Should The Ashers Urn continued to be held only in England !!!!

[Legglancer]

Should The Ashers Urn continued to be held only in England !!!!

I think this is Grossly unfair ! The aussies
have proven beyond a doubt that they are far
superiour in cricket for over a decade. I
join many who agree with Glen Macgrath's sentiments
that its time the Ashers have australia as its
home untill England can prove otherwise !

 

[Rik]

Your forgetting the fact that the Ashes are not actually owned by either of the teams, but in fact by the Lord's museum, so if they decide the Ashes can go over then fine, but the Ashes are in no state to travel due to their age...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by Legglancer
I think this is Grossly unfair ! The aussies
have proven beyond a doubt that they are far
superiour in cricket for over a decade. I
join many who agree with Glen Macgrath's sentiments
that its time the Ashers have australia as its
home untill England can prove otherwise !

Come on... Ashers?!!! :O

They aren't fit to travel currently, but yeah, Australia should have them. Maybe it'll motivate our lot...

 

[Top_Cat]

Rik and Neil:

My uncle is a representative on several national Australian Aboriginal councils and committees (yes, I'm Aussie Aboriginal. )and is held in high esteem througout the Aboriginal community of Australia. So high is he regarded that he was entrusted with bringing how bones of people thousands of years old from a British museum a few years ago. These were very fragile cargo yet they came back here to Australia with no damage.

As you can gather I'm sure, the 'it's too old and fragile' argument is media spin and nothing more, in my opinion. It CAN be done, it HAS been done before and to ensure that the Ashes isn't reduced to the level of a joke contest, it MUST be done. If my big uncle can handle a few thousand-year-old bones (you don't get much more fragile than THAT!), then I believe a way can be found to transport an urn just over a hundred years old and bring it here unscratched or as close as possible to.

 

[Blewy]

Yeah im with you TC...

I think this is just the MCC's way of saying we won't give them to u cause we will never be able to win them back...

I mean some of the players who have played for Australia in Ashes series have never ever seen the real thing...
If I were playing i personally would like to see what i am playing for and not just some cheap immitation....

 

[marc71178]

If my big uncle can handle a few thousand-year-old bones (you don't get much more fragile than THAT!), then I believe a way can be found to transport an urn just over a hundred years old and bring it here unscratched or as close as possible to.

But those bones belonged to you, the Ashes don't.

 

[Rich2001]

Originally posted by marc71178

If my big uncle can handle a few thousand-year-old bones (you don't get much more fragile than THAT!), then I believe a way can be found to transport an urn just over a hundred years old and bring it here unscratched or as close as possible to.

But those bones belonged to you, the Ashes don't.

If only that was true Marc...

And TC/GB I don't think it has been ruled out yet, all they are saying is that the glue used to repair them 75 years ago is wearing/worn out, so even for the MCC to keep them, they will still have to repair them anyway, so once that is done I guess it will all be sorted and when you guys come to England next you might be allowed to take them back.....ONLY IF you can beat us that is.

 

[Top_Cat]

But those bones belonged to you, the Ashes don't.

Two questions, Marc:

1) Who owns the America's Cup?
2) Did they refuse to hand it over when they lost it for the first time in 1983?

The answers are thus:

The trophy that came to be called the America's Cup was won in England in 1851 by America, owned by a syndicate of New York Yacht Club members. The yacht club retained the trophy until 1983, or for 132 years. Yachts from the NYYC won 80 of 93 races, spanning 25 defenses. Journalists have described this as "the longest winning streak in sports."

And I found this at the New York Yacht Club's website.

 

[marc71178]

That doesn't say who owns it or if they gave it up?

That winning streak could be threat now though.

 

[Anil]

Originally posted by Rik
Your forgetting the fact that the Ashes are not actually owned by either of the teams, but in fact by the Lord's museum, so if they decide the Ashes can go over then fine, but the Ashes are in no state to travel due to their age...

