No Ashes for India and Pakistan

[SJS]

I think the key issue here is not actually that these two tests ruin Ind-Pak cricket, because obviously they don't. The point is that if India and Pakistan wish a cricketing history to rival the Ashes, this is the wrong way to go about getting it.

The last few series were a step in the right direction. Finally, India and Pakistan were playing regularly, high standard, competitive test series. People were watching, and the rivalry was developing a history. This series killed that, at least for the time being. Now, people are looking back over the history of cricket between India and Pakistan, and the last few series look like an aberration, rather than a move forward to a genuine great rivalry.

The Ashes might have been relatively uncompetitive for a decade or so, but it was still worthwhile cricket. England competed, Australia played well, there were legendary performances, memories, and so on. It wasn't a complete and utter waste of time like the current series is. The period of Australian dominance of the Ashes had the Gatting ball, Butcher's 170 odd, Waugh's last ball century, McGrath and Gillespie's 7-fers in 1997, England managing upset wins and Australia performing brilliantly and demolishing competent opposition, and many other things. If those things hadn't happened, cricket would be worse off for it, and some one-sided series didn't diminish the history of the Ashes.

All of those things add to the history of the series. In fact, the mere fact that Australia had dominated for years made the series last year even more riveting, as it was England's chance to turn it around. What does the current series between India and Pakistan offer in terms of memories? What does it add to the history of the series, or to the rivalry between the teams? The simple fact is, unless the final test is an absolute classic, we'll look back on this current series when it is over and wish it had never happened. You can't say that about any Ashes series in recent times, no matter how one-sided they were.

I think that was the point of SJS's post.

Thanks mate.

Though when I wrote it, I honestly didnt think it would be so difficult to understand that

 

[SJS]

Interestingly enough, people turned up in great numbers to watch the second test. The last day crowd was one of the biggest and noisiest I have ever seen in a home test match.

I wonder why those people wasted their time coming to the stadium if they didn't find the contest entertaining.

Shahid Afridi

 

[SJS]

The chances of all 3 results being possible were if you were to believe the words of diehard Indian and Pakistani fans.

You said it !

 

[Pratters]

The Ashes might have been relatively uncompetitive for a decade or so, but it was still worthwhile cricket. England competed..

Oh really? They were whacked in the last decade or so and havent been competitive before the last Ashes. India-Pakistan has had two tests which haven't been fruitful. It doesn't mean a lot in the larger scheme of things of a rivalry.

Ashes over its history has been a great rivalry much better than India-Pakistan obviously. Recently though, India-Pakistan has had a dampener but nothing else. It is one of the bigger rivalries in world cricket and you would be kidding yourself to think a few tests will harm that.

 

[Slats4ever]

i agree with faiips argument. india and pakistan shouldn't even try to compete or compare themselves with the ashes. The reasons the ashes is what it is, is because of it's history being the longest in the game.

India and Pakistan I see is closer to Australia and NZ tests.

 

[TIF]

You said it !

It looks like I have finally found my answer as to why you didnt find this series interesting

So now there is no point in arguing or even talking about it further.

 

[GotSpin]

i still think it takes a bit of skill, mainly concentration to score such huge totals
*whistles* yep anyway...

 

[marc71178]

Oh really? They were whacked in the last decade or so and havent been competitive before the last Ashes.

Depends what you mean as competitive.

Last series Down Under they may have lost 3-1 but bearing in mind the chronic injuries I dare say it would've been a lot closer without them.

 

[Pratters]

Depends what you mean as competitive.

Competitive would be well fought. Like the Eng-RSA series was competitive despite the ultimate result. I wouldn't go into specific Ashes but it is no secret the Ashes since I have started watching them haven't been competitive over all except the last series.

 

[Jono]

Depends what you mean as competitive.

Last series Down Under they may have lost 3-1 but bearing in mind the chronic injuries I dare say it would've been a lot closer without them.

Firstly, it was 4-1.

And the bottom line was it wasn't competitive. The first 3 tests were as far from competitive as one could imagine. Injuries did hurt England, there's no denying that, and the series suffered as a result with Australia winning by 300+ runs in the first test, and two consecutive innings wins after that. The series was finished there and there. However there's no ifs and buts about what it would have been had injuries not occured, and it doesn't remove the fact that English cricket had suffered, throughout the 90s (such as losing cricket fans) due to their mediocrity.

