Denny Crane Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 again proves nothing. it proves who is the best out of the 2 teams. thats what world cups are for. Ahem.... http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/421843.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWL Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Well done England. However, I fear a complete biatch slapping at the MCG on Boxing Day next year! Well, I have to eat a wee bit of humble pie here, as I was supremely confident of seeing the Ashes paraded at Stockbridge on Friday. But it has to be said, well done England (ouch!!!), but as much as it was a victory for England it was a huge result for test cricket. A few tight Ashes series in the next few years will do the test arena no harm, along with a close series in South Africa this winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 glorified friendly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Interesting summing up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 again proves nothing. it proves who is the best out of the 2 teams. thats what world cups are for. Ahem.... http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/421843.html Some folk never learn. glorified friendly Really? How do you work that out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Interesting summing up Seems about right to me. I referred to it as the World Test Championship 7th place play-off a while back! Don't care though: the first Ashes series I watched was in 1989, and for a time, I despaired of ever beating Australia again. Being slightly less crap than they are will do me fine. And people say Scottish football is parochial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Seems about right to me. I referred to it as the World Test Championship 7th place play-off a while back! Don't care though: the first Ashes series I watched was in 1989, and for a time, I despaired of ever beating Australia again. Being slightly less crap than they are will do me fine. And people say Scottish football is parochial! Been watching ashes cricket since 1981, sat on grandad's knee at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konrad von Carstein Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 And people say Scottish football is parochial! No they don't!!.....do they? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 No they don't!!.....do they? . Well - I do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 glorified friendly I have to admit that I find some form of perverse amusement when ignoramuses try to run down cricket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabbie754 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Never liked the game but if I did I would still be annoyed at all the coverage another country gets on my telly in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Guns Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 who gives a friggin toss!!!! The irony is that if they had lost it, we would be laughing about it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I have to admit that I find some form of perverse amusement when ignoramuses try to run down cricket. I have to admit that i find some form of perverse amusement when people actually enjoy cricket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvisisgod Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Is being really good at cricket that much of a badge of honour though? I mean only about 5 countries in the entire world are actually any good whatsoever. Kinda seems to me like the Yanks boasting that they're the best in the world at baseball. i think technically its the South Koreans who are the best in the world at baseball. Beat Japan in the world baseball classic earleir this year:10900: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 It was essentially a 5 test warm up for Australia's game against Scotland in Stockbridge on Thursday. Anyone else going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I have to admit that i find some form of perverse amusement when people actually enjoy cricket. Nah that's just jealousy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaka Demus & pliers Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I have to admit that I find some form of perverse amusement when ignoramuses try to run down cricket. This is not an anti cricket rant as I can see how it can, at times, be an exciting game. As for the Ashes though. Ok its no friendly but really what does it mean? Its surely like bringing back the England v Scotland football games every few years. Would Scottish players get an MBE/OBE/(insert worthless 'honour' here) for beating England for the first time in years? I think not. Also if they did bring back the football games I would hope they would have a better 'trophy' than that stupid wee piece of wood that could easily get lost amongst a bairns toys. Non anti cricket rant over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 This is not an anti cricket rant as I can see how it can, at times, be an exciting game. As for the Ashes though. Ok its no friendly but really what does it mean? Its surely like bringing back the England v Scotland football games every few years. Would Scottish players get an MBE/OBE/(insert worthless 'honour' here) for beating England for the first time in years? I think not. Also if they did bring back the football games I would hope they would have a better 'trophy' than that stupid wee piece of wood that could easily get lost amongst a bairns toys. Non anti cricket rant over It has some historical significance as prior to Frank Worrell's West Indies side of 1950, England and Australia were by far the two most dominant nations in cricket. Even when the Windies emerged as a major power these two still held their own. Like when Juve and Inter fans call their fixture "The Derby of Italy", traditionalists still hold the Ashes series as an unofficial world title bout between the game's pioneering nations. Given that Australia back in 2005 had had an iron-like group on the test scene walloping all before them, England's achievement in winning