Very balanced article from Dilshan

[Dissector]

I'm saying an Ashes tour (the same would also apply to Australia if they had to play a World Cup immediately after an away series in England) is more intense than any other tour in World Cricket.

If you can find me an example of a non-Ashes tour where the touring side has played 4 FC games as well as a 5 Test series, then I'm all ears. But for some reason you just keep on ignoring this point.

And I would dispute the idea that the number of first class games is a good measure of the intensity of a test series. That seems a purely arbitrary criterion designed to prove that the Ashes are the most intense form of test cricket which IMO is complete nonsense.

But hey if that's what you want to believe, go ahead. That is exactly the attitude which makes me doubt England will become the no.1 test team anytime soon.

 

[Dhoni_fan]

And it's all very well stating that India have played x amount of cricket, but given that Tendulkar played 4 ODIs between 1st January 2010 and the start of the World Cup, it's not exactly relevant is it?

Yes it is, we have a batting line up however with so much depth, that we can afford to rest Sachin, and make sure he stays in good health and fitness so that he can peak for the biggest event in our sport, which happens to be going on right now.

 

[Jacknife]

And I would dispute the idea that the number of first class games is a good measure of the intensity of a test series. That seems a purely arbitrary criterion designed to prove that the Ashes are the most intense form of test cricket which IMO is complete nonsense.

But hey if that's what you want to believe, go ahead. That is exactly the attitude which makes me doubt England will become the no.1 test team anytime soon.

Loving your logic mate, that something a fan says, has any bearing or consequence, to England being the No1 team.

 

[Dissector]

I think the attitude pervades all of English cricket including the team.

 

[Jacknife]

I think the attitude pervades of all English cricket including the team.

What attitude is this then and if you come back with, they don't take the other test series as seriously as the Ashes, I'll laugh my ass off.

 

[smash84]

I'm saying an Ashes tour (the same would also apply to Australia if they had to play a World Cup immediately after an away series in England) is more intense than any other tour in World Cricket.

If you can find me an example of a non-Ashes tour where the touring side has played 4 FC games as well as a 5 Test series, then I'm all ears. But for some reason you just keep on ignoring this point.

I think what Dissector is trying to point out here is that just having more number of matches doesn't mean that matches are intense. That is the point that I understand and it does make sense to me.

If you are defining the intensity of the series as being the number of matches packed in a certain time frame irrespective of the fact whether they are FC games or international ones then Ashes might be the most intense series out there but that only holds true using this criteria for intensity.

And this is a very subjective criteria IMO. This means that Pakistan can plan a 3 month tour of Bangladesh with a 2 test match series and 10 FC games and hence it will be THE most intense series out there.

 

[Jacknife]

I think what Dissector is trying to point out here is that just having more number of matches doesn't mean that matches are intense. That is the point that I understand and it does make sense to me.

If you are defining the intensity of the series as being the number of matches packed in a certain time frame irrespective of the fact whether they are FC games or international ones then Ashes might be the most intense series out there but that only holds true using this criteria for intensity.

And this is a very subjective criteria IMO. This means that Pakistan can plan a 3 month tour of Bangladesh with a 2 test match series and 10 FC games and hence it will be THE most intense series out there.

Like you say it is very subjective and only the players themselves will know, but most fans of cricket know, the history involved, the bragging rights, the build up, the press speculation, the amount of press etc give the Ashes a life of it's own.
For example, if we compare the Ashes against England's tour of SA, you would say that the closeness of games etc against SA, would make for them being more intense and tiring, but I believe if you ask the England players, the Ashes tour has taken much more out of them, especially to maintain such high standards through the tour and all the rest of PR razzmatazz that goes with it.

 

[Lostman]

Dilshan; What a writer.
60+ replies already on the great mans prose.

 

[smash84]

Like you say it is very subjective and only the players themselves will know, but most fans of cricket know, the history involved, the bragging rights, the build up, the press speculation, the amount of press etc give the Ashes a life of it's own.
For example, if we compare the Ashes against England's tour of SA, you would say that the closeness of games etc against SA, would make for them being more intense and tiring, but I believe if you ask the England players, the Ashes tour has taken much more out of them, especially to maintain such high standards through the tour and all the rest of PR razzmatazz that goes with it.

So we agree on the subjectivity part.

The point that I (and dissector too I believe) is trying to make that being and English or Australian fan gives the Ashes a life of its own. I am a big cricket fan but I find the Ashes to be over-hyped and I do not really have as much of an interest in the Ashes as say between an India Pakistan or even an India-Australia series (and I am a neutral fan in the case of Ashes and Ind-Aus). Hence my definition of high intensity would be an India-Pakistan test rubber being played out on bowler friendly wickets or an Ind-Aus series where the media hype is quite a lot too.

