Agree wholeheartedly. It brings to mind the ludicrous naming fiasco that occurred when the Sheffield Shield was sponsored by the stuff that people drown their rice bubbles in - to this day I still refuse to buy that product. It is and always will be the Sheffield Shield competition. Why can't we simply have the "Australian Test/One Day Team, proudly sponsored by [insert name of current sponsor]. That way, the Aussie team will always be the Aussie team and the sponsor's name can change from time to time depending on who it is.

No-one will use the new term. So Australian cricket gets funds to breed the next generation of world beaters, and everyone else is happy. What's the harm? The Oval is still a great place for cricket, the Australian team won't be diminished by this.....

It is disappointing that CA have done this. They are very rich and have milked every dollar they could have this year...but this puts them over the line. I just hope the media ignore it.

Quite right Tim, it's an outrage. I'm an Australian, not a Commonwealth Bankian!!! It's a real outrage that a country, especially one as proud as AUSTRALIA, would see the need to sell its name.

Part of me thinks this must be practical joke/April Fools day prank, but then my media reality chip kicks in and realises that this is the sad state of sport.

Sport is one area of our lives that proves profitable for many people, few of them being the man-on-the-street supporter of his local or national team.

This is a very sad story and a sad depiction of those in charge of Cricket Australia, who clearly are not in touch with their fans.

For god's sake Tim, have you ever written a positive article about Australia. You're opinions are frequently biased in favour of the English team, and in a time when the Australian team appears to be dominating every aspect of the cricket world (at least until we win the ashes back), the only thing you can think of writing is some jargon about us 'selling our souls'. There are plenty of negative things you could be asserting about the English team, and plenty of positives to give to the Australian team but coincidently you chose to mention irrelevant sponsorship deals. In future please write with less partiality, and continue to focus on on-field issues.

Nothing to get too excited about. It'll be the same as Hawthorn in footy being called the "Tassie Hawks" in a naming rights deal. No one calls them that, not the club, the general public or anyone in the media. The only time they are ever refferred to as that is on pay tv ads put out by the Tassie government. I highly doubt CA will expect anyone in the media to call them that.

Josh - I think what you meant to say was that the Commonwealth Bank XI are dominating every aspect of cricket.

Its just a series isn't it?
the Australia team won't be called the common wealth bank team will they?

if so this would be an out rage and selling their sole would be the right headline.

However if it is just a sponsership deal i think that the whole blog is rubbish, however i don't really know enough about this issue to make a definite.

think beyond the ashes man- do you honestly want england beaten by the Commonwealth Bank one-day team? And this is going to be there for three years! It shames me as an australian to think that in a nation that prides itself on its sporting prowess, the name of our national team is a bloody bank. Worse yet, with India always waiting to grab onto the next marketing idea, its only a matter of time before they do it too- and other countries like the Windies, who to be fair probably need the money, follow suit... it is a sad, sad day in cricket.

I only hope cricinfo cover the games as "Australia" and not Commonwealth Bank... I'd really consider not coming here anymore if they did that. I know I'm going to ignore aussie ODIs from now.

I wonder if there are any sponsors willing to put their name on the English ODI team. LOL

Agree with the poster above. It seems Tim must have read the paper this morning and saw that Ponting made runs and Mcgrath took wickets so he had nothing to criticise on the field so he desperately found elsewhere. Poor article and a waste of text. Please address more relevent matters in the future. Thanks.

I think Josh might be a Commonwealth Bank Supporter.

tim, i am not australian or english,and i cant help thinking, is this commonwealth thing necessary,i mean, its just a wastage of time, writting about something like this.however much i dont like the australian team,cant you write some negative thing about england once in a while too.i cant believe i am saying this, but,give australia a break.

Sorry Josh, but you're talking rubbish! I'm an Australian and I always find Tim's articles interesting and unbiased. You may notice that he started this one with "On the field, things are going swimmingly for Australia. They are winning, Glenn McGrath is taking out top-order batsmen again, Mitchell Johnson is coming along nicely: the pieces are slotting into the Ashes jigsaw, better than England’s." Partiality? I don't think so...

