Ashes - the most overrated sporting contest?

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Did anyone watch or follow the India, England series?
personally I really liked this series and it’s probably just a shame England didn’t win in either Perth or Adelaide but if they wanted a longer series with big score they could’ve just produced the pitches for that. With how quickly these sides score we probably would’ve gotten results anyway. We have just gone full India producing pitches to win on.

It’s also interesting to listen to ex players who actually coach now talk about how much harder the pitches are to bat on and even players like Smith who has been around long enough to see the change.

 

[PhatBoy]

Did anyone watch or follow the India, England series?
personally I really liked this series and it’s probably just a shame England didn’t win in either Perth or Adelaide but if they wanted a longer series with big score they could’ve just produced the pitches for that. With how quickly these sides score we probably would’ve gotten results anyway. We have just gone full India producing pitches to win on.

It’s also interesting to listen to ex players who actually coach now talk about how much harder the pitches are to bat on and even players like Smith who has been around long enough to see the change.

I watched most of it, it had its moments of boredom where the combination of the pitches, the bowling which was a little underwhelming and some good batting made it almost too much but there were enough moments where the batsmen had to grind it out and enough where the batsmen forced the pace to drive the games to a conclusion

 

[charcoalchicken]

The ashes is usually a pretty good series, this one though 25/26 has been pretty underwhelming

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Which depends on how you view it.

The BGT is probably more competitive more often. Over a long time the Ashes are often competitive in England, rarely in Australia. And BGT is often the best two teams in the world or close to it.
In terms of Australian public interest, history of the rivalry, cultural significance and recognition beyond the sport, etc, Ashes is still clearly on top.

India is 10-6-1for series results over Australia in the BGT, which became a thing in 1996.

Australia is 9-5-2 in Ashes in the same time period.

Australia has won one series in India in that time, no draws. India has beaten us twice and had a drawn series here.

Australia has won 2 series and had 2 draws in England. But no wins for 25 years. England has won once in Australia, no draws.

Australia have won 6 tests in India, England have won 6 tests in Australia in that time - yes, the W/L is more lopsided due to more games though.

So it really isn't accurate to say the BGT has been notably more competitive - India has basically been as superior over Australia as Australia has been over England in the 30 years of BGT existence.

 

[Southerntakeover]

India is 10-6-1for series results over Australia in the BGT, which became a thing in 1996.

Australia is 9-5-2 in Ashes in the same time period.

Australia has won one series in India in that time, no draws. India has beaten us twice and had a drawn series here.

Australia has won 2 series and had 2 draws in England. But no wins for 25 years. England has won once in Australia, no draws.

Australia have won 6 tests in India, England have won 6 tests in Australia in that time - yes, the W/L is more lopsided due to more games though.

So it really isn't accurate to say the BGT has been notably more competitive - India has basically been as superior over Australia as Australia has been over England in the 30 years of BGT existence.

Pick a metric and stick to it. This jumps all over the place.

If we accept that 96 is the comparitor, tests in that period are 23-25-16 in BGT. Australia 35 percent, India 39 percent. The difference is India's consecutive 2-1 series wins in Australia.

The Ashes during the same period, by my count is 44-23-13. Australia outright win more than a majority of tests. They've swept twice and had two 4-0s.

We've won 15 tests in England during that time, and come back with the urn 4 times.

These two things are not a like.

By the way, India has only won 7 games in Australia in that span, compared to Australia's 6 in India. Pretty even to me.

 

[CrowFan77]

The weight of history tends to mean that in cricket England are the arch nemesis for most teams.

Don't agree with this.

Aus, WI, SA would say England
NZ, Ind would say Australia
Pak, SL, Ban, Afg would say India
Eng would say Aus

 

[CrowFan77]

The Ashes has 150 years of rivalry - that puts it miles ahead of Aus v Ind (only relevant since 2000ish) and the WTC (only relevant since 2020ish).

Aus v Ind and Eng v Ind have taken on far greater significance in the last 25 years, but that doesn't come close to the Ashes 150 years of history.

in the future, I expect that all of the $$$ pumped into Indian cricket will eventually make India virtually unbeatable. If/when that happens, Aus v Ind and Eng v Ind will take a back seat and the Ashes will take on an even greater significance.

 

[PhatBoy]

The Ashes has 150 years of rivalry - that puts it miles ahead of Aus v Ind (only relevant since 2000ish) and the WTC (only relevant since 2020ish).

Aus v Ind and Eng v Ind have taken on far greater significance in the last 25 years, but that doesn't come close to the Ashes 150 years of history.

in the future, I expect that all of the $$$ pumped into Indian cricket will eventually make India virtually unbeatable. If/when that happens, Aus v Ind and Eng v Ind will take a back seat and the Ashes will take on an even greater significance.

