No Ashes for India and Pakistan

[Sanz]

The only I watched any of the 2005 series was because England finally had a team that could offer any competition. How many of the previous Ashes' did I care to watch with any interest ? none. I can't help it if you selectively concentrate on the Ind-Pak jingoism while ignoring the master-convict roots of the Ashes.

Thank You. It is a very valid point, the quality of the 2005 Ashes tests was so good that even neutrals were drawn to it, same can be said about Ind-Pak 1998-99 series. They were awesome. But how many neutrals would have watched Ind-Pak 2004, 2005 and 2006 for the sake of quality, was this quality in last 3 series any different from let's say an Eng-SA ?

As for the master-convict roots of ashes - Care to elaborate on why Ashes started only in 1882 some 5-6 years after Eng-Aus started playing tests ?

 

[Sanz]

And since you're not ready to see light, tell me Sanz, how many years do you suppose any competitive series has to last for before you would afford it 'rivalry' status ? I would really like to see you put a figure forward instead of all this obfuscation.

Forget no. of Years - First you need to start playing regularly. A series which is organized on the basis of Mercury readings of Delhi-Islamabad relations cant be equal to one of all time great rivalries in sport.

 

[Deja moo]

Thank You. It is a very valid point, the quality of the 2005 Ashes tests was so good that even neutrals were drawn to it, same can be said about Ind-Pak 1998-99 series. They were awesome. But how many neutrals would have watched Ind-Pak 2004, 2005 and 2006 for the sake of quality, was this quality in last 3 series any different from let's say an Eng-SA ?

And you make it sound as if we're arguing that the last series wasn't good Way to create a diversion! How many neutrals would have watched the 2004, 2005, 2006 ind-Pak series, do you say ? I say as many ( chances are high it'd have been greater, but I'll leave it at equal) as would have watched any of the Ashes series preceding the 2005 one.

As for the master-convict roots of ashes - Care to elaborate on why Ashes started only in 1882 some 5-6 years after Eng-Aus started playing tests ?

Because the convicts surprisingly managed to beat the masters ? Are you even going anywhere with this ?

 

[Deja moo]

Forget no. of Years - First you need to start playing regularly. A series which is organized on the basis of Mercury readings of Delhi-Islamabad relations cant be equal to one of all time great rivalries in sport.

Bangladesh and Australia could be playing series every 2 years, that wouldnt create a rivalry. What matters in a rivalry is the provision that both are able to compete at the level of the other.

 

[Sanz]

How many neutrals would have watched the 2004, 2005, 2006 ind-Pak series? I say as many ( chances are high it'd have been greater, but I'll leave it at equal) as would have watched any of the Ashes series preceding the 2005 one.

And why so ? Didn't some of you claim that they were much better in quality than Eng-Aus 1989-2004 ? Don't you think that such high quality contests would draw more neutral folks to watch the games, draw more spectators to stadiums ?

Because the convicts surprisingly managed to beat the masters ? Are you even going anywhere with this ?

Err who won the first test match between Australia and England ? So much for master and convicts.

 

[Sanz]

Bangladesh and Australia could be playing series every 2 years, that wouldnt create a rivalry. What matters in a rivalry is the provision that both are able to compete at the level of the other.

First of all BD and Australia have played only 3 tests in 6 years and will play another 3 until 2010, so no chance of any rivalry devloping there.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe compete with each other very wll, wow we have a new rivalry of Ashes magnitude now.

 

[C_C]

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.

No, i never said that tradition happens in 15-16 years. But tradition can be significantly weakened by 15-16 years of continous pilloring from one side. And tradition is secondary to quality of cricket when it comes to entertainment factor.

 

[Deja moo]

And why so ? Didn't some of you claim that they were much better in quality than Eng-Aus 1989-2004 ? Don't you think that such high quality contests would draw more neutral folks to watch the games, draw more spectators to stadiums ?

So enlighten me as to your sources which state that more neutrals watched the Ashes during ther 90s than the Ind-Pak series . Go on.

Err who won the first test match between Australia and England ? So much for master and convicts.

