The unhealthy obsession with the Ashes

[Uppercut]

You know Dale, the criticism that should be leveled at England (or anyone who talks of Ashes being "the contest" ) is that stop finding ridiculous excuses for your miserable performances.

To believe this talk about the Ashes is to do exactly what is intended, overlook their inherent weaknesses.

Certainly, yeah.

I also despise the notion you alluded to before that players aren't trying because they're not playing Australia. You preferred not to use a stronger word, but i'm not quite the gentleman you are. So I'll say it's not silly, it's ****ing bollocks

 

[GIMH]

Agreed that was the best cricket I have seen Pakistan play in this decade. I don't think England got complacent its just that they were caught out by an in form Pakistan side.

We certainly were caught out, but there was no excuse for the collapse in Multan

 

[Top_Cat]

We certainly were caught out, but there was no excuse for the collapse in Multan

I dunno. I watched every ball of that collapse and Pakistan would have blown away anyone that day, I reckon. My mates and I still talk about it and none of them are either Pakistan or England fans!

 

[oitoitoi]

Yeah that was when Akhtar was around his best and Kaneria was a lot better than he is right now too. Despite him being a complete and utter ****, I have to say those 95mph inswinging yorkers Shoaib bowled were one of the great sights of cricket, pity his career turned out to be a cautionary tale to tell young players.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah that was when Akhtar was around his best and Kaneria was a lot better than he is right now too. Despite him being a complete and utter ****, I have to say those 95mph inswinging yorkers Shoaib bowled were one of the great sights of cricket, pity his career turned out to be a cautionary tale to tell young players.

Hehehe.

"Shoeeeb Aktaaar? Oo's ee?"


"Exactly!"

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah that was when Akhtar was around his best and Kaneria was a lot better than he is right now too. Despite him being a complete and utter ****, I have to say those 95mph inswinging yorkers Shoaib bowled were one of the great sights of cricket, pity his career turned out to be a cautionary tale to tell young players.

I thought the slower balls, like the one to get Bell, were the highlight myself.

 

[Steulen]

England can be ordinary, whilst at the same time doing no favours by always going on about The Ashes.

They're not mutually exclusive.

This.

I agree it is silly to suggest English players are only trying when they're up against Australia, but it can't be helpful to their focus that everything they do is placed in an Ashes context.

 

[luckyeddie]

England can be ordinary, whilst at the same time doing no favours by always going on about The Ashes.

They're not mutually exclusive.

Very, very true.

We had a decent side between 2004 and Boxing Day 2006, and we were rather comfortable and smug about it. It took an absolute pasting by Australia to wake us out of that comfort zone as the world's no 2 and make us look at ourselves, shake off our complacency and do something about it.

Two years later, we're crap, insular and still comfortable with it, because we don't need to use self-deprecation.

 

[tooextracool]

I dunno. I watched every ball of that collapse and Pakistan would have blown away anyone that day, I reckon. My mates and I still talk about it and none of them are either Pakistan or England fans!

That pitch was flat enough to have been able to chase down 198. I remember that collapse like it was yesterday for this was around the time when Pietersen thought he could balance the earth with his pinky and Flintoff and Geraint followed the advice from our beloved Duncan in deciding to sweep everything in sight except overlooking the minute detail that neither of them knew how to do so. I still get flashbacks of Pietersen trying to hammer everything in sight at Multan thinking that the same carefree approach with which he batted at the Oval would work at Multan only to edge a delivery from Sami that barely landed on the strip. Flintoff as per usual got caught out going for the sweep on the long on boundary.

England's bowling that tour and particularly in that first test was excellent, however the trend for that series was the batsmen continually let the team down by batting immaturely and treating the opposition bowlers with little respect. Pietersen for example was most guilty of doing so, his 2nd test dismissal involved trying to hook Shoaib out of the park, having just done so the ball before to get to his 100.

 

[Furball]

Because it makes them lose Series they should win?