No team will ever be unbeatable. It’s cricket. You can’t fit a 1.5 billion people into a team and make no mistake, India has been bloody professional for a while now and they still haven’t managed to reach that level of dominance or close to it. As long as cricket remains a sport where 2-3 people can win a team a game no side will ever be unbeatable.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Pick a metric and stick to it. This jumps all over the place.

If we accept that 96 is the comparitor, tests in that period are 23-25-16 in BGT. Australia 35 percent, India 39 percent. The difference is India's consecutive 2-1 series wins in Australia.

The Ashes during the same period, by my count is 44-23-13. Australia outright win more than a majority of tests. They've swept twice and had two 4-0s.

We've won 15 tests in England during that time, and come back with the urn 4 times.

These two things are not a like.

By the way, India has only won 7 games in Australia in that span, compared to Australia's 6 in India. Pretty even to me.

I am sorry that my presentation of some facts seems to have upset you.

I don't know how you could interpret my 'metric' as having 'jumped all over the place'.

Setting the clock at the start of the BGT, aside from being the only logical place to start in response to someone making a point about the BGT, also makes things far more favourable to Australia.

I could have just said that India has won two series and England one series in Australia while we have won none away against either in more than 20 years.

I hope that statement of fact doesn't cause you further emotional distress.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I am sorry that my presentation of some facts seems to have upset you.

I don't know how you could interpret my 'metric' as having 'jumped all over the place'.

Setting the clock at the start of the BGT, aside from being the only logical place to start in response to someone making a point about the BGT, also makes things far more favourable to Australia.

I could have just said that India has won two series and England one series in Australia while we have won none away against either in more than 20 years.

I hope that statement of fact doesn't cause you further emotional distress.

You started at 1996, then changed your time period to 25 years mid post. And now you adopt 20 years. Of course, it's obvious immediately that the reason you keep moving the goal post is to deliberately exclude Australian series wins.

You're not tough, or upsetting anyone. Just embarrassing yourself with the bluster. When presented with the 'statements of facts' as you put it you've retreated almost instantly.

 

[PhatBoy]

You started at 96, then changed your time period to 25 years mid post. And now you adopt 20 years. Of course, it's obvious immediately that the reason you keep moving the goal post is to deliberately exclude Australian series wins.

You're not tough, or upsetting anyone. Just embarrassing yourself with the bluster. When presented with the 'statements of facts' as you put it you've retreated almost instantly.

It’s an online sports forum where people type responses to one another. While many of us, often myself, talk a great deal of condescending shit, I very much doubt Linda, or anyone else, tries to be or thinks they are tough. What’s he gonna do - meet you behind the toilets to sort it out?

 

[Southerntakeover]

It’s an online sports forum where people type responses to one another. While many of us, often myself, talk a great deal of condescending shit, I very much doubt Linda, or anyone else, tries to be or thinks they are tough. What’s he gonna do - meet you behind the toilets to sort it out?

And yet despite that knowledge you don't find it odd that he's carrying on about causing people 'emotional distress' for disagreeing with him.

 

[PhatBoy]

And yet despite that knowledge you don't find it odd that he's carrying on about causing people 'emotional distress' for disagreeing with him.

Not really as that sort of thing gets mentioned a thousand times a day, rightly or wrongly and as silly as it may sometimes sound. The concept of someone trying to ‘be tough’ seems a rarity.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Not really as that sort of thing gets mentioned a thousand times a day, rightly or wrongly and as silly as it may sometimes sound. The concept of someone trying to ‘be tough’ seems a rarity.

Oh right. Must have missed the other 999 times today.

When you self appointed yourself board arbiter did you get a sash or a medal?

 

[Linda Lovelace]

You started at 1996, then changed your time period to 25 years mid post. And now you adopt 20 years. Of course, it's obvious immediately that the reason you keep moving the goal post is to deliberately exclude Australian series wins.

You're not tough, or upsetting anyone. Just embarrassing yourself with the bluster. When presented with the 'statements of facts' as you put it you've retreated almost instantly.

I am sorry for suggesting that you may have had an emotional reaction to my initial post, because you have clearly demonstrated a calm and rational response.

I accept that I was wrong and Australia is number 1.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I am sorry for suggesting that you may have had an emotional reaction to my initial post, because you have clearly demonstrated a calm and rational response.

I accept that I was wrong and Australia is number 1.

My initial post provided you with little more than statistics that disproved your claim. How much more 'calm and rational' could it have been?

That you couldn't counter and went down this 'you're upset' pathway instead has absolutely nothing to do with anyone but you.

 

[PhatBoy]

Oh right. Must have missed the other 999 times today.

When you self appointed yourself board arbiter did you get a sash or a medal?

Last night

 

[The King!]

The history is what makes it

 

[010203]

The last 3 BGT series in Australia have been better than the last 3 Ashes series here. History and what it means to Australia's sporting psyche means the Ashes will remain the #1 cricket contest for Aussies for a while yet.