England's preoccupation with the Ashes is harmful to Test cricket

[GIMH]

Well to be fair, I don't think we do only care about The Ashes. Like I said, we were all bloody delighted when we beat India at Mumbai, it felt like a series win. Of course, such a monumental away result was linked to The Ashes, but that will always happen. But if The Ashes was all we cared about, would we have bothered playing Flintoff at all against Sri Lanka, would we not rest Pietersen for this Pakistan series because he has been injured and is our most destructive batsman, who has proved he can play McGrath and Warne?

If the English only care about The Ashes, how come I couldn't get the tickets I wanted for the Pakistan series, and had to go on a different day in a different stand, and how come all the games are always sell-outs here?

The Ashes is our priority, but so what? It doesn't mean that we won't be gutted if we lose to Pakistan. We want our team to be the best, and we want our team to regularly stuff the Aussies, but in this era the two are inextricably linked.

You'e an India fan. When you guys get a good result in an ODI series in the final 12 months before a World Cup, it's the World Cup that's mentioned. The Ashes is our World Cup, we want to win everything, but we want The Ashes the most.

 

[Langeveldt]

Good post, I do agree with pretty much everything you've said..

Another thing, why is the Ashes always 5 tests yet Pakistan get only 3? In 5 years time, Pakistan and England could be stronger than Australia, yet will play less cricket together..

 

[GIMH]

They actually get 4

Basically English summer can only fit in 7 Tests, so I think nowadays they try and schedule a weaker nation to play the first series when Aus/SA are in town. (Zimbabwe in 03, and Bangladesh last year) This means we play 2 Tests against the weaker nation, then 5 against our long-standing rivals.

But whenever we don't play Aus/SA we play 4 against one side and 3 agaisnt another. Next summer (I think) we play India 3 times, and WI 4 times. I would personally prefer it to be the other way round, but I think that's another tradition.

Still, at least we are playing a proper length series against Pakistan this time. In 2001, they came in Ashes year and only got 2 Tests. Hopefully we will continue to play weaker nations in these years in the future as I have already said.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm not sure our preoccupation is harmful to test cricket per se, both our winter series were pretty decent affairs even if we didn't win either. The Sri Lankan series was disappointing, with our shoddy performances seemingly met with a shrug & a "we'll probably win anyway" kinda attitude right up until we lost the 3rd test.

I do think our obsession is probably harmful to our test team tho. The thought seems to be that all the cricket our test squad plays (in whatever format) is mere preparation for The Ashes. Contrast that with the typical ruthless efficiency shown by our once & future oppo since the last get-together. The Aussies' preparation seems to be getting back into their temporarily misplaced winning ways, I'm not sure I'd even diginfy ours with a unifying philosphy!

 

[Swervy]

Good post, I do agree with pretty much everything you've said..

Another thing, why is the Ashes always 5 tests yet Pakistan get only 3? In 5 years time, Pakistan and England could be stronger than Australia, yet will play less cricket together..

because most English cricket suppoeters would rather see 5 tests vs Australia and only 3 tests vs Pakistan...

 

[Steulen]

because most English cricket suppoeters would rather see 5 tests vs Australia and only 3 tests vs Pakistan...

Another example of the unhealthiness being discussed here

 

[adharcric]

Another example of the unhealthiness being discussed here

I'd rather see India play 5 against the Aussies and none against Sri Lanka as well (provided we don't really suck) ... just because they are the champions.

 

[Steulen]

Tim de Lisle...good man

 

[andyc]

Tim de Lisle...good man

Gosh, way to miss the 5th post

 

[Jono]

I'd rather see India play 5 against the Aussies and none against Sri Lanka as well (provided we don't really suck) ... just because they are the champions.

Not none, that's silly. But point taken.

 

[Fusion]

I'd rather see India play 5 against the Aussies and none against Sri Lanka as well (provided we don't really suck) ... just because they are the champions.

But that's not the point. The argument is that England are preoccupied with the Ashes. It wouldn't matter if Australia are world champions or not. The key series for England will always remain The Ashes, no matter what Australia's record. Which is fine...as long as it doesn't take away from your concentration of other series.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But that's not the point. The argument is that England are preoccupied with the Ashes. It wouldn't matter if Australia are world champions or not. The key series for England will always remain The Ashes, no matter what Australia's record. Which is fine...as long as it doesn't take away from your concentration of other series.

I'm not sure I agree, actually. When I first got into cricket (mid 80s) I'd say our tests against The Windies were at least as avidly followed as The Ashes, simply because they were the gold standard of test prowess at the time. It took us until 2000 to actually win a series against them.