Hence it follows that using this criteria of intensity will not be accepted by many other fans of cricket.

I hope you are getting what I am trying to say here.

 

[Jacknife]

So we agree on the subjectivity part.

The point that I (and dissector too I believe) is trying to make that being and English or Australian fan gives the Ashes a life of its own. I am a big cricket fan but I find the Ashes to be over-hyped and I do not really have as much of an interest in the Ashes as say between an India Pakistan or even an India-Australia series (and I am a neutral fan in the case of Ashes and Ind-Aus). Hence my definition of high intensity would be an India-Pakistan test rubber being played out on bowler friendly wickets or an Ind-Aus series where the media hype is quite a lot too.

Hence it follows that using this criteria of intensity will not be accepted by many other fans of cricket.

I hope you are getting what I am trying to say here.

No problem with any of that and of course you're more concerned about and rate your own teams series more, you don't have the English/Australian history,bragging rights etc to deal with, much like I don't understand Indian/Pakistani history, but it doesn't stop me appreciating it and realising what it means to the people of the respective nations.
Australia played India in tests, a couple of months before the Ashes, yet all the talk for Australia, was on finding form for the Ashes and who will be the first 11 etc and the hype and media hype was not as high as the Ashes, rightly or wrongly.
As far as the length of schedule, it is by far, longer than any other bilateral series, add to that the team came to the WC 4 days after the series was finished, which adds to the nonsense. This series had even more than the norm hype about it, if that was possible, mainly because they were thought to be, 2 closely matched sides, especially going on the 2009 series. In hindsight they weren't and possibly to neutrals it was a boring series but that doesn't take away from the the effort put in to do what England did to Australia, or the fact they've been on the road for over 5 months.

 

[smash84]

No problem with any of that and of course you're more concerned about and rate your own teams series more, you don't have the English/Australian history,bragging rights etc to deal with, much like I don't understand Indian/Pakistani history, but it doesn't stop me appreciating it and realising what it means to the people of the respective nations.
Australia played India in tests, a couple of months before the Ashes, yet all the talk for Australia, was on finding form for the Ashes and who will be the first 11 etc and the hype and media hype was not as high as the Ashes, rightly or wrongly.
As far as the length of schedule, it is by far, longer than any other bilateral series, add to that the team came to the WC 4 days after the series was finished, which adds to the nonsense. This series had even more than the norm hype about it, if that was possible, mainly because they were thought to be, 2 closely matched sides, especially going on the 2009 series. In hindsight they weren't and possibly to neutrals it was a boring series but that doesn't take away from the the effort put in to do what England did to Australia, or the fact they've been on the road for over 5 months.

agreed.

If we both agree with each other then what are we arguing about?/??

 

[Jono]

I think Furball is correct in stating that the fact England have been away from home for so long would be more of a detriment than what India have experienced.

But England have been so **** that its a non-issue anyway IMO.

More relevant is their injuries.

 

[vcs]

Yes it is, we have a batting line up however with so much depth, that we can afford to rest Sachin, and make sure he stays in good health and fitness so that he can peak for the biggest event in our sport, which happens to be going on right now.

This. England's fault for not trying out more players and resting their main guys in meaningless ODI series.

 

[vcs]

Dilshan; What a writer.
60+ replies already on the great mans prose.

 

[Furball]

I think Furball is correct in stating that the fact England have been away from home for so long would be more of a detriment than what India have experienced.

But England have been so **** that its a non-issue anyway IMO.

More relevant is their injuries.

Reckon the injuries are directly related to the schedule.

 

[Jono]

Yeah I don't doubt that.

My point is for every Anderson underperformance due to fatigue (mental and physical) there is also the fact that England's tactics at this WC have been poor and I just don't rate their team in subcontinent conditions.

 

[Furball]

yeah i don't doubt that.

My point is for every anderson underperformance due to fatigue (mental and physical) there is also the fact that england's tactics at this wc have been poor and i just don't rate their team in subcontinent conditions against subcontinental opposition.

AWTA

z

 

[Jono]

Well you'd imagine you'd need to beat one of the subcontinent teams to win the WC in Asia.

 

[R_D]

Everyone should just accept that India overcome the most in everything they do and they're still miles better than everyone else yadda yadda.
India are great. India are the best.

Clearly thats what the poster was claiming..

Love to see the English team fail at world cup.... we don't care much about the ODI anyway... only thing we care about is Ashes.
I wonder what they were doing 20 years before finally re-claiming the Ashes.