Oh, and I agree about the ludicrous nature of the supposed new name for the team. CA might want to sell its soul, but I don't!

Let's burn some Aussie dollars and get ourselves some brand new 'Commonwealth Bank Ashes'.

I agree about the anti aussie bias on cricinfo

i know cricinfo is just wisden in sheeps clothing but they could at least pretend to be fair and unbiased.

same thing on the quotes page, nearly every aussie quote is followed by some sarcastic comment by an editor

this won't get posted but i thought i would say it anyway

As an Australian I think Tim's comments are very apposite. I don't approve of this deal and I think that the concept is dubious. Nor do I think the media will really be able to cope with such a cumbersome name change. The parallel with football is however a little inappropriate since football makes bucketloads of cash out of club sponsorship which is not an option for cricket boards. I therefore don't see the harm in sponsor's logos on shirts. Still, it's not Manchester Sharp United is it?

Australians should be able to recognise that Australians in general, and CA in particular, are capable of making bad choices. And we should be able to acknowledge the merits of commentary that points out when those decisions are fundamentally flawed. People who get hysterical when someone dares to point out an Australian may have done something wrong tend not to raise our stock in the eyes of impartial observers (let alone the poms).

What sanctimonious claptrap - especially from an english journalist who forgets that his national team used to play officially as MCC till as recently as 1976. I'd rather have my national team named after a bank than a private members' club representing a tube station in London !

Oh this is a lovely piece of pointless diversion. I sense Tim that you are preparing yourself for inevitable..."England may have lost the Ashes, but Australia have lost their soul!"

Who cares what they call themsleves, as far as I'm concerned I just want to watch the Aussies play. The game of cricket can only go forward with Money for its development and I would rather see them change get sponsership for Naming Rights then to increase breaks between overs for adverts such as the Americans did buy allowing time between plays in Grid Iron by sponsors.

Tim,

I think the topic merits discussion. I am ashamed at this pathetic corporatism - it's a disgrace that a national team of the vintage of Australia could stoop to such levels. And you're right about the frivolity of the exercise. I can assure you, the words "commonwealth bank" and "cricket" will never come out of my mouth in the same sentence.

I'm an Aussie, but I enjoy your posts. Obviously you're slightly biased, you have every right to be as an Englishman hoping his nation can build on their outstanding success last time round.

Keep up the good work. We're looking forward to having you out here for the great contest ahead.

Way to go CA! I have always been furstrated by this stupid belief on the part of the fans that the players "play for their country". I have been telling everyone (both in real life and on the net) that, "no, they play for their boards and their sponsors". This announcement by Cricket Australia, only brings that fact out into the open which is always a good thing.

Looking forward to tomorrow's Champions trophy finals between West Indies and Commonwealth Bank.

Couldn't agree with you more!

In the quest of making it more lucrative and globalized, the game is losing its traditional integrity. Today its the CA, tomorrow it might be other boards taking a similar step (BCCI never loses out even a bleak opportunity to earn its dough). Agreed, the soccer world works on the same lines, but you have to take into account the ante involved there, its a completely different ball game.

As far as the fans are concerned, they would still follow the Aussie team as a national unit, rather than a bunch of commonly-wealthy blokes. I hope the media addresses the "Commonwealth Bank ODI team" as per the contractual terms, it'll be fun to watch the commentary box adapt!

For once I agree with Tim. Naming a national team after its sponsor is rubbish. But its not going to catch on. Me and my mates still call the domestic comp the Sheffield Shield, and we'll keep calling our team Australia.

I agree whieheartedly with the sentiments expressed in the article.

I must also remind you of a similar situation which occured on the a tour to India by the West Indies a few years ago when Kingfisher had sponsored the team and the proposal was put forward to name the tean the Kingfisher West Indies Team. While the WICB had agreed to this pressure from the fans and other well-placed person forced them to drop thisd name.

