no one mention the Ashes
Dec 18th 2006 | 9:58 pm
#16
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: no one mention the Ashes
I think you're both right (to a degree). 
Dec 18th 2006 | 10:06 pm
#17
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,650
From: Mornington
Re: no one mention the Ashes
[.
You might find (haven't been able to get stats) that there are actually more people playing cricket in the UK than Australia - 3 times more people and I'm pretty certain the participation rates are not 1/3 of what they are in Australia. You are perhaps forgetting too how much cricket is played, particularly by those of South Asian and Caribbean descent, in the Midlands and the North of England?
The 2005 open topped bus, packed Trafalgar Square, audience with PM and Queen, Queen's Birthday honours, Sports Personality awards etc, etc tell me that cricket is an important sport in England.
Perhaps the problem with the mediocre run of the mill County players is that they can make a living from cricket? It's not so long ago that the Ashes was between a team of professionals and a team of amateurs. The modern times of more money in the game, ACB contracts etc have tipped the scales the other way.[/QUOTE]
As I stated earlier the vast majority of professional cricketers in England are just not good enough. I have a friend over here that played at County level in England and he reckons that he would really struggle to hold down a place in a good regional town side over here. And like you I will not go hunting for statistics because I find that type of response very tedious and never tend to look at the source.
IMO that more people in Australia do or have played cricket than in England. I have been a fan ever since I saw my first game with my granddad watching Essex v Glamorgan as a very young boy and I have always accepted that in the long run Australia will always be better than England at Cricket, just as we will always be better at football (and don't bring up that farce at Upton Park a few years ago)
And I do agree the England rugby team have been rubbish, but until the next World Cup they are still the World champions.
John
You might find (haven't been able to get stats) that there are actually more people playing cricket in the UK than Australia - 3 times more people and I'm pretty certain the participation rates are not 1/3 of what they are in Australia. You are perhaps forgetting too how much cricket is played, particularly by those of South Asian and Caribbean descent, in the Midlands and the North of England?
The 2005 open topped bus, packed Trafalgar Square, audience with PM and Queen, Queen's Birthday honours, Sports Personality awards etc, etc tell me that cricket is an important sport in England.
Perhaps the problem with the mediocre run of the mill County players is that they can make a living from cricket? It's not so long ago that the Ashes was between a team of professionals and a team of amateurs. The modern times of more money in the game, ACB contracts etc have tipped the scales the other way.[/QUOTE]
As I stated earlier the vast majority of professional cricketers in England are just not good enough. I have a friend over here that played at County level in England and he reckons that he would really struggle to hold down a place in a good regional town side over here. And like you I will not go hunting for statistics because I find that type of response very tedious and never tend to look at the source.
IMO that more people in Australia do or have played cricket than in England. I have been a fan ever since I saw my first game with my granddad watching Essex v Glamorgan as a very young boy and I have always accepted that in the long run Australia will always be better than England at Cricket, just as we will always be better at football (and don't bring up that farce at Upton Park a few years ago)
And I do agree the England rugby team have been rubbish, but until the next World Cup they are still the World champions.
John
Dec 18th 2006 | 10:08 pm
#18
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,650
From: Mornington
Re: no one mention the Ashes
I think that we will both have to agree to disagree as I am knackered and am off to bed.
Night, night.
John
Night, night.
John
Dec 18th 2006 | 10:46 pm
#19
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,949
From: Scotland
Re: no one mention the Ashes
Right, so your excuse is that the England players are not good enough! 
My first game was an Ashes Test at the MCG, also with my father, and I saw Warnie's 1st test at the 'G'.
Football (soccer), we didn't do too badly at the last WC eh, quarter finalists (and England would have won the whole thing if it weren't for Ronaldo winking and Carvalho giving Rooney the opportunity to kick him in the nuts). It will never be the main sport like it is in England and Scotland so I have to agree that England will always do better. We both aren't likely to win the WC though!
Technically of course you are correct, England are World Champions at Union but I guess everyone knows the All Blacks are the unofficial WC's presently?
OzTennis
As I stated earlier the vast majority of professional cricketers in England are just not good enough. I have a friend over here that played at County level in England and he reckons that he would really struggle to hold down a place in a good regional town side over here. And like you I will not go hunting for statistics because I find that type of response very tedious and never tend to look at the source.
IMO that more people in Australia do or have played cricket than in England. I have been a fan ever since I saw my first game with my granddad watching Essex v Glamorgan as a very young boy and I have always accepted that in the long run Australia will always be better than England at Cricket, just as we will always be better at football (and don't bring up that farce at Upton Park a few years ago)
And I do agree the England rugby team have been rubbish, but until the next World Cup they are still the World champions.
John[/QUOTE]
My first game was an Ashes Test at the MCG, also with my father, and I saw Warnie's 1st test at the 'G'.
