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

[Fusion]

Originally Posted by adharcric

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]

Originally Posted by Fusion

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]

Originally Posted by andyc

Gosh, way to miss the 5th post

Yeah, well, if you insist on editing things in

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by Steulen

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]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

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?

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

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

Except its the boards and not the ICC who decide how many tests to play (as long as they satisfy the minimum requirements.)

[steds]

Originally Posted by ohtani's jacket

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

Now, I don't claim to know alot about Yawnion and it's history, but you what? How can that apply to rugby?

Edit: Wiki shows New Zealand's record at rugby vs. your old foe as

Against 	Played 	Won 	Lost 	Drawn
Australia 	124 	82 	37 	5

That's a remarkable record for underdogs, and not too many heartbreaking losses.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by steds

Now, I don't claim to know alot about Yawnion and it's history, but you what? How can that apply to rugby?

Edit: Wiki shows New Zealand's record at rugby vs. your old foe as

Against 	Played 	Won 	Lost 	Drawn
Australia 	124 	82 	37 	5

That's a remarkable record for underdogs, and not too many heartbreaking losses.

Think it's the losing to Oz in Bill semis that OJ's probably talking about as heartbreaking losses.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Except its the boards and not the ICC who decide how many tests to play (as long as they satisfy the minimum requirements.)

The ICC are the ones who schedule the series, not the boards.