That's a bit harsh perhaps, so let me elaborate. Every single time England play a Test match, regardless of the opposition, both the team itself, commentators, newspapers and fans (notable here on CW as well) put that Test into an Ashes perspective. "If we don't resolve our #3 conundrum, how can we win the Ashes?", and similar things like that, said during the first of a four-match series against West Indies, for instance.

To me, this implies that England are not trying to beat the current opposition but are always building towards the Ashes. "We don't know who to play at #3 but we'll try a few things out for now because we're not playing Australia".

On it's own I don't think that's such a bad thing.

Australia have been the number 1 side for a long time, surely it's logical that if you can build a side which competes with and beats Australia, then you'll do pretty well against the rest of the world?

 

[Top_Cat]

On it's own I don't think that's such a bad thing.

Australia have been the number 1 side for a long time, surely it's logical that if you can build a side which competes with and beats Australia, then you'll do pretty well against the rest of the world?

That's not the point, really. The point is, if you concentrate on one series to the exclusion of all others, you faff about losing to other opponents you should beat when winning those series' is incredibly important from a team balance/confidence perspective. England didn't just win in 2005 because they were good (they were good before then), they won because they'd spanked everyone else before them, the confidence garnered from that gave them the self-belief they needed and put Australia on notice. Was pretty clear they knew they could win well before the Ashes series because they already had a tried-and-tested winning combination.

And, by the way, England have barely won a Test series since 2005 and lost plenty they should have won. Having beaten the number 1 side doesn't guarantee you'll beat everyone and does nothing but re-enforce that every series is important. Team confidence isn't built from the top down, it's from the bottom up. England had this down pat frmo 2003-2005 and have forgotten it ever since.

 

[Furball]

That's not the point, really. The point is, if you concentrate on one series to the exclusion of all others, you faff about losing to other opponents you should beat when winning those series' is incredibly important from a team balance/confidence perspective. England didn't just win in 2005 because they were good (they were good before then), they won because they'd spanked everyone else before them, the confidence garnered from that gave them the self-belief they needed and put Australia on notice. Was pretty clear they knew they could win well before the Ashes series because they already had a tried-and-tested winning combination.

And, by the way, England have barely won a Test series since 2005 and lost plenty they should have won. Having beaten the number 1 side doesn't guarantee you'll beat everyone and does nothing but re-enforce that every series is important. Team confidence isn't built from the top down, it's from the bottom up. England had this down pat frmo 2003-2005 and have forgotten it ever since.

Totally agree, which is why I qualified my point with "on its own."

 

[Richard]

Well done to whoever moved all the relevant threads to this forum... but shouldn't this precisely be not in here?

 

[pasag]

Well done to whoever moved all the relevant threads to this forum... but shouldn't this precisely be not in here?

It's about the Ashes so despite being less than flattering it deserves to be in here, I reckon.

 

[Richard]

I thought it was about how The Ashes wasn't the be-all-and-end-all, about how cricket held so much more - and thus a discussion centring around people trying to state that cricket was more than just The Ashes.

Your call tho, obvs.

 

[Langeveldt]

I hate the fact that the Ashes gets its own forum on here, what is all that about? So it's more important then when number 1 in the world plays number 2? I don't know how that works

 

[Uppercut]

You need to think of a cooler name for the SA-Aus series IMO.

 

[four_or_six]

I hate the fact that the Ashes gets its own forum on here, what is all that about? So it's more important then when number 1 in the world plays number 2? I don't know how that works

It's just so great that against Australia we can have such a lot of arguments and yet it's all really friendly.

 

[GIMH]

I hate the fact that the Ashes gets its own forum on here, what is all that about? So it's more important then when number 1 in the world plays number 2? I don't know how that works

Maybe it's because it generates more posts than any other series? The fact that we ended up with a busy subforum last time out justified its existance. Aus-SA doesn't need its own forum, not because of the importance but because of the number of posts

I wasn't here in 2005, but have read through the thread and it was a cluster****, would have felt sorry for the mods having to move posts into that thread every twenty minutes

That's how it works...

 

[Langeveldt]

You need to think of a cooler name for the SA-Aus series IMO.

The Braai-Ashes or BBQ ashes, depending on who holds them