There has been a precedent and we must agree that a National team is not a club team...it is the NATIONAL Team which represents the interest of all citizens on the field of play and not just the directors and share holders of a company.

Part of their souls?? Try all of it! It's going to be funny listening to the commentry this year in the one day games, barring Mark Nicholas it's really bad already. Does this mean for the next three years that the players batting and bowling averages won't count in the stats because instead of playing for Australia they will be playing for the Commonwealth Bank? I also agree with Josh, you can be very Anti - Australian Tim along with most other of the cricinfo staff but you make a very valid point here. By the way there's nothing wrong with our meat pies

I am pretty sure that no self-respecting Australian will ever call their team a whatever-it-was-sponsor team. It is very stupid of Cricket Australia to think that this will happen. Even the biggest mercenaries of cricket, i.e. the Indian cricket board have not stooped to this level, though i am sure that they must have already floated out a tender for this. Wonder how Malcolm Speed reacts to this "Sell-out of the soul". Do not Australian fans have some sort of say in such decisions? Would it be possible to have some sort of poll hosted on the cricinfo site about this with entry restricted to Australians and see what they think about it? Though, that may give the sponsor more publicity, maybe this is what they wanted all along.

Come on guys, this is one day cricket we’re talking about. They've been playing them for what? 30 years? It’s not like we’re changing the baggy green to blue. As Geoff Boycott recently said when bagging the English side on their dismal ODI performances - ODIs are the cash cow of international cricket and are a vehicle to bring a wider audience to the great game. Thanks to great success and passionate supporters who turn up year after year (not just jumping on the bandwagon after a single series ref. England) there are some great money-making opportunities for CA to help keep Australian cricket one step ahead of the pack. Sure, there are other ways to make money, but I’d far prefer to make a superficial name change than offload our TV rights so that only a select few can watch the games. Perhaps CA should give some financial advice to the poms – then at least they may be able to afford to pay their wicket keepers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the English compete in the 'Nat-West' trophy each summer? I fail to see the difference

Will Cricket Australia give us all cheaper home loans because of this deal? Not likely. So we as common supporters get nothing to "promote" a bank's name. No thanks.

The Commonwealth Bank X1 vs Vodafone X1 playing for the Ashes, whatever would a person who doesnt follow cricket think!

I kind of agree about the whole sponsorship thing being taken a bit too far but really, who cares, its still the same team, correct? I do believe, Tim, that you are just finding things that you pick on the Australian team about, just beacause theres nothing to pick on due to on field performances. I mean i could always start a blog about Harmy's new website WWWW... could I not.I would not however waste time with sponsorship deals that probably do cricket more good than bad. The only people that will be using the sponsorship name will be the media, as as mentioned previously it puts money into australian cricket which is a good thing, especially for up and coming youngsters (i'd say like myself but im not good enough :(, may be able to get a game with the poms but...). Hopefully we'll find out in your next blog that michael vaughan and simon jones are fit. Just so that the ashes are a bit of a contest, theres a big difference between an in form australia and an in form england. C'MON AUSSIE C'MON

It's a weird world we live in. No-one I know will say anything other than 'the aussies' when referring to the team. The only thing that will annoy me is if the commentators/journalists have to use the sponsors name every time they refer to them. I understand that sponsors dollars mean so much these days, that's just a fact I suppose but does anyone really open an account with the Commonwealth Bank because they sponsor the Australian cricket team? I know I won't. Let them throw their dollars into the mix so I can continue to enjoy the cricket at such a wonderful standard. They will always be Aussies, Poms, Pakis, Windies etc to me and my mates, I don't care who sponsors them. However, if sponsors are a necessary thing for the game to continue these days, then get your hand in your pockets boys.

So the Aussie team really is a bunch of "bankers"!!