So you're saying that if someone burns a bail after the next Ind-Pak test and write out an obituary, we'd have a rivalry? Wierd criteria you've got there. And yes, master and convicts, deny it all you want. What was it that Botham said about Australia close to even a century after that test ? Did the word 'convict' figure ? Oh yes.

 

[Deja moo]

First of all BD and Australia have played only 3 tests in 6 years and will play another 3 until 2010, so no chance of any rivalry devloping there.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe compete with each other very wll, wow we have a new rivalry of Ashes magnitude now.

Its simple, if for some reason Aus decide to play Bangladesh every 2 years , they'd have a rivalry according to your skewed critereon.

 

[honestbharani]

Well Tata Indicom is basically Tata Teleservices. TCS just took over its IT department (My brother used to work for Tata Teleservices, and now he is in TCS).

I have never said TV is not the only medium and that was not the point, the point is Test matches are a lot less popular than ODIs and its reflected in poor attendance in the stadiums, lower TRP ratings of test viewership etc etc. It doesn't mean no one in India follows the test match , but just that it is significantly lower.

On the other hand England despite having a poor team for more than 15 years has pretty good attendance during test matches.

That is because Test cricket ITSELF is more popular amongst the English cricket fans than ODIs, even today. In the subcontinent, though, the ODIs are more popular than the tests. It is a general thing.


BTW, we had very very good attendances for both the 98/99 series and the 2005 series against Pak IN India. Test matches get poor attendances anyway in Pakistan. You could have an all time X! and an alltime second XI take on each other at their primes and you still won't get a decent crowd for a test in Pakistan.

 

[Sanz]

So enlighten me as to your sources which state that more neutrals watched the Ashes during ther 90s than the Ind-Pak series . Go on.

I have no way of knowing it, neither have you. When we look at this forum which is really unique in a sense that it has fans from almost every cricketing nation, check out the ashes thread and ind-pak thread and see for yourself where do you see more neutral fans..

So you're saying that if someone burns a bail after the next Ind-Pak test and write out an obituary, we'd have a rivalry? Wierd criteria you've got there.

Educate yourself first :- http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/BY_OPPONENT/AUS-ENG/HISTORY/

And yes, master and convicts, deny it all you want. What was it that Botham said about Australia close to even a century after that test ? Did the word 'convict' figure ? Oh yes.

And just because botham used the word 'Convicts' , it automatically becomes a master-convict rivalry. Now go and read little bit of Ashes history :-
http://www.334notout.com/ashes/reports/report6.htm

http://www.334notout.com/ashes/ashbegin.htm

So tomorrow if Ind-Eng were to have a rivalry, it would be because of our colonial background, isn't it ?

 

[Sanz]

Its simple, if for some reason Aus decide to play Bangladesh every 2 years , they'd have a rivalry according to your skewed critereon.

That fact is that I have no reason to believe that they will do anything of that sort, so why speculate.

 

[luckyeddie]

So enlighten me as to your sources which state that more neutrals watched the Ashes during ther 90s than the Ind-Pak series . Go on.

Were the Ashes series broadcast 'free to air' to the subcontinent?

Because the India v Pakistan series in the 1990's weren't carried by any broadcaster in the UK (satellite or terrestrial) as far as I can tell. The 2006 one was - strictly pay-per-view apart from day 1 (hence my comments about being able to cover all the spectators with a decent fishing umbrella).

(I'm including English cricket fans amongst the India v Pakistan neutrals here, and people on the subcontinent amongst the Ashes neutrals).

 

[honestbharani]

Were the Ashes series broadcast 'free to air' to the subcontinent?

Because the India v Pakistan series in the 1990's weren't carried by any broadcaster in the UK (satellite or terrestrial) as far as I can tell. The 2006 one was - strictly pay-per-view apart from day 1 (hence my comments about being able to cover all the spectators with a decent fishing umbrella).

(I'm including English cricket fans amongst the India v Pakistan neutrals here, and people on the subcontinent amongst the Ashes neutrals).

The Ashes was on FTA cable for a while in the 90s, since around 98 the sports channels have all become PAY channels, so there is no guarantee that a certain channel will be available in a certain city. Chennai got the worst of it. We live in a world with Set Top Boxes, while the rest of the country are still enjoying normal cable.

