Ashes vs other cricket

[Matt79]

Actually, I wrote English fans [/discrimination]

 

[zaremba]

perish the thought!!

anyway when I applied once for a visa to go there it was refused

That'll be on account of your clean criminal record I imagine.

 

[Zinzan]

I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that generally speaking the Ashes mean more to the Pom's than the Aussie's. Be interesting to see how the poll-results end up.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah. I'd have said the reverse. Aussies have a pathological desire to beat up their allegorical father on the sporting field to prove some kind of point about our status.

I forget the England football manager's name that signed for a friendly with Australia, and fielded a second string team that was focusing on practising new tactics. We brought our best team and played out of our skins to fluke a win. In the ensuing outcry in England the manager, who was a Swede IIRC, said he hadn't been aware of the history and culture of Ashes contests, and if he'd known how the Aussies would approach it (as one of the most important games outside a WC we'd played) he would never have made the booking.

 

[Jakester1288]

I'm not nuteral, but I think it's a stupid question. I love the Ashes as much as the next bloke, but having the Ashes only would be dire, and they would get old, and the sense of competiton and excitement would disappear, making it a dull and lifeless game. Out of those two options, I would take other cricket, but I reckon it's awesome the way it is. The Ashes aren't coming around too often, and makes the build up and series so much more entertaining and exciting.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah. I'd have said the reverse. Aussies have a pathological desire to beat up their allegorical father on the sporting field to prove some kind of point about our status.

I forget the England football manager's name that signed for a friendly with Australia, and fielded a second string team that was focusing on practising new tactics. We brought our best team and played out of our skins to fluke a win. In the ensuing outcry in England the manager, who was a Swede IIRC, said he hadn't been aware of the history and culture of Ashes contests, and if he'd known how the Aussies would approach it (as one of the most important games outside a WC we'd played) he would never have made the booking.

Eriksson.

Weren't a fluke tho; you thoroughly merited the win which was (IIRC) your first in the round-ball code.

Agree with your broader gist tho; the fact that we finished above you in the Olympics' medals table for the first time since Adam was a lad (well, Montreal in 76, actually, I think) seemed to set off a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth down there, despite the fact that it was because of sports that 99% of British sports fans don't give a tuppeny toss about for 99% of the time.

The stock answer is that you're a (relatively) new nation with strong cultural ties to Mother England and are constantly trying to **** said mother in a sporting Oedipal way because you're seeking to establish your identity on the world stage. Not sure I buy it, but there's possibly a grain of truth.

 

[chaminda_00]

Congratulations to the following people on their illiteracy... tbh that's why I put in the fifth option, because I've no doubt this will seem a stupid question to neutral parties. To be fair however, so far the Aussie vote is 1-1 and the English vote is 3-1, with the 1 being a non-Englishman who didn't read the question properly.

I follow Australian cricket more then most of the Australian born ****s on this fourm. I demand a vote.

 

[Matt79]

The question is more one of the culture/values of two particular fan bases, rather than their knowledge of cricket. But if you consider yourself an Australian fan, go for it - was yanking Hak's chain a bit.

 

[Matt79]

Eriksson.

Weren't a fluke tho; you thoroughly merited the win which was (IIRC) your first in the round-ball code.

Agree with your broader gist tho; the fact that we finished above you in the Olympics' medals table for the first time since Adam was a lad (well, Montreal in 76, actually, I think) seemed to set off a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth down there, despite the fact that it was because of sports that 99% of British sports fans don't give a tuppeny toss about for 99% of the time.

The stock answer is that you're a (relatively) new nation with strong cultural ties to Mother England and are constantly trying to **** said mother in a sporting Oedipal way because you're seeking to establish your identity on the world stage. Not sure I buy it, but there's possibly a grain of truth.

Exactly. Sport is one field where Australia likes to feel that we can genuinely play with the big boys. And 200 years on, although much more dilute than was previously the case, Mother England remains the benchmark against which we measure ourselves in lots of ways...

 

[GIMH]

Ashes all the way, even if I do think said preoccupation is perhaps detrimental to our performance against other teams sometimes. You can't beat that feeling you get in the lead-up to an Ashes series. I won't mention how I feel during and after said series mind, having tasted victory once (we have won the Ashes three times in my life but I am too young to recall the first two)

 

[Uppercut]

There's no option for me, i.e. neutral and ASSSSHHHHHEEEEEESSSSS.

 

[Furball]

Congratulations to the following people on their illiteracy... tbh that's why I put in the fifth option, because I've no doubt this will seem a stupid question to neutral parties. To be fair however, so far the Aussie vote is 1-1 and the English vote is 3-1, with the 1 being a non-Englishman who didn't read the question properly.

When the poll options are as ******** as they are, then you can't blame people.