No Ashes for India and Pakistan

[C_C]

Yes, and those are the 2 or 3 exceptions.

In one case you're choosing a period to highlight as proof that one series is poor, yet on the other you're ignoring the overwhelming majority of series to make your point seem right.

So which is it or are you going to select the games to suit your argument?

I've said that a 10-15 year span is quite sufficient to establish any 'modern trend' in the matter.

 

[luckyeddie]

I've said that a 10-15 year span is quite sufficient to establish any 'modern trend' in the matter.

The teams haven't played each other enough to establish much of a trend one way or another.

Out of 26 games between India and Pakistan in Pakistan, just 9 had a positive result.
Out of 30 games between India and Pakistan in India, just 11 had a positive result.

In other words, 2 out of every 3 games in the entire history of the series ended in a draw. Now I appreciate that there is such a thing as a 'good' draw, but a quick look at many of the scoreboards leads one to the inevitable conclusion that many were tedious wars of attrition.

Is a tedious draw better than a game with a positive result - even a thrashing?

 

[marc71178]

I've said that a 10-15 year span is quite sufficient to establish any 'modern trend' in the matter.

So what has modern trends got to do with the historical view that's being discussed?

 

[C_C]

So what has modern trends got to do with the historical view that's being discussed?

Modern trend influences historical views. Everything dies after a time and everything waxes and wanes in popularity. It is irrelevant if duelling was *THE* sport for hundreds of years, what is relevant is that it is a dead sport now. Likewise, it is irrelevant that the Ashes is the oldest and most storied contest ( though from a historical perspective, i would rate the Frank Worrell Trophy as the one which has provided the highest quality of cricket until the last 5-6 years). What is relevant to the point i was making is that over the past 15 years, it has been a shambolic display of cricket, with poor quality cricket and one sided affairs dominating the game, the latest Ashes series notwithstanding.

Eddie - yes, i know that IND-PAK hasnt played each other much in the last 15 years. But i do think that 3 series in the span of 7-8 years is a good enough sample space to compare, atleast for those 7-8 years.
I extended it to 15 odd years because the Ashes has been hopelessly one-sided since 1990 or so.

 

[C_C]

Is a tedious draw better than a game with a positive result - even a thrashing?

I would say that personally, any contest that is one-sided is worse than a closely matched but no-results scenario. Ofcourse, the question you ask - are tedious draws better than innings and 100 runs victories- is something that ultimately boils down to prefference. But regardless, the latest IND-PAK series was a tedious affair, the 3 preceeding that were excellent affairs. The Ashes over the past 15 years have been one big chain of one-sided affairs with the last series proving to be the only exception.

 

[luckyeddie]

I would say that personally, any contest that is one-sided is worse than a closely matched but no-results scenario. Ofcourse, the question you ask - are tedious draws better than innings and 100 runs victories- is something that ultimately boils down to prefference. But regardless, the latest IND-PAK series was a tedious affair, the 3 preceeding that were excellent affairs. The Ashes over the past 15 years have been one big chain of one-sided affairs with the last series proving to be the only exception.

Like I said before - you can play for the Ashes of Ganguly's house if you like (another series defeat and who knows ), but 3 decent series does not a tradition make, neither does 15 rubbish years a tradition break.

This is one of those situations where age (or rather 'being there') is everything to the viewpoint, because no matter how hard you study the scorecards or how great the writer, you cannot distil the passion of the time and put it on to the page of a book. You've got to experience it yourself - the hype, the lead-up, the dreams and yes, even the bitter taste of disappointment.

I remember Ashes series from 40 years ago, Jamesicus from 60 and more, and that's why I reckon that 3 series is not worth talking about, and 15 years barely a blink - and no matter how one-sided, that doesn't dent the tradition.

 

[Deja moo]

Eddie, it does. The majority of cricket fans arent 50 years old.

 

[marc71178]

So because people aren't old, that means that traditions have to change to ignore the first 80odd years of Cricket?

 

[C_C]

So because people aren't old, that means that traditions have to change to ignore the first 80odd years of Cricket?

Traditions always change !
the tradition of duelling also changed!

 

[luckyeddie]

Traditions always change !
the tradition of duelling also changed!

Drip by drip by drip - what you and moo seem to be doing is to REPLACE one by inventing another.

The point I have been making consistently is that time is the judge of these things.

 

[Deja moo]

So because people aren't old, that means that traditions have to change to ignore the first 80odd years of Cricket?

Do you ignore the first 4000 years of history ? Yes. Traditions do change.

 

[Deja moo]

Drip by drip by drip - what you and moo seem to be doing is to REPLACE one by inventing another.

The point I have been making consistently is that time is the judge of these things.

I fail to see how. It has been a consistent stand that a long timeline does not equal tradition if the the quality has been sufficiently diluted. And have the Ashes haven't involved a rivalry over the 90s and first half of the 2000s ...

 

[luckyeddie]

I fail to see how. It has been a consistent stand that a long timeline does not equal tradition if the the quality has been sufficiently diluted. And have the Ashes haven't involved a rivalry over the 90s and first half of the 2000s ...

You really haven't understood a word I've said, because each time you have put your own interpretation on to it.

I stick to my original assertion that what constitutes tradition is age-related - the younger the person, the shorter the period they consider is necessary for something to actually qualify as 'a long time'.

You and C_C are talking about a tradition being possible to establish over a period of 15 years - that's just about the length of a decent international cricketer's career.

I fear we shall never agree on this matter until you are a little older.

 

[Deja moo]

So, what do you reckon is a decent time frame for a cricketing tradition ?

 

[luckyeddie]

So, what do you reckon is a decent time frame for a cricketing tradition ?

A lot longer now than I thought 30 years ago, and not as long as I'll think in another 30.

 

[Deja moo]

Which is where the factoring in of the viewers age comes in, doesnt it ? For the majority of the viewing public, I don't think they'd have witnessed anything beyond the 90s.

 

[Sanz]

Which is where the factoring in of the viewers age comes in, doesnt it ? For the majority of the viewing public, I don't think they'd have witnessed anything beyond the 90s.

Majority have not witnessed Don Bradman either, doesn't mean Sachin Tendulkar is better.

 

[Deja moo]

Majority have not witnessed Don Bradman either, doesn't mean Sachin Tendulkar is better.

Except that Bradman was one single player over his entire career, whereas the Ashes involves 2 entire nations, the Ashes team of 1980 is not the same as the Ashes team of 1995. Big and simple difference.

 

[luckyeddie]

Except that Bradman was one single player over his entire career, whereas the Ashes involves 2 entire nations, the Ashes team of 1980 is not the same as the Ashes team of 1995. Big and simple difference.

If it'll make you happy, I am glad to concede that India v Pakistan is the greatest series of all time, followed closely by India v Sri Lanka, and that all contests between Australia and England be struck from the record books on the grounds that they are rubbish, with the exception of matches involving the Nawab of Pataudi Sr or K.S. Ranjitsinhji (whose runs ought to count double).

 

[Deja moo]

If it'll make you happy, I am glad to concede that India v Pakistan is the greatest series of all time, followed closely by India v Sri Lanka, and that all contests between Australia and England be struck from the record books on the grounds that they are rubbish, with the exception of matches involving the Nawab of Pataudi Sr or K.S. Ranjitsinhji (whose runs ought to count double).

Actually you've captured my mood perfectly, in reverse of course. I was just thinking how the Ashes would always be the bestest series ever even 100 years from now on, because obviously any other series would always be 120-x years odd younger than the Ashes. After all thats the important critereon, the jumpstart that the Ashes have had.