No Ashes for India and Pakistan

[Sanz]

Have you checked them ?

I have and I see the pattern there.

Well done. So you post a link to something that elaborates on what I've already said, and think you're making some point ?Sanz, I suggest you rid yourself of this sermonising mood. Posting links to stuff that proves nothing makes no sense.

It does make sense and refutes your master-convict theory..no where it mentioned a word about that.

For that to be a cause for any Ind-Eng rivalry, it would have had to have begun much earlier than now, wouldn't it I doubt the present generation thinks of Ind-Eng cricket from that angle.

Who knows..tomorrow someone can come on this forum and claim that Ind-Eng is bigger than ashes..and present all the arguments you have been posting.

 

[C_C]

OZ-ENG rivalry is far older than IND-PAK and has more traditions attached to it.
However, in the last 15 years or so, IND-PAK has produced higher quality cricket in general than the Ashes and the following is much much bigger than the Ashes. Any doubt ? No ?
Good. Now lets stop arguing.

 

[Deja moo]

I have and I see the pattern there.

If you could be bothered, I'd like to have a look at those stats.

It does make sense and refutes your master-convict theory..no where it mentioned a word about that.

Yes, I'm sure the media misquoted Botham a hundred years down the line.

Who knows..tomorrow someone can come on this forum and claim that Ind-Eng is bigger than ashes..and present all the arguments you have been posting.

I'm not responsible for what someone else may post in the future. As far as I'm concerned those arguments do not hold up for Ind-Eng cricket because of the considerable lapse in time since independence. As far as the Ashes and Ind-Pak go, three clearly is a distinction between history and degree to which the teams have competed with each other to clearly suggest which has been the better rivalry (and I use this term loosely for the Ashes, because there cannot be rivalry without competition) over the past 2 decades.

 

[Sanz]

OZ-ENG rivalry is far older than IND-PAK and has more traditions attached to it.
However, in the last 15 years or so, IND-PAK has produced higher quality cricket in general than the Ashes and the following is much much bigger than the Ashes. Any doubt ? No ?
Good. Now lets stop arguing.

Yeah and fan followings so much bigger that stadiums were almost empty during the test series..thanks to the following and the quality of cricket.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, I'm sure the media misquoted Botham a hundred years down the line.

Where have I said that Botham didn't say that ? It doesn't mean that Ashes rivalry was because of that. Wasim Akram once said 'India dont want play Pak because they were scared of losing'. Since Akram said it once, it must be right. So much for quotes..

As far as the Ashes and Ind-Pak go, three clearly is a distinction between history and degree to which the teams have competed with each other to clearly suggest which has been the better rivalry (and I use this term loosely for the Ashes, because there cannot be rivalry without competition) over the past 2 decades.

There is one problem though..India Pak have not played much in last 2 decades..So you better change the rivalry to 2 years rather than 2 decades...and that too the series played in last two years were nothing extra-ordinary..and if not for jingoism would have gone un-noticed by the world. On the other hand Ashes Just prodeced one of the best series ever.

 

[C_C]

Yeah and fan followings so much bigger that stadiums were almost empty during the test series..thanks to the following and the quality of cricket.

Instead of having a shotgun opinion, why dont you see the facts and then try to extrapolate a reasoning for it. Popularity of an endavour means how much the people follow it. That they do it from the grounds or the comfort of their homes is irrelevant to popularity. And in IND, there are many many people who follow test cricket either in bits-n-pieces through the TV or through the radio. Clearly, that doesnt indicate lack of popularity.But why they dont go to stands is irrelevant to popularity.

 

[marc71178]

Bangladesh and Australia could be playing series every 2 years, that wouldnt create a rivalry. What matters in a rivalry is the provision that both are able to compete at the level of the other.

And boring draws show that then do they?

 

[marc71178]

And tradition is secondary to quality of cricket when it comes to entertainment factor.

Which nullifies everything you've said about Pakistan-India...

 

[C_C]

Which nullifies everything you've said about Pakistan-India...

For the latest series perhaps. Take away the most recent Ashes and IND-PAK and IND-PAK series has been of singularly higher standard cricket and far more entertainment than the Ashes for the last 15 years or so.

 

[luckyeddie]

For the latest series perhaps. Take away the most recent Ashes and IND-PAK and IND-PAK series has been of singularly higher standard cricket and far more entertainment than the Ashes for the last 15 years or so.

Take away the last 6 years and Pakistan never played India in test cricket in the last 15 years. There was a 10 year gap when they systematically ignored each other's existence.

12 matches since 1989. Sorry - I honestly had no idea that was the case otherwise I could have nipped this in the bud. You cannot discredit the Ashes because it's been rubbish for more than a decade yet not discount the other when India and Pakistan didn't even play.

 

[C_C]

Take away the last 6 years and Pakistan never played India in test cricket in the last 15 years. There was a 10 year gap when they systematically ignored each other's existence.

12 matches since 1989. Sorry - I honestly had no idea that was the case otherwise I could have nipped this in the bud. You cannot discredit the Ashes because it's been rubbish for more than a decade yet not discount the other when India and Pakistan didn't even play.

As the saying goes, quality over quantity. 3 series, 9 matches of enthralling play IMO is a better deal than 40 matches of one sided twacking.
I am sure thats valid for all sports - people would rather see Federer vs Safin or Nadal for 3 matches a year rather than Federer vs world # 150 10 times in a row.

 

[luckyeddie]

As the saying goes, quality over quantity. 3 series, 9 matches of enthralling play IMO is a better deal than 40 matches of one sided twacking.
I am sure thats valid for all sports - people would rather see Federer vs Safin or Nadal for 3 matches a year rather than Federer vs world # 150 10 times in a row.