back then was remarkable. Although only selected players should have had an honour bestowed upon them - not the squad en masse (Warne's sledging of Collingwood in the return series had a point - a gong for seven runs was ridiculous). As for the trophy. I refer you to an earlier post I made on this thread regarding replicas. Also, there is another one handed out to the winning captain as this photo of Aussie skipper Steve Waugh after the 4-1 win in 2001 shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaka Demus & pliers Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 It has some historical significance as prior to Frank Worrell's West Indies side of 1950, England and Australia were by far the two most dominant nations in cricket. Even when the Windies emerged as a major power these two still held their own. Like when Juve and Inter fans call their fixture "The Derby of Italy", traditionalists still hold the Ashes series as an unofficial world title bout between the game's pioneering nations. Given that Australia back in 2005 had had an iron-like group on the test scene walloping all before them, England's achievement in winning back then was remarkable. Although only selected players should have had an honour bestowed upon them - not the squad en masse (Warne's sledging of Collingwood in the return series had a point - a gong for seven runs was ridiculous). As for the trophy. I refer you to an earlier post I made on this thread regarding replicas. Also, there is another one handed out to the winning captain as this photo of Aussie skipper Steve Waugh after the 4-1 win in 2001 shows. So its a bit like Scotland and England being the first ever International football match and therefore having great significance. Pioneering nations you might say. Then years later in 1967 when Scotland beat England (in a friendly, much like the Ashes) when England were world champions this should have been seen as a major achievement for the Scots and honours should have been handed out left right and centre. Of course that was Scotland and football. Its just not cricket is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I'm not ripping the sport, fair play if you enjoy it but how come Flintoff is having to retire and why do you even have to be fit to play cricket? I honestly haven't watched a full match but from what I have seen there is very little physical activity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabbie754 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Aye, who cares. unless you're English :10900: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I'm not ripping the sport, fair play if you enjoy it but how come Flintoff is having to retire and why do you even have to be fit to play cricket? I honestly haven't watched a full match but from what I have seen there is very little physical activity? Because his knee is goosed. Back and knee injuries are commonplace for fast bowlers in cricket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 So its a bit like Scotland and England being the first ever International football match and therefore having great significance. Pioneering nations you might say. Then years later in 1967 when Scotland beat England (in a friendly, much like the Ashes) when England were world champions this should have been seen as a major achievement for the Scots and honours should have been handed out left right and centre. Of course that was Scotland and football. Its just not cricket is it? Only Australia and England dominated the game for over half a century before the West Indies emerged as a strong nation. That's why the fixture has a special place in the heart for many. The 1967 match you refer to was part of the British Championship and doubled up as a qualifying group for Euro 68. Yes Scotland won that particular match but who came first overall and qualified for the Euros? England. Therefore, Scotland failed in their objective. Why should gongs be handed out for failure. With the Ashes, it is a best-out-of-five tests contest. Are you suggesting that the England sides that failed to win a series against Australia between 1987 to 2005 but won the odd test match should be honoured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Because his knee is goosed. Back and knee injuries are commonplace for fast bowlers in cricket. As this unfortunate incident demonstrates Watch the right leg on the follow through Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I'm not ripping the sport, fair play if you enjoy it but how come Flintoff is having to retire and why do you even have to be fit to play cricket? honestly haven't watched a full match but from what I have seen there is very little physical activity? Which is a bit like saying that the riders in the Tour De France are slow compared to Chris Hoy. 100m sprint competitions tend to have semi finals in the morning and finals in the evening meaning that Usain Bolt does barely 20 seconds of "physical activity" all day. Olympic Javelin throwers only make 6 throws in the entire competition fast bowlers have to do something similar 6 times in about 5 minutes and then keep coming back to do batches of 6 all day. He's retiring from Test Cricket but will continue to play one day cricket. In test Cricket he's bowled 14951 balls in 137 Innings that's about 109 per innings. In One Day internationals the workload is a more manageable 47 and 25 in Twenty20. It's somewhat reminicent of the twilight of Eamon Bannons career when he seemed to feature as a second half substitute once a fortnight. He was still a class player for those brief showings but that was about all he could handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaka Demus & pliers Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Only Australia and England dominated the game for over half a century before the West Indies emerged as a strong nation. That's why the fixture has a special place in the heart for many. The 1967 match you refer to was part of the British Championship and doubled up as a qualifying group for Euro 68. Yes Scotland won that particular match but who came first overall and qualified for the