The Ashes will always be important, because it's England v Oz, but I think our current obsession with it is at least partly connected to the crims' pre-eminence.

When we were gash (the 90s & early noughties) Australia's main preoccupation seemed to be with finally winning a series in India rather the The Ashes.

 

[Steulen]

Gosh, way to miss the 5th post

Yeah, well, if you insist on editing things in

 

[wpdavid]

Tim de Lisle...good man

On a good day, anyway. But even so, TdL is only saying the same as a lot of us - that England may be losing out because of this. There's no mention of test cricket being harmed, and quite right too, imho.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think the pre-eminence of the Ashes has only been for the last couple of years, over here. I remember in 2001, it was all about the India tour. After hammering the West Indies and breaking the record winning streak, Australia's sports media were obsessed with beating India away from home, and it got plenty of hype. Steve Waugh's "final fronteir" comments obviously helped with that too. After losing that series, it was a bit like "who is next? Oh... England again...". There was no hype at all, or at least nothing out of the ordinary. It was just another test series, rather than the test series.

Last year, the Ashes got huge hype, even overshadowing the tour of New Zealand before it, because England were the number two side in the world and had just beaten South Africa, while Australia had finally beaten India. Part of it was the "old enemy" thing, but mostly it was beacuse England were going to be a big challenge, similar to the hype over touring India or hosting South Africa in 01/02.

It seems to me that English people are a bit more pre-occupied with the rivalry against Australia than the other way around. Even in other sport, like say the World Cup, far more English football fans seemed interested in Australia failing than the other way around. England got fairly significant support here, albeit less as the tournament wore on.

This might just be related to Australia's recent cricket success though. There's certainly been a bit more of the "gotta beat the hated English" stuff since we lost the Ashes.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

It seems to me that English people are a bit more pre-occupied with the rivalry against Australia than the other way around. Even in other sport, like say the World Cup, far more English football fans seemed interested in Australia failing than the other way around. England got fairly significant support here, albeit less as the tournament wore on.

This might just be related to Australia's recent cricket success though. There's certainly been a bit more of the "gotta beat the hated English" stuff since we lost the Ashes.

This is true for any sport -- New Zealanders are far more pre-occupied with beating Australia at rugby and netball than Australians. Perhaps it's the underdog mentality or years of heartbreaking losses, perhaps Australians have a healthier attitude towards winning and losing, I don't know...

Test cricket, to me, is what it is and all you can do is watch it unfold... England would be better off trying to win Tests now, but you can't escape the number of injuries and setbacks they've had since the Ashes... That was a tight unit that won the Ashes, they don't have the talent to replace those people.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think the pre-eminence of the Ashes has only been for the last couple of years, over here. I remember in 2001, it was all about the India tour. After hammering the West Indies and breaking the record winning streak, Australia's sports media were obsessed with beating India away from home, and it got plenty of hype. Steve Waugh's "final fronteir" comments obviously helped with that too. After losing that series, it was a bit like "who is next? Oh... England again...". There was no hype at all, or at least nothing out of the ordinary. It was just another test series, rather than the test series.

Last year, the Ashes got huge hype, even overshadowing the tour of New Zealand before it, because England were the number two side in the world and had just beaten South Africa, while Australia had finally beaten India. Part of it was the "old enemy" thing, but mostly it was beacuse England were going to be a big challenge, similar to the hype over touring India or hosting South Africa in 01/02.

It seems to me that English people are a bit more pre-occupied with the rivalry against Australia than the other way around. Even in other sport, like say the World Cup, far more English football fans seemed interested in Australia failing than the other way around. England got fairly significant support here, albeit less as the tournament wore on.

This might just be related to Australia's recent cricket success though. There's certainly been a bit more of the "gotta beat the hated English" stuff since we lost the Ashes.

We may be slightly more obsessed than you blokes in the antipodes, but I do recall Allan Border once relating the advice Ian Chappell gave him when he took over the captaincy,

"You can do anything you like, just don't lose to the poms."

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

We may be slightly more obsessed than you blokes in the antipodes, but I do recall Allan Border once relating the advice Ian Chappell gave him when he took over the captaincy,

"You can do anything you like, just don't lose to the poms."

Yeah, it may be that this particular trend is a new thing. It's hard to stay fired up about a rivalry when you don't lose for 20 years after all.

 

[GIMH]

"The Ashes isn't everything, it's the only thing."

 

[Langeveldt]

Surely in a league (ICC test league), each team should play each other with equal frequency?