattery Media. 548 Journal of Sociology 55(3)

Healy, J. (2018) ‘Clarke Proved His Detractors’ Point While Trying to Hit Back Over Australian Cricket Culture’, ABC News 29 November, URL (consulted December 2018): https:// www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-29/clarke-proves-dectractors-point-while-trying-to-hit -back/10566540 Heenan, T. and Dunstan, D. (2013) ‘New Worlds and Old Prejudices: Australia, Cricket and the Subcontinent: 1880–1960’, International Journal of the History of Sport 30(18): 2135–53. Hicks, R. (2013) ‘Negative Noise Has Side Effect of Fueling Public Interest’, Mumbrella, URL (consulted April 2018): https://mumbrella.com.au/sports-scandals-help-drive-ratings-says -cricket-australia-marketing-chief-138483 Hochschild, A.R. (2012) The Managed Heart. Berkeley: University of California Press Holmes, T. (2018) ‘The Ticket’, ABCNewsRadio 1 April. Hoult, N. (2017) ‘Joe Root: Use Images of Aussies Laughing as Motivation’, The Telegraph 30 November, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/11/30 /joe-root-tells-england-players-use-image-aussies-laughing-atjonny/ Hughes, R. and Coakley, J. (1991) ‘Positive Deviance Among Athletes: The Implications of Overconformity to the Sport Ethic’, Sociology of Sport Journal 8(4): 307–25. Hutchins, B. (2001) ‘Social-conservatism, Australian Politics and Cricket: The Triumvirate of Prime Minister John Howard, Sir Robert Menzies and Sir Donald Bradman’, Journal of Australian Studies 25(67): 55–66 Hutchins, B. (2005) ‘Unity, Difference and the “National Game”: Cricket and Australian National Identity’, pp. 25–43 in Cricket and National Identity in the Postcolonial Age. Abingdon: Routledge. ICC (2018) ‘ICC Code of Conduct Breaches and Penalties’, URL (consulted September 2018): https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/cricket/rules-and-regulations/code-of-conduct James, C.L.R. (2005 [1963]) Beyond a Boundary, London: Yellow Jersey Press. Jones, C. and M. McNamee (2000) ‘Moral Reasoning, Moral Action, and the Moral Atmosphere of Sport’, Sport, Education and Society 5(2): 131–46. Joseph, S. and D. Cramer (2011) ‘Sledging in Cricket: Elite English Batsmen’s Experiences of Verbal Gamesship’, Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 5(3), pp.237–251 Khawaja, U. (2017) ‘Racism and the Big Change’, PlayersVoice, URL (consulted September 2018): https://www.playersvoice.com.au/usman-khawaja-racism-and-the -big-change/#aKL1XeykXhmshwhT.97 Knox, M. (2018) ‘This Is Cricket’s #MeToo Moment’, Sydney Morning Herald 25 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/this-is-cricket-s-metoo-moment -a-rare-opportunity-for-complete-purge-20180325-p4z66c.html Kavussanu, M. (2008) ‘Moral Behaviour in Sport: A Critical Review of the Literature’,International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 1(2): 124–38. Lalor, P. (2018a) ‘Steve Smith Cops ICC Ban’, The Australian, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/malcolm-turnbull-says-balltampering -scandal-beggars-belief/news-story/0fe3475773ebe1691868996bf7b07fa4 Lalor, P. (2018b) ‘Warner Could Lose the Vice-captaincy’, The Australian, URL consulted (April, 2018): https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cricket/south-africa-v-australia-board-could -strip-dave-warner-of-vicecaptaincy/news-story/84dcb98662c3401a1c25be5b0146b6d6 Latham, M. (2006) A Conga Line of Suckholes. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing Lemon, G. (2018a) ‘Australia’s David Warner on Playing the Villain’, The Guardian 27 February, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/27/australias -david-warner-on-playing-the-villain-and-finding-control Lemon, G. (2018b) Steve Smith’s Men. Melbourne: Hardie Grant. Lofthouse, A. (2018) ‘Australia Ball-tampering Row’, BBC, URL (consulted April 2018): http:// www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/43541189 Wade 549