Football (soccer), we didn't do too badly at the last WC eh, quarter finalists (and England would have won the whole thing if it weren't for Ronaldo winking and Carvalho giving Rooney the opportunity to kick him in the nuts). It will never be the main sport like it is in England and Scotland so I have to agree that England will always do better. We both aren't likely to win the WC though!
Technically of course you are correct, England are World Champions at Union but I guess everyone knows the All Blacks are the unofficial WC's presently?
OzTennis
Originally Posted by jond
[.
You might find (haven't been able to get stats) that there are actually more people playing cricket in the UK than Australia - 3 times more people and I'm pretty certain the participation rates are not 1/3 of what they are in Australia. You are perhaps forgetting too how much cricket is played, particularly by those of South Asian and Caribbean descent, in the Midlands and the North of England?
The 2005 open topped bus, packed Trafalgar Square, audience with PM and Queen, Queen's Birthday honours, Sports Personality awards etc, etc tell me that cricket is an important sport in England.
Perhaps the problem with the mediocre run of the mill County players is that they can make a living from cricket? It's not so long ago that the Ashes was between a team of professionals and a team of amateurs. The modern times of more money in the game, ACB contracts etc have tipped the scales the other way.
You might find (haven't been able to get stats) that there are actually more people playing cricket in the UK than Australia - 3 times more people and I'm pretty certain the participation rates are not 1/3 of what they are in Australia. You are perhaps forgetting too how much cricket is played, particularly by those of South Asian and Caribbean descent, in the Midlands and the North of England?
The 2005 open topped bus, packed Trafalgar Square, audience with PM and Queen, Queen's Birthday honours, Sports Personality awards etc, etc tell me that cricket is an important sport in England.
Perhaps the problem with the mediocre run of the mill County players is that they can make a living from cricket? It's not so long ago that the Ashes was between a team of professionals and a team of amateurs. The modern times of more money in the game, ACB contracts etc have tipped the scales the other way.
As I stated earlier the vast majority of professional cricketers in England are just not good enough. I have a friend over here that played at County level in England and he reckons that he would really struggle to hold down a place in a good regional town side over here. And like you I will not go hunting for statistics because I find that type of response very tedious and never tend to look at the source.
IMO that more people in Australia do or have played cricket than in England. I have been a fan ever since I saw my first game with my granddad watching Essex v Glamorgan as a very young boy and I have always accepted that in the long run Australia will always be better than England at Cricket, just as we will always be better at football (and don't bring up that farce at Upton Park a few years ago)
And I do agree the England rugby team have been rubbish, but until the next World Cup they are still the World champions.
John[/QUOTE]
Jan 2nd 2007 | 1:13 pm
#21
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 94,308
From: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Re: no one mention the Ashes
Brett Lee, Glenn McGrath and Stuart Clark all finished with three wickets as England were bowled out for 291 on day two of the final Ashes Test.
Jan 4th 2007 | 3:26 pm
#23
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,948
From: Adelaide, South Australia
Re: no one mention the Ashes
FIFTH TEST, SYDNEY, DAY FOUR - England 291 and 147 all out lose to Australia 393 and 46-0 by 10 wickets
Australia dismissed England for 147 early on, before knocking of the 46 runs needed in rapid fashion to take victory by 10 wickets and seal a historic 5-0 series win.
Well, that was easy.
Better luck next time, Poms!
Jan 4th 2007 | 3:37 pm
#24
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 244
Re: no one mention the Ashes
Other than that...not much you can say..is there?
Jan 4th 2007 | 4:15 pm
#25
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: no one mention the Ashes
FIFTH TEST, SYDNEY, DAY FOUR - England 291 and 147 all out lose to Australia 393 and 46-0 by 10 wickets
Australia dismissed England for 147 early on, before knocking of the 46 runs needed in rapid fashion to take victory by 10 wickets and seal a historic 5-0 series win.
Well, that was easy.
Better luck next time, Poms!
Jan 4th 2007 | 5:57 pm
#27
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: no one mention the Ashes
Let the excuses flow 
How long do you reckon it'll take the English press to come up with a reason why they can claim a moral victory
How long do you reckon it'll take the English press to come up with a reason why they can claim a moral victory
Jan 4th 2007 | 6:00 pm
#28
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 65,493
Re: no one mention the Ashes
They laughed anyway
Jan 5th 2007 | 1:42 am
#29
Forum Regular
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 237
From: by the sea in the convict state
Re: no one mention the Ashes
5 nil. Brilliant.
And less people in the nation too
And less people in the nation too
Jan 5th 2007 | 8:39 am
#30
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 244
Re: no one mention the Ashes
Unfortunately... their best was not quite in the same league or quality as that of our colonial opponents
