Australian's wobble

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon

There will be no pride in beating an off-form, off-colour and half-crocked team of Aussies

Who's talking rubbish now? Rightly, I would expect all English supporters to be proud of beating the team that Australia puts on the pitch as our national team. Off-form, off-colour, half-crocked and even half-tanked for all I care. The team we put on the pitch is the best Oz team with no caveats. Beat them and you'll rightly deserve the credit and bragging rights, which one or two in particular seem to be able to taste.

Test match victories don't get caveated or asterisked or whatever in the history books. They just are. Sure, in the rub-down there'll be discussion about this and that, but really who cares? The only drawback in winning against a sub-par Aussie team is not having absolute confidence the next time they match up, but worry about that then. When England do win back the Ashes, take a moments silence to savour it because those moments, whoever you are (Oz or Eng), only come along a few times in a lifetime, then go absolutely mad about it. There is certainly something special about winning (rather than retaining) the Ashes, particularly when the team has gone through a lean spell in the interim. The one small saving grace for the Aussie supporters is the knowledge that we'll be the next ones to savour that special feeling

As an aside, I could happily wait another decade before having to rely on that small saving grace...

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Test match victories don't get caveated or asterisked or whatever in the history books.

Yes they do. The last England side to actually WIN the Ashes is routinely held up as one of the worst to ever represent this country.. and the achievement is routinely downgradeed with the observation that the Aussies that year were without doubt the worst to EVER contest the Ashes.

I'm surprised at your comment... I'm pretty sure that even Steve Waugh has been known to regret that the opposition his side faced was not really good enough to give his side a chance to show, definitively, that they were the greatest ever... and I've encountered several reports of Aussies getting thoroughly sick of sides failing to give their best and thereby failing to offer the Aussie side a chance to reach "closure" in discussions of just how good they have been.

I, personally, don't really give a damn about the results: I want to see England and Australia produce better cricket than has been seen in assorted other damp squibs of series of late (including that appalling India-Australia series that promised so much and then ended so tamely).

[Beny]

Ohh my English friends... Do you honestly think that the 20/20 game means anything? All of the wickets were lazy shots from the Aussie batsmen, I can remember two that we're actualy due to good bowling. Just so we don't get too ahead of ouselves, Australia did the same thing against New Zealand last time they met. We still canned them in the Test Matches. When Our stratagy is to go out and score as quickly as possible without regard for how many wickets we have, it can be expected that we might sometimes get burned. Was anybody else taking notice that Hayden was walking down the pitch and skying the ball? Or that Gilly was trying to hook a vitualy middle stump bowl. Ponting was driving in the air off his first few deliveries. Symonds was doing what he seems to do a lot... Hit it in the air. Clarke was'nt even out. Martyn was trying to be too smart (although he'd goten away with it earlier and showed his class). The tactics of the bowlers was also compleatly different. The English intelligently thumped the bowl in short (I hope Lee gets to bowl to Flintoff next game). Australia did what they normaly do- bowl on the stumps.

England had something to prove in this match. The Aussies we're out there for fun. Things will change come the serious matches.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I, personally, don't really give a damn about the results: I want to see England and Australia produce better cricket than has been seen in assorted other damp squibs of series of late (including that appalling India-Australia series that promised so much and then ended so tamely).

I don't really care about quality. I'd prefer to see England victorious in the most boring test series ever rather than see an exciting, colourful, drawn series for example! As an England supporter I first and foremostly want to see England victories, at what ever cost to the quality.

The Aussies wouldn't be happy losing the Ashes whatever the quality of series, why should we?

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see England play glorious cricket and win. But winning is my priority, not quality at all.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Rachael, I think there's two different issues here. Firstly the winning of the Ashes. Whilst you might not agree, I see sport primarily as a contest. The reason that it is so appealing is its ability within this context to bring out some of the truly great moments and aspects of peoples characters and accentuate absolutely sublime skill. Take out the context of the competition and it becomes art (not denigrating art; its just a different context). Take out the contest and some of the greatest moments in defeat become just impressive rather than a personal struggle in the face of defeat. In this primary context, England have lost repeatedly for well over a decade. Winning is special in a contest, particularly one you keep losing. The important thing in this case is the actual contest for a variety of reasons is special in its own right to many people (if not yourself)

Steve Waugh did bemoan the lack of worthy opposition, but he was talking about a decade of Australian dominance. In this context, without the truly worthy challenges (although some would say the subcontinent represented this), it is difficult to judge just how good the Aussies were. However, the same could be argued of the West Indies dominance, with no South Africa, weak Australia, highly variable England and Indian and Pakistan sides struggling to win a raffle outside the subcontinent. This doesn't detract at all from the achievements of one of the truly great sides - again test matches are not caveated in the history books and you just have to look at the calibre of the players and the way they played together. Australia's great team over the last decade was built on the back of some of the game's greats and I think that history will treat them just as kindly as the WI team of the 80s

Ultimately, I to would prefer to see two great sides battle it out head to head over five tests, with the winner emergent on the final day in a series to remember. Firstly however, I want to see a contest and for a decade, there just hasn't been one. From an England perspective, I would expect that it would be no different - certainly the friends that I have discussed cricket with are not overly fussed that a rubbish team won the Ashes, but are impressed that they actually did. Many 'good' teams have not achieved all that they should have, sometimes because of timing (running into a better team) or because they didn't have that special something required to compete and win. To me, that skill is every bit a part of cricket as batting, bowling, fielding and captaincy. Without it, we could just play exhibition matches or have net sessions where players could show all their skills without having to get their hands dirty competing

Sometimes I'm willing to take the sublime over the victory (India 2001 springs to mind), but to deny that its a contest where the primary objective is to win would to me reduce the value of much of the great cricket that has been played

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

I'm sure we all look forward to a summer of competitive cricket. After all, some have been trying to claim that Australia-India is the biggest series in Test cricket. We have to get the Ashes back to where it belongs as a competition, at the forefront of international cricket.