Longstaff, S. (2018) Australian Cricket: A Matter of Balance. Sydney: Ethics Centre. Lyng, S. (1990) ‘Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk Taking’, American Journal of Sociology 95(4): 851–86. Malcolm, D. (2001) ‘“It’s Not Cricket”: Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Inequalities’, Journal of Historical Sociology 14(3): 253–75. Marks, V. (2018) ‘Tears, Lies and Sandpaper’, The Guardian 31 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/mar/31/steve-smith-david-warner-darren -lehmann-ball-tampering-australia McGregor, M. (2012) An Indian Summer of Cricket. Geelong: Barrallier Books. Messner, M. (1992) Power at Play. Boston, MA: Beacon. Mitchell, K. (2002) ‘What a Carve-up’, The Guardian 24 November, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2002/nov/24/cricket.ashes Moonda, F. (2014) ‘De Villiers Expects Hostilities to Resume’, ESPNCricInfo, 26 August, URL (consulted September 2018): http://www.espncricinfo.com/zimbabwe-triangular-series-2014 /content/story/774459.html Morgan, S. (2018) ‘Australia Blasted by Own Fans for “Classless” Trophy Presentation’, Sun 8 January, URL (consulted September 2018): https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/5293612 /australia-blasted-by-own-fans-for-classless-trophy-presentation-following-ashes-win-over -england/ Nalapat, A. and A. Parker (2005) ‘Sport, Celebrity and Popular Culture: , Cricket and Indian Nationalisms’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport 40(4): 433–46. Palmer, C. (2014) ‘Sport and Alcohol – Who’s Missing? New Directions for a Sociology of Sport- related Drinking’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport 49(3–4): 263–77 Parry, K. and E. Kavanagh (2013) ‘Sledging Is Out of Order in the Workplace, So Why Not the Sports Field?’, The Conversation, URL (consulted September 2018): https://theconversation .com/sledging-is-out-of-order-in-the-workplace-so-why-not-the-sports-field-20812 Parry, M. and D. Malcolm (2004) ‘England’s Barmy Army: Commercialization, Masculinity and Nationalism’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport 39(1): 75–94. Peterie, M. (2017) ‘Docility and Desert: Government Discourses of Compassion in Australia’s Asylum Seeker Debate’, Journal of Sociology 53(2): 351–66. Raman, P. (2015) ‘“It’s because we’re Indian, innit?” Cricket and the South Asian Diaspora in Post-war Britain’, Identities 22(2): 215–29. Rowe, D. (2011) ‘The Televised Sport “Monkey Trial”: “Race” and the Politics of Post-colonial Cricket’, Sport in Society 14(6): 792–804. Ryan, C. (2017) Golden Boy. London: Atlantic Books. Scroll (2018) ‘Twitter Trashes Cricket Australia’s “Tasteless” Ashes Podium’, Scroll, URL (con- sulted September 2018): https://scroll.in/field/864230/how-inappropriate-how-awful-twitter- trashes-cricket-australias-tasteless-ashes-podium SNTV (2018) ‘“This Is a Shocking Disappointment” – Says PM about Ball Tampering Incident’, The Guardian 25 March, URL (consulted April 2018): https://www.theguardian.com/sport /video/2018/mar/25/this-is-a-shocking-disappointment-says-australian-pm-about-ball-tampering -incident-video Swain, J. (2006) ‘Reflections on Patterns of Masculinity in School Settings’, Men and Masculinities 8(3): 331–49. Trott, J. (2016) Unguarded. London: Sphere. Underwood, M. and R. Olson (2018) ‘“Manly Tears Exploded from My Eyes, Let’s Feel Together Brahs”: Emotion and Masculinity within an Online Body Building Community’, Journal of Sociology https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783318766610 550 Journal of Sociology 55(3)

Wann, D.L., J.D. Carlson and M.P. Schrader (1999) ‘The Impact of Team Identification on the Hostile and Instrumental Verbal Aggression of Sport Spectators’, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 14(2): 279–86. Waugh, S. (2005) Out of My Comfort Zone. Melbourne: Penguin. Werbner, P. (1996) ‘“Our Blood Is Green”: Cricket, Identity and Social Empowerment among British Pakistanis’, pp. 87–112 in J. MacClancy, (ed.) Sport, Identity, and Ethnicity. Oxford: Berg. Whannel, G. (2002) Media Sport Stars: Masculinities and Moralities. London: Routledge. Whimpress, B. (1999) Passport to Nowhere: Aborigines in Australian Cricket 1850–1939. Petersham: Walla Walla Press. Wilson, A. (2013) ‘“I’m Pleased My Mum Wasn’t in Stadium”, says Stuart Broad’, The Guardian 21 November, URL (consulted September 2018): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013 /nov/21/ashes-2013-14-stuart-broad-preparing-myself Wilson, S. (2018) ‘The Long Road from Bradman’s Moral Lesson to Bancroft’s Ball Tampering’, ABC News 2 April, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-02 /how-australian-cricket-went-from-bradman-to-ball-tampering/9608314 Wu, A. (2018) ‘ICC Could Still Take Action on 2015 Ashes Racism Claim’, Sydney Morning Herald 16 September, URL (consulted September 2018): https://www.smh.com.au/sport /cricket/icc-could-still-take-action-on-2015-ashes-racism-claim-if-player-named-20180916 -p5044v.html Yaxley, L. (2018) ‘Ball-tampering Saga Is All Foreign Leaders Want to Talk to Julie Bishop About’, ABC News 28 March, URL (consulted April 2018): http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-28 /cricket-ball-tampering-dominating-julie-bishops-diplomatic-talks/9597602

Author biography Matt Wade is a postdoctoral fellow in Nanyang Technological University’s Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, Singapore. His primary research interests lie within the sociology of sci- ence, technology, health, and morality, particularly within discourses of biocitizenship and moral worthiness. These interests are pursued in various contexts, including: debated applications of moral neuropsychology; self-tracking practices; and appeals for aid in personal crisis crowdfund- ing. He also has an interest in cultural sociology, especially around spectacles of prosumption and emotional labour.