Euros? England. Therefore, Scotland failed in their objective. Why should gongs be handed out for failure. With the Ashes, it is a best-out-of-five tests contest. Are you suggesting that the England sides that failed to win a series against Australia between 1987 to 2005 but won the odd test match should be honoured? No. I'm suggesting that no-one deserves an honour for winning the Ashes. If they won the world cup fair enough but a contest where only 2 teams contest it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 No. I'm suggesting that no-one deserves an honour for winning the Ashes. If they won the world cup fair enough but a contest where only 2 teams contest it? Like I said, only a select few (ie. the top performers in that series) should have been offered a gong but the likes of Flintoff, Pietersen, S. Jones and Vaughan were deserving of one because they had played a crucial role in defeating a team that had only lost one test series in 10 years and held a vice-like grip on the game in that period. You have to remember that apart from the tour to India in 2001 aside (where India had to punch well above their weight and then some to win as Australia had played brilliantly and wondered how they lost), Australia, to use a footballing comparison, had a dominance on a par with the Real Madrid side of the mid-50s to early 60s - ie. bracketed as untouchable by many. Which is why people regard England's win in 2005 as remarkable. Not only did they beat them, but showed in the manner of their victory that the Aussies were mere mortals too. Back in 1995, the Aussies returned from the Caribbean to a hero's welcome after inflicting the West Indies' first test series loss in 15 years (and their first home defeat in 19). No doubt when the next nation to dominate the game receives its first series loss in umpteen years, the team that beats them (be it England, India, Sri Lanka or whoever) will no doubt lavish excessive praise upon them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 No. I'm suggesting that no-one deserves an honour for winning the Ashes. If they won the world cup fair enough but a contest where only 2 teams contest it? Spot on. It's the same as two random countries deciding to play each other, than deciding to do it again every few years and make a big deal about it when noone else gives a ****. I propose Scotland challenges Azerbaijan to tiddly winks next summer. In 200 years time every newspaper in Britain will spend the whole summer covering this great spectacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Spot on. It's the same as two random countries deciding to play each other, than deciding to do it again every few years and make a big deal about it when noone else gives a ****. I propose Scotland challenges Azerbaijan to tiddly winks next summer. In 200 years time every newspaper in Britain will spend the whole summer covering this great spectacle. As stated previously (if you check back a few posts), each test series contributes points to the ICC Test Championship (which South Africa are leading at the moment). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship Besides, the Ashes is not the only trophy contested by the same two teams. Australia and the West Indies contest the "Frank Worrell Trophy" England and the West Indies contest the "Wisden Trophy" New Zealand and Australia contest the "Trans-Tasman Trophy" Australia and India contest the "Border-Gavaskar Trophy" The Ashes of course is the oldest of these perpetual trophies (and for over half a century was effectively Cricket's World Championship as England and Australia were by far and away the best teams in the globe) which explains why most observers of the game have a special interest in it. With tiddlywinks, Azerbaijan would hump us. Their best player takes no prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 As stated previously (if you check back a few posts), each test series contributes points to the ICC Test Championship (which South Africa are leading at the moment). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_ChampionshipBesides, the Ashes is not the only trophy contested by the same two teams. Australia and the West Indies contest the "Frank Worrell Trophy" England and the West Indies contest the "Wisden Trophy" New Zealand and Australia contest the "Trans-Tasman Trophy" Australia and India contest the "Border-Gavaskar Trophy" The Ashes of course is the oldest of these perpetual trophies (and for over half a century was effectively Cricket's World Championship as England and Australia were by far and away the best teams in the globe) which explains why most observers of the game have a special interest in it. With tiddlywinks, Azerbaijan would hump us. Their best player takes no prisoners. Christ they don't half play a lot of friendlies in cricket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Christ they don't half play a lot of friendlies in cricket As twice previously stated before, each test series counts towards the eventual outcome of the ICC Test Championship. These are not friendlies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 As twice previously stated before, each test series counts towards the eventual outcome of the ICC Test Championship. These are not friendlies. Is it the cricket equivalent of the festival cup? How come I've heard of the Ashes and not this? Especially if it's bigger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Is it the cricket equivalent of the festival cup? How come I've heard of the Ashes and not this? Especially if it's bigger? 1. No it is not. As stated previously (to avoid repetition you might want to read past posts on this subject) the England-Australia clash was effectively cricket's world title bout. From post-war to the start of the Packer era, it was effectively part of a three-way battle with the West Indies as to who were the world's best. 2. Because you are not well informed. Try reading the cricket sections in the broadsheet press on a regular basis (the Telegraph is reckoned to be the best for cricket). They should keep you up to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.