The fact is, before the 2001 series the Frank Worrell Trophy was the most competitive and exciting series in cricket. Not the Ashes, not Ind/Pak, not Ind/Aus. When WI/Aus turned into uncompetitive drubbings at the hands of the Aussies, people stopped raving about it and the insults flew at WI cricket. However the Ashes was always held in high regard and put higher than all other series because of its rich history and tradition, not because of how competitive cricket between the nations had been recently such was the case the Aus/WI series. The same is occuring with the Ind/Aus series. They are now being looked forward to because of how competitive and exciting the cricket has been as of late.

It seems, the history and rivalry of Eng/Aus alone can put the Ashes above all else. It doesn't matter how competitive the cricket is. For an Indian or Pakistani fan, the same may exist with the Ind/Pak series which have taken place recently. It is still, from their perspective, the main series in world cricket. And 2 boring draws doesn't suddenly take away from that.

 

[honestbharani]

Firstly, it was 4-1.

And the bottom line was it wasn't competitive. The first 3 tests were as far from competitive as one could imagine. Injuries did hurt England, there's no denying that, and the series suffered as a result with Australia winning by 300+ runs in the first test, and two consecutive innings wins after that. The series was finished there and there. However there's no ifs and buts about what it would have been had injuries not occured, and it doesn't remove the fact that English cricket had suffered, throughout the 90s (such as losing cricket fans) due to their mediocrity.

The fact is, before the 2001 series the Frank Worrell Trophy was the most competitive and exciting series in cricket. Not the Ashes, not Ind/Pak, not Ind/Aus. When WI/Aus turned into uncompetitive drubbings at the hands of the Aussies, people stopped raving about it and the insults flew at WI cricket. However the Ashes was always held in high regard and put higher than all other series because of its rich history and tradition, not because of how competitive cricket between the nations had been recently such was the case the Aus/WI series. The same is occuring with the Ind/Aus series. They are now being looked forward to because of how competitive and exciting the cricket has been as of late.

It seems, the history and rivalry of Eng/Aus alone can put the Ashes above all else. It doesn't matter how competitive the cricket is. For an Indian or Pakistani fan, the same may exist with the Ind/Pak series which have taken place recently. It is still, from their perspective, the main series in world cricket. And 2 boring draws doesn't suddenly take away from that.

awesome post, Jono. You hit the nail smack on the head.

 

[Fusion]

Firstly, it was 4-1.

And the bottom line was it wasn't competitive. The first 3 tests were as far from competitive as one could imagine. Injuries did hurt England, there's no denying that, and the series suffered as a result with Australia winning by 300+ runs in the first test, and two consecutive innings wins after that. The series was finished there and there. However there's no ifs and buts about what it would have been had injuries not occured, and it doesn't remove the fact that English cricket had suffered, throughout the 90s (such as losing cricket fans) due to their mediocrity.

The fact is, before the 2001 series the Frank Worrell Trophy was the most competitive and exciting series in cricket. Not the Ashes, not Ind/Pak, not Ind/Aus. When WI/Aus turned into uncompetitive drubbings at the hands of the Aussies, people stopped raving about it and the insults flew at WI cricket. However the Ashes was always held in high regard and put higher than all other series because of its rich history and tradition, not because of how competitive cricket between the nations had been recently such was the case the Aus/WI series. The same is occuring with the Ind/Aus series. They are now being looked forward to because of how competitive and exciting the cricket has been as of late.

It seems, the history and rivalry of Eng/Aus alone can put the Ashes above all else. It doesn't matter how competitive the cricket is. For an Indian or Pakistani fan, the same may exist with the Ind/Pak series which have taken place recently. It is still, from their perspective, the main series in world cricket. And 2 boring draws doesn't suddenly take away from that.

Great post, specially the last paragraph. I think quite a few non-subcontinental fans are being defensive about the Ind/Pak series being compared to the Ashes. I don't think this debate about which series is bigger can be won by either side, however to say that two boring draws totally take the Ind/Pak series out of the debate itself is ridiculous.

 

[Sanz]

Firstly, it was 4-1.

And the bottom line was it wasn't competitive. The first 3 tests were as far from competitive as one could imagine. Injuries did hurt England, there's no denying that, and the series suffered as a result with Australia winning by 300+ runs in the first test, and two consecutive innings wins after that. The series was finished there and there. However there's no ifs and buts about what it would have been had injuries not occured, and it doesn't remove the fact that English cricket had suffered, throughout the 90s (such as losing cricket fans) due to their mediocrity.

The point you are not getting is depspite being mediocre the English didn't prepare those graveyard pitches where bowlers would stand no chance and and any tommy could whack world's best bowlers at will. English were not afraid to lose.