On a serious note, I think this plumbs new depths in terms of sponsorship. Will people who use another bank be turned away from the ground in a similar fashion to how you can't take Coke products into a ICC tournament because of the Pepsi link?

How long before we see on TV "Shane Warne sponsored by Weight Watchers" being called up for a post-match chat?

I despair, I really do!

Australia has a soul to sell? When did this happen?

I really cant see what all the fuss is about. no-one will use the bank's name, other than a few zealous/pressured presenters, and even they will refer to the team as australia afterward.people will come to loathe the bank for making such a crass suggestion as well as CA for having gone along with it, but the glory of cricket will be undimmed. According to michael winner in that annoying ad " calm down dear, its just a commercial". P.S. being WI, im tickled pink at the sheer insanity just before tommorrow's game!! hee,hee.

Surely the Commonwealth Bank XI represent India - isn't that where the majority of the staff work these days??

wasn't there a similar issue when the BCCI was locked in a battle with the Indian government and came out saying that it was the BCCI team and not the Indian cricket team, this just does not make any sense ata all. I totally agree with tim that sport is one of the biggest unifying factors in societies constantly searching for new reasons to divide themselves by. However, I dont think it would really make a difference to the average fan,because as slugger says they will always remain the aussies, poms, pakis and windies to us. The sponsors can pressurise the media to address the team with the new name, but would never be able to get the fans to call them that.

Hello everyone.

First time writing here and it is a very interesting topic, I find.

When I saw that the West Indies were being sponsored by KFC, I had to eat my words at dissing the World Cup for being sponsored by Macdonalds, Coca Cola and Budweiser. It seemed to me very ironic, since the players are not really allowed all this stuff because it's bad for sports people (unless you play golf). And also Pakistan is being sponsored by Pepsi.

Still, if that is what brings in the dough, however incorrect it may be, that is how it should be. Money makes the world go 'round and big faceless businesses rule the planet.

However, getting sponsored by a company is one thing and re-naming your NATIONAL team after a bank is something else. Competitions are named after the sponsor all the time, e.g. Natwest Trophy, VB Series (the beer I am guessing), or Heineken Cup (again, funny-they sponsor Rugby), but I think that it is definitely selling your soul to completely re-name the team. Why can't it be The Australian Cricket team, sponsored by 'X' bank or 'Y' bank?

I can see how KFC did a smart deal for their own interests by sponsoring the W.I. team- West Indian people eat a lot of KFC-(KFC does home delivery in 30 minutes) and fact: the most sales of KFC per head of population is in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, country of Brian Lara and Bravo etc. So, I guess, they are sitting at home watching the W.I. team and think oh, I could do with a KFC now, but all they have to do is pick up the phone.

I doubt that when you hear of or see the Commonwealth Bank's International XI, that you'll think, 'yeah, I really must open up an account with them!'

Still I am glad that we don't have the Commonwealth Bank XI playing against the KFC XI!

P.S. The Barcelona football team, apart from the Nike swoosh that's hardly visible, wears shirts with a big UNICEF sign on the front. Good to see but I just realised the irony in that as well- Nike and UNICEF- forgot about the sweatshops- what a team!

This is a serious comment about the unacceptable face of corporate sponsorship of sport. The Australian team are going to be known as the ‘Commonwealth Bank one-day international team’. Why are so many Aussies so defensive that they can't accept someone pointing out that this is cheap, tacky and demeans the sport and their country? The issue is bigger than any England V Australia rivalry. Or should that be England V Commonwealth Bankia rivalry? Quite catchy, isn't it?

The irony is that nobody (not most anyway) would've even realized that the ODI team had been renamed were it not for this post.

Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be pointing these things out. Your point is well taken, Tim. Commonwealth Bank should've realized that such stunts always backfire: in the best case, nobody will call the team by the new name; in the worst, fans will be turned off by Commonwealth Bank.