 

[Deja moo]

Were the Ashes series broadcast 'free to air' to the subcontinent?

Because the India v Pakistan series in the 1990's weren't carried by any broadcaster in the UK (satellite or terrestrial) as far as I can tell. The 2006 one was - strictly pay-per-view apart from day 1 (hence my comments about being able to cover all the spectators with a decent fishing umbrella).

(I'm including English cricket fans amongst the India v Pakistan neutrals here, and people on the subcontinent amongst the Ashes neutrals).

Ashes were broadcast on the paid sports channels. That doesn't mean anything though. Even neutral series involving the Bongs or Zim are broadcast here. Cricket sells here. In fact, the only series in recent memory we've not had broadcast here was the WI series to SL where Lara scored heavily.

 

[Deja moo]

That fact is that I have no reason to believe that they will do anything of that sort, so why speculate.

Because it tests the theory that regularity= rivalry.

 

[luckyeddie]

The Ashes was on FTA cable for a while in the 90s, since around 98 the sports channels have all become PAY channels, so there is no guarantee that a certain channel will be available in a certain city. Chennai got the worst of it. We live in a world with Set Top Boxes, while the rest of the country are still enjoying normal cable.

I think we can take it as read then that both Sanz and Deja Moo are asking rhetorical questions as to the relative popularity of the individual series in question, because there's no way of ever determining the answer, therefore to all intents and purposes there IS no answer.

A few words of explanation as to why I think that's the case...

Apart from the first day of the recent Pakistan v India series (and I think the same occurred the previous year when it was a 'sweetener'), there's little likelihood that many 'neutrals' in England would have seen much of India v Pakistan clashes - ever, and from that we can deduce the same for elsewhere.

Subscription TV would carry it if there is a market, but would the casual cricket fan buy in? Of course not. Many won't even when their own team is involved, so the neutral - even the diehard like me - is going to save up for something more relevant to personal interest. If it's on terrestrial TV then more would watch (and of course 15 years ago - am I allowed to go back that far? - there was only terrestrial TV) - but of course limited channels and tight schedules meant that Channel 4 in England felt obliged to curtail a live cricket broadcast in favour of a re-run of a soap opera so what chance would 'foreign' cricket have?

All right, a lot of words.

 

[luckyeddie]

Ashes were broadcast on the paid sports channels. That doesn't mean anything though. Even neutral series involving the Bongs or Zim are broadcast here. Cricket sells here. In fact, the only series in recent memory we've not had broadcast here was the WI series to SL where Lara scored heavily.

OK, I had no idea that was the case. So would the Ashes have been watched by thousands or millions - and did you watch?

/moves to India like C_C keeps telling me to

 

[Deja moo]

I have no way of knowing it, neither have you. When we look at this forum which is really unique in a sense that it has fans from almost every cricketing nation, check out the ashes thread and ind-pak thread and see for yourself where do you see more neutral fans..

Have you checked them ?

Educate yourself first :- http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/BY_OPPONENT/AUS-ENG/HISTORY/

Well done. So you post a link to something that elaborates on what I've already said, and think you're making some point ?

And just because botham used the word 'Convicts' , it automatically becomes a master-convict rivalry. Now go and read little bit of Ashes history :-
http://www.334notout.com/ashes/reports/report6.htm

http://www.334notout.com/ashes/ashbegin.htm

Sanz, I suggest you rid yourself of this sermonising mood. Posting links to stuff that proves nothing makes no sense.

So tomorrow if Ind-Eng were to have a rivalry, it would be because of our colonial background, isn't it ?

For that to be a cause for any Ind-Eng rivalry, it would have had to have begun much earlier than now, wouldn't it I doubt the present generation thinks of Ind-Eng cricket from that angle.

 

[honestbharani]

Ashes were broadcast on the paid sports channels. That doesn't mean anything though. Even neutral series involving the Bongs or Zim are broadcast here. Cricket sells here. In fact, the only series in recent memory we've not had broadcast here was the WI series to SL where Lara scored heavily.

Actually, we did get the second and third tests of that series LIVE too on Sony Max. And Hallelujah for that. I totally LOVED that Lara special in the 3rd test, in both innings in fact.