As far as England and Australia is concerned, the Ashes always has been as always will be. Great to see England on the rise, and the wheel will turn, no doubt. I will not be surprised if England have the urn by 2009 and keep it for more than a decade. Australia's sporting succes has not been confined to cricket. We have finished in top 5 in the last two olympics the top 12 in the last 4. We have won world cups in sports too numerous to mention here, and individual Aussies have been world champions in sports ranging from surfing to tennis.
This has been due to the largest youth bulge in Aus history (generation X - approx 28 - 38 yrs old now) but this generation of champions are aging and our fall from grace is almost apon us. The younger generation coming through now is smaller, less competitive, softer, and prefer to play on their x-box than play sport. The once mighty grade cricket scene in Brisbane is a shadow of it's former self, which bodes ill for the future. The best players are still us older blokes and the younger ones coming through don't have the goods. The same can be said for the Aussie cricket in general which is why Our test team is aging and all the likely replacements are 30+ as well with few exceptions. The odd Clarke might still come through, but Australia will never again be the force it is now.
I could start a thread on this subject but the thought depresses me. We should be right till 2007 however, so i will enjoy it while it lasts.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Seamer, not sure about the assumption relating to the 'youth bulge' corresponding to the period you refer to. The 28-38 y.o. group would have presumably been born 1967 to 77. Yet this was a period when births were decreasing dramatically off the back fo the baby boomers 1950s to early 60s (which corresponds to the largest proportional group per head of population) as it did in most of the western world (hence the major issues many countries are starting to face re pensions, sustainable workforces etc). The big drop according to the ABS was the period 1971 onwards.

In terms of raw numbers of people, more are likely to be born over the next twenty years than during the time you talk of (assuming birth rates don't drop dramatically below the current 1%) largely because the population is so much larger now.

Two issues count against the theory you put up. One that these booms and falls in birth rates were reflected throughout much of the world, so in theory these booms and falls should be seen elsewhere, so no one nation would be favoured. Secondly, raw population is only one factor amongst many that affect the talent pool of the national team. Much more important is the supporting infrastructure, culture and just a drop of luck regarding timing.Surely if this was not the case, the subcontinent test nations would be untouchable and Australia and the West Indies would be relying on thumping NZ every few years for our limited success.

[Beny]

Originally Posted by Seamer 52632

This has been due to the largest youth bulge in Aus history (generation X - approx 28 - 38 yrs old now) but this generation of champions are aging and our fall from grace is almost apon us. The younger generation coming through now is smaller, less competitive, softer, and prefer to play on their x-box than play sport. The once mighty grade cricket scene in Brisbane is a shadow of it's former self, which bodes ill for the future. The best players are still us older blokes and the younger ones coming through don't have the goods. The same can be said for the Aussie cricket in general which is why Our test team is aging and all the likely replacements are 30+ as well with few exceptions. The odd Clarke might still come through, but Australia will never again be the force it is now.
I could start a thread on this subject but the thought depresses me. We should be right till 2007 however, so i will enjoy it while it lasts.

More than 500,000 Australian children play cricket. Most kids play weekend sport even if they do spend their everyday lives on the computer. Yes, by 2009 England will likely have overtaken us. However I am predicting by 2020, Australia will be kicking Englnd's butt in soccer. So it all evens out.

[Richard Jenkins]

Look like the aussie fans are worried there might be a contest in which the aussies loose. A loss is a loss , even in the back garden with granny. Which, whilst playing against Somerset, the aussies experienced. To echo the 'quote' the aussies used for Giles 'any team which can't defend a total of 340 needs to go hang itself'
Ponting has lost the plot. Bret Lee's gone for his sick note. warne's dying his roots. Kaspa looked 43 never mind 34.
What a bunch of loosers.

Those ashes are in the bag . It's not worth turning up Australia, You will lose.


( I told you i'd been in the sun too long. it's 34° today and I'm gibbering!!)

[Victor Frankenstein]

I'm surprised and dissapointed in the arrogant style and content of your recent posts on this subject Richard, if you're just joking or it's meant to be tongue in cheek then it needs to be clearer.

Beny, seamer and other australian company, most english supporters don't think just because of one 20-20 game and one county game that the ashes are in the bag, don't let the posts of the vocal minority make you think we're all delusional idiots.

I believe we can win the ashes, not that we will, but that we can. India pushed australia in their last home series and I believe we have a much better bowling attack than them (india), even if we don't win the ashes I believe that the australians will have to compete to win them not just turn up as has been the case over the last decade and a bit.