Question for the English & The Aussies
 

Pretty simple...

Ashes or World Cup (the footy one that's happening right now)??

World Cup for me

World Cup every time. Not even vaguely close I'm afraid.

Cricket World Cup or FIFA World Cup ?

Generally the Ashes is more significant to Australia, but you have to consider that the WC is inclusive of every team in the world, while the Ashes is just England. Beating everyone in the world at football is always going to be more significant than beating England at cricket.

A better question might be: cricket world cup or football world cup, and in that case, I'd probably have to lean towards cricket, but only just.

FIFA

Yeah, why don't we open it up, to include the cricket world cup then. Still footy WC for me mind you.

Since I support India in cricket but Australia in soccer this obviously doesn't refer to me, but if I were to put myselves in an Australian cricket fan's shoes, they've held the Ashes for so long, won the past 2 cricket World Cups, a FIFA World Cup win would have to be more meaningful, and I'm not that big a soccer fan. Especially since it'd be from absolutely nowhere, rather than going in favourite.

World Cup for me.

Football World Cup >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else.

I suspect most English cricket fans would take The Ashes ahead of the OD WC. Test cricket is definitely seen as the be-all & end-all over here & The Ashes is v much the blue ribbon event.

Definitely

The Cricket World Cup is a little like the European Championships in football, it'd be great if we won it, but we'd rather have those bloody Ashes

Not for me. I put club first.

Ashes by a comfortable margin. Football World Cup, Cricket World Cup, League Tri Nations and Calcutta Cup are all about equal following it.

Yeah but I'd be willing to say for most of the 90s up until Australia lost the Ashes, many Australian cricket fans (obviously not all and maybe not most, but a lot) would have seen winning the World Cup as the pinnacle, even though it was only ODI cricket. The 1999 WC win was massive, particularly considering the loss in the 1996 WC final. The fact that Australia comfortably held the Ashes from the 90s to 2006 probably made it fall a little in value of importance.

Do I dare say for those English fans that have selected the FIFA WC over the Ashes, their opinion may have been different had England not won the Ashes in 2005, and had England won the FIFA WC in 2002? Obviously this is an assumption, but is something you've never experienced and always wanted to worth more than something that you always wanted to and recently have?

Hmmm. I guess some of our older posters do know what it's like for us to win the Wc, perhaps they can shed some light on this matter

I'd have said that the WC was more of a spectacle tbh. 32 Teams - 64 Matches. The gap between the cricket minnows and the test teams is massive whereas the relative difference at the WC is not all that big now and so there's no easy, given matches.