Yes, but in that case you must only look at the Ashes over the same period if you wish to make a direct comparison. Let's at least compare the same fruit.

 

[C_C]

Yes, but in that case you must only look at the Ashes over the same period if you wish to make a direct comparison. Let's at least compare the same fruit.

But i am - i already acknowledged that the Ashes is richer in tradition and history. However, every tradition waxes and wanes, every history gains in lusture or becomes wan. In the last 15 years, Ashes has lost a lot of its significance solely due to the quality of play(or the lack of it) and the most recent series is against the grain- if the next Ashes is a comprehensive thumping by OZ, it will go right back to the depressing affair of the 90s and early 2000s. In the same 15 year period, IND-PAK have played much less but provided far higher level of entertainment and quality of cricket.

 

[Deja moo]

Where have I said that Botham didn't say that ? It doesn't mean that Ashes rivalry was because of that. Wasim Akram once said 'India dont want play Pak because they were scared of losing'. Since Akram said it once, it must be right. So much for quotes..

Yet that doesnt seem to stop you from making it seem like the only reason the India and Pakistan players have a rivalry is because they must have soldiers and gun on the border on their minds.

There is one problem though..India Pak have not played much in last 2 decades..So you better change the rivalry to 2 years rather than 2 decades...and that too the series played in last two years were nothing extra-ordinary..and if not for jingoism would have gone un-noticed by the world. On the other hand Ashes Just prodeced one of the best series ever.

BS. Those were 3 excellent series (since when does 98-2005 become 2 years ? ), compared to the one great series produced by the Ashes since 89. Sorry, but if 8 continuous series of Aus beat Eng, Aus beat Eng, Aus beat Eng, Aus beat Eng....aren't enough to drive the rivalry away from the rich history, nothing is. Rivalry = competition. One team consistently bullying the other 8 series in a row isn't rivalry. You're confusing the concepts of history and rivalry, they're not the same.

 

[Deja moo]

And boring draws show that then do they?

They certainly show that one team isn't far ahead of the other. Marc, you guys seem to think we're rubbishing the entire history of the Ashes. Thats not the case. The fact that Australia and England have played each other so regularly for so many years and you guys look forward to those meetings is proof of a rich history and great tradition. However rivalry is a different thing. How can you call them rivals if one of those teams keeps thumping the other over 8 consecutive series ? The tradition survives because the two nations maintain it. The rivalry however is dependant on the whether the two teams in question compete with each other or not. If the English team stands up to the Aussies in the future, there definitely will be a rivalry. But for the past decade the India-Pakistan rivalry has definitely had the upper hand.

 

[luckyeddie]

BS. Those were 3 excellent series (since when does 98-2005 become 2 years ? ), compared to the one great series produced by the Ashes since 89. Sorry, but if 8 continuous series of Aus beat Eng, Aus beat Eng, Aus beat Eng, Aus beat Eng....aren't enough to drive the rivalry away from the rich history, nothing is. Rivalry = competition. One team consistently bullying the other 8 series in a row isn't rivalry. You're confusing the concepts of history and rivalry, they're not the same.

My final word, from the Poms' perspective....

As soon as one series finished in ignominious defeat, there would be a couple of weeks of wound-licking then the whole thing would kick off again "Ah, but we'll have you next time" or "We were robbed. Our seamers were all injured." or "Why can't jug-ears bowl like that all the time?" or "This wouldn't have happened if Corky had been picked".

The Aussies smiled quietly to themselves, ridiculing us for our cheery and misplaced optimism, waiting patiently until we shut up.

Just go back and dig the old Ashes thread out (you weren't around at the time) and you might realise that the position you are coming from (objective, neutral) has absolutely nothing to bring to bear as far as relevance is concerned, even though we were thrashed time and time again.

Perhaps the 'losers' (and over the years, England have fitted that bill quite well) have to dig deep in order to perpetuate the rivalry, but it's the only one we've got.

Incidentally, ask the Aussies. Who do they see as their traditional rivals?

Some will undoubtedly suggest the West Indies, and I see the merits in that. One or two might look at the geographical rivalry with New Zealand, but they played each other in the past even less than India and Pakistan did. I only see one other logical candidate - if they have any sort of rivalry at all.

 

[honestbharani]

And boring draws show that then do they?

it won't be a draw if the teams didn't compete evenly.

 

[Sanz]

Yet that doesnt seem to stop you from making it seem like the only reason the India and Pakistan players have a rivalry is because they must have soldiers and gun on the border on their minds.

Yes that is the only reason India-Pak have rivalry. They have a rivalry in every thing from playing Hockey to Cricket to making Nuclear Bombs. If you want to live in denial, then its not my problem. Remove the Jingoism and India-Pakistan rivalry is as good/bad as India-SL. Besides did you forget the Imran Khan statements that India-Pak should solve their kashmir problems on cricket field instead of battle field..(Now I am guessing that you dont remember khan making any such statement)

BS. Those were 3 excellent series (since when does 98-2005 become 2 years ? ),

India Pak played the last series in 1998 and one test of ATC in 1999 and after that they didn't play for 5 years..If you want to count that series then why not go back to 1989 also. It's only since 2004 we have started playing regularly again...thanks to the Peace waves. And no IMO it was one exceptional series and 3 ordinary series.

 

[C_C]

India Pak played the last series in 1998 and one test of ATC in 1999 and after that they didn't play for 5 years..If you want to count that series then why not go back to 1989 also. It's only since 2004 we have started playing regularly again...thanks to the Peace waves. And no IMO it was one exceptional series and 3 ordinary series.
__________________

Sorry but one 2 series in a 5 year span is most definately 'regular' by any benchmark. If anything, 3 in 3 years is overkill....

 

[marc71178]

2 series isn't anything in terms of regular - because you can't even see what sort of gap there is between series.