I think it is a great idea, after all the team is full of commonwealth " bankers " !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree that it's despicable. It's already happened in Australian domestic cricket, but at least it hasn't quite reached the level of "Khan Research Labs vs. Pakistan Intl. Airlines" yet.

this is a very relevant topic.
i am a west indian supporter...and it was not too long ago that we had an issue involving sponsorship that resulted in MANY players' exclusion from the team! including MULTI world record holder BRIAN LARA, fidel edwards, DWAYNE BRAVO.
sarwan and gayle were also involved....and because if Laras non selection chanderpaul was put at the helm! we went on to tour Sri Lanka...where we won a single ODI.COMPLETE NONSENSE THAT!

Trust Me All you Australians et al that are here reading this and thinking it is not important....
[play Xfiles musiC ]
this is just the begining of Corporate take over of the sport we love

in defense of WI....our board is broke i believe....if not in debt...don't know how...but im guessing the fact that we were not winning and collecting match fees didnt help.

so what will the man-of-the-match award be?
better interest rates on their match fee?

and man-of-the-series gets financing to purchase the vehicle ?

Knowing the history and pride in the team, the history etc. I very very much doubt that the team will be refered to as such a mouthful. You will probably find it is only refered to in 1 or 2 tv commercials.... Big deal. Even the most traditional fans will be able to deal with this.

Once again more anti-Australian poop from cricinfo. This website's stance against Australia has become tiresome and boring.

The Australian rugby union team was the Vodafone Wallabies and is now the QANTAS Wallabies. It's not as though they suddenly play with any less passion. It's a commercial reality of the sporting world in which we live. Get over it and tackle the real issues that continue to dog world cricket such as the suspect action of the leading Test wicket taker and ICC's inability to enforce the rules relating to chucking.

It's a blog folks, he can write what he likes, whether you like it or not...which would probably be CA's response to the criticism - they are not an elected body, they don't have to answer to the Aussie public, so they do what they want - which is grab money.

CA does not need the extra revenue. We here at Melbourne already have a stadium with a capacity to hold crowds in excess of 100,000 people. The Ashes has basically sold out at all stadiums, which is quite the contrast from other nations and tournaments. Surely the extra revenue from packing the grounds would be enough.(Not to mention the shoddy overpriced merchandise). If there were any financial issues that would arise with finance for CA, the players would/should be patriotic enough to take a pay cut. This whole Commonwealth Bank business naming rights will blow over like the Fremantle Doctor over the WACA. Its only the commentators who call teams and tournaments by their "official" names. Remember how silly it was when "3" sponsored the test series here, even though there was a 2 test series against Bangladesh. Its confusing and pointless. On a positive note, keep up the good work Tim, its nice to get a view from a different country presented so thoroughly.

Sanjeev u got that right ! , i was a bit surprised to :)

i really dont think it will matter cause no one will call them that any way so who cares. all it means is that some company gets its name thrown around jsut a little bit more but it wont matter. they will just think that they are a little bit cooler than they actualyl are.

Yes, Tim, you've hit the nail on the head here. It's out of order to align a national team with one firm.

I am very surprised that a lot of Aussies are getting upset at Tim for being biased instead of getting angry at the Australian cricket board for being money grabbing and short sighted. Surely everyone can see that this is yet another slide on the slippery slope of commercialisation.

Ah, how Australians do love to think the world is against them, as illustrated by several posts above. The world-is-against-us mentality always has worked very well on the sports field, as their success is testament to. However, I have to commend Tim, as he is bringing to light an important issue; I mean, we hardly want to end up like Japanese rugby, with Toyota playing Suzuki in their premier competition! I think in this article Tim presents both sides of the argument, but I also think it's wrong of him to accuse the Aussie team of selling their souls, as it's likely they had absolutely nothing to do with it. I have to wonder at the morals and natinoal pride of the people who negotiated such a deal though, it's disgusting!