If the urn belongs to the museum, why is it being used as the trophy in the Ashes series? If you play for a trophy, the winner should get it. If the winner has won seven or eight consecutive series and doesn't even get to see the real thing, it is grossly unfair. The excuse that the ECB is giving, ie not being able to transfer it safely, is the lamest I have heard. Come on...we are in the 21st century and the request was not to move mountains....

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by Rik
Your forgetting the fact that the Ashes are not actually owned by either of the teams, but in fact by the Lord's museum, so if they decide the Ashes can go over then fine, but the Ashes are in no state to travel due to their age...

If the urn belongs to the museum, why is it being used as the trophy in the Ashes series? If you play for a trophy, the winner should get it. If the winner has won seven or eight consecutive series and doesn't even get to see the real thing, it is grossly unfair. The excuse that the ECB is giving, ie not being able to transfer it safely, is the lamest I have heard. Come on...we are in the 21st century and the request was not to move mountains....

It depends on weather you want to have something to fight for or a pile of dust...

 

[marc71178]

If the urn belongs to the museum, why is it being used as the trophy in the Ashes series? If you play for a trophy, the winner should get it.

It's more a symbolic trophy - and has never really been played for as a trophy, just as a name!

 

[Gotchya]

It's more a symbolic trophy - and has never really been played for as a trophy, just as a name!

And i think Australia have done enough to claim that symbol.

I think its English pride at stake here more then anything.

 

[Anil]

Originally posted by marc71178

If the urn belongs to the museum, why is it being used as the trophy in the Ashes series? If you play for a trophy, the winner should get it.

It's more a symbolic trophy - and has never really been played for as a trophy, just as a name!

...and what is it symbolic of? Supremacy on a cricketing field between Aus and Eng, right? So, who has been by far the better team? The fact that England is still clinging on to that urn, what does that symbolise?

 

[marc71178]

They do have the symbol - they do not have the trophy because the trophy is not technically up for grabs! England and Australia play for the symbol!

 

[Anil]

Originally posted by marc71178
They do have the symbol - they do not have the trophy because the trophy is not technically up for grabs! England and Australia play for the symbol!

...but it's not just a symbol, is it? There is a real urn with real ashes in it, right? Mmmmm... forget it buddy, you will never see it my way because it's too personal for you and I will never see it your way because I am an interested, but importantly an impartial observer.

 

[Gotchya]

Just in the last 10 years, dont you think Australia simply deserve to keep the urn ?

Regardless of wether it is up for grabs or not, Australia's domination means that they MUSY be given accolade and recognition for their efforts.

 

[Gotchya]

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by marc71178
They do have the symbol - they do not have the trophy because the trophy is not technically up for grabs! England and Australia play for the symbol!

...but it's not just a symbol, is it? There is a real urn with real ashes in it, right? Mmmmm... forget it buddy, you will never see it my way because it's too personal for you and I will never see it your way because I am an interested, but importantly an impartial observer.

If you see it not as stripping england of anything but giving honour to worthy opponents, then i guess it makes most sense.

 

[Anil]

Originally posted by Gotchya

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by marc71178
They do have the symbol - they do not have the trophy because the trophy is not technically up for grabs! England and Australia play for the symbol!

...but it's not just a symbol, is it? There is a real urn with real ashes in it, right? Mmmmm... forget it buddy, you will never see it my way because it's too personal for you and I will never see it your way because I am an interested, but importantly an impartial observer.

If you see it not as stripping england of anything but giving honour to worthy opponents, then i guess it makes most sense.

As far as I see it, it will be just giving Australia what they deserve to have. Any reason (symbolism, fragility...blah, blah.....)not to do that sounds lame to me.

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by anilramavarma

Originally posted by marc71178

If the urn belongs to the museum, why is it being used as the trophy in the Ashes series? If you play for a trophy, the winner should get it.

It's more a symbolic trophy - and has never really been played for as a trophy, just as a name!

...and what is it symbolic of? Supremacy on a cricketing field between Aus and Eng, right? So, who has been by far the better team? The fact that England is still clinging on to that urn, what does that symbolise?

It symbolises that Lord's own the Urn and therefor decide what is best for it. The Ashes are owned by the museum, not the countries. England and Australia play for the trophy now, its the way it is.