I find it hard to differentiate between this new sponsorship, and every other sponsorship deal affecting Australian sport in some way in recent years. It comes with the territory for Australians - and i've been ashamed of it for as long as i can remember. Nothing is sacred in this country - i wouldn't be surprised to see 'Australia day' sponsored in coming years. ;)

Isn't the Australian national rugby union team now known as the 'Qantas Wallabies'? Isn't every sporting ground (bar the MCG) known as some random sponsor name - no matter how inappropriate - instead of it's original name? Selling souls for sponsorship has a very rich history in my opinion, and it's always been a source of frustration for me.

Also, saying that this sponsorship money will make significant contribution to Australian cricket is a bit odd. Most of the money that (already well-off) CA has to spend comes from merchandise and ticketing - both of which make a great deal of money for the coffers. Why this deal is even neccessary is far beyond my level of comprehension...

Cricket Australia has truly let down Australia and the fans of Australian cricket. I will watch - and more than likely fully enjoy - the coming cricket series', but this sponsorship will further underline my hate of all things corporate and everything it stands for.

A necessary evil? I think not.

well well; isn't this ridiculous. iwe called them aussie to releive us from pronouncing such a long word for a country. but on a serious note players are supposed to representing their country and people not some shady business that would want to disrupt this relationship. the same thing with wicb, not alowing members of the national team to play because the big bad digicel said so to protect their interests but we can sympatise with them because they are flat broke and most of the nations who make up this part of the world are third world countries. But australia, one of the rischest countries in the world does not have to stoop to the corporate world's level. any way with a team that dominates so much the shillings the had to spit out must have been huge or so i hope.

Rubbish. Destroying cricket as a sports. So we can bet that Australia woun't win he next world cup......... and a new team will clinch it(the commonwealth bank). As I said earlier, not the piece, the full soul, if it exists, is for sale.

To all of u who think that a possible name change from the "Australian One Day Team" to "Commonwealth Bank One Day Team" has no bearing and it does not merit discussion just goes to show how far sighted ur'll tend to be and what sort of mental capacity ur'll have to comprehend issues. Most of u think that this is a major issue don't go onto state what makes it irrelevant, instead ur'll a busy complaining about TIM being biased, cricinfo being biased and all that crap. No one is forcing ur'll to visit this web page, if u don't like it leave it. My point is that we are not here to discuss if cricinfo and Tim are biased but about a stupid mistake that CA is wantonly falling into.

May be Commonwealth Bank should make it a prerequiste for all it customers and its employees to change them to say something like below.
From Shane McDowell to Commonwealth Bank McDowell, well what do u know, it has a nice ring to it, rock on dumb asses.
Well while ur'll don't seem to care about losing ur indentity why not go a step further and petition ur Governments to follow suit and sell of the Australian identity.
If this happens the pilot on landing in the country would announce, "Ladies and Gentleman ur flight from Heathrow to Republic of Commonwealth Bank to 20 hours, the weather in Commonwealth Bank is set to stay fair at 23 degrees, some of the major tourist attrations are the Victoria Secret Habour Bridge (Sydney Habour Bridge), the Pepsi House (Opera House) and the NikeBack (Outback). Oops almost forgot, the formerly known Australia Day is now known as Vivid Condoms' Day, bring out ur entire family and have fun.

They sold a big part of their soul when they sold the naming rights to the Sheffield Shield competition several years ago.

I still can't bring myself to allow any of "that" Dairy company's products in my house.

Maybe the practice is unheard of in England but it's fairly common practice for a sporting team in Australia to allow the main club sponsor to refer to the club as the "Optus Blues", or the "Tassie Hawks", or the "Hungry Jacks Eagles". Even the Sydney Olympics sold rights to various companies in a similar fashion. It doesn't mean that there going to change there official name to that of the sponsor. The Australian Cricket Team will still be the Australian Cricket Team in every single respect. This deal just allows the Commonwealth Bank to declare itself an major supporter/sponsor of the "Commonwealth Bank Cricket team", usually over a picture of Brett Lee standing alongside Justin Langer or Michael Clarke. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please do at least a little research before writing these articles.