I am not saying that this Pakistan team would have lost the series to India, but the fact is that they didn't even want to compete, they didn't even want to give India a chance to compete (i.e. go for a win). They were so defensive about not losing the test series that they prepared flattest possible wickets where their batsmen could make huge scores and then expect India to falter like England did.

And personally I dont think India-Pakistan cricket has any tradition like Ashes, its popularity was/is based on the animosity between the two countries.

 

[Fusion]

And personally I dont think India-Pakistan cricket has any tradition like Ashes, its popularity was/is based on the animosity between the two countries.

So? Rivalries grow due to various different reasons. Whether the reasons are geographic allignment, shared history, political tension etc, the point is a rivalry is born. To be frank, isn't a rivalry just that more exciting if there is political tension involved (whether past or present)? Look at the U.S/Soviet rivalries in the past Olympics. Was that not exciting? To say that the Eng/Aus rivalry is better because it's based on tradition, not animosity, is not a valid argument IMO. By the way, the Pak/Ind rivalry may not have the history of the Ashes, but it's still got a good amount of tradition/history behind it as well.

 

[Deja moo]

To those who rubbish/put down India-Pakistan cricket because of one poor series, while defending the Ashes despite the long England-owned-by-Australia period..... does the word 'ironic' not ring a bell ?

 

[swede]

This series does hurt the standing of the pak v Ind test series because they havent played regularly and still play relatively short series compared to the ashes.
surely a series like this and next time round even more people there focus only on the ODIs.

It shouldnt be a discussion about whether the ashes is bigger than Ind v Pak but a question of why cant these pitches be fixed once and for all.

If Pakistan are to be believed then this is purely accidental.
Well, if the greatest series is destroyed because of accidentally bad pitches then surely that should be the number issue for all cricket fans and certainly it should top the agenda of the ICC. In fact it should be the only thing on the agenda.

we are talking about the top level of the sport completly ruined and there isnt likely to be any real reaction beyond a shrug of shoulders as if its just inevitable.

Imagine the football world cup final this year. Both goals collapse and nobody has bothered about replacements. Goals cannot be scored.
Both teams just go on playing somekind of pretend-game, perhaps to see if one of the players can juggle the ball for a record or perhaps achieve the highest number of corners.

Imagine then that the various governing bodies show little or no real interest in solving the problem. Its way way beyond unthinkable, but whats the difference really.
These games are played in impossible conditions and do the boards and the ICC truly care.
Its ridiculous. I cannot think of any other sport making such a joke of itself

 

[Sanz]

So? Rivalries grow due to various different reasons. Whether the reasons are geographic allignment, shared history, political tension etc, the point is a rivalry is born. To be frank, isn't a rivalry just that more exciting if there is political tension involved (whether past or present)?

NO, rivalries due to political tensions are UGLY and I want no part of it. Its like having Britain and Argentina rivalry in soccer (is there any ?).

Look at the U.S/Soviet rivalries in the past Olympics. Was that not exciting?

Like the 1980 and 1984 olympics where hald the world didn't play ?? Hardly exciting for me.

To say that the Eng/Aus rivalry is better because it's based on tradition, not animosity, is not a valid argument IMO. By the way, the Pak/Ind rivalry may not have the history of the Ashes, but it's still got a good amount of tradition/history behind it as well.

I never said eng/aus rivalry is better, I dont think it can ever be (obviously from an Indian/Pakistani fans perspective). I just said that Indo-Pak rivalry has close to Zero tradidion compared to Ashes. Rivalry due to political tension is no good, we didn't get to play a series for 10 years, and that cant be good in any way.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

To those who rubbish/put down India-Pakistan cricket because of one poor series, while defending the Ashes despite the long England-owned-by-Australia period..... does the word 'ironic' not ring a bell ?

Irony doesn't apply.

The Ashes might have been one-sided for a decade, but none of the series were a waste of time.

 

[swede]

when it comes to throwing they can gear up players with electronics and let them be judged by biomechanics experts, why cant the same be done to pitches?

Let the ICC employ pitch experts who can measure how a pitch plays and set minimum and maximum standards etc. Come down very hard on anyone preparing infit pitches. If necessary go further. force countries to prepare several pitches and then let the expert pick what he thinks is best, if it really has to come to that,

Its ironic they have developed hi-tech investigations into throwing and that there is an ongoing debate about the use of super-advanced technology to assist umpires, but all for nothing as it all takes place on catastrophic pitches

 

[Deja moo]

Irony doesn't apply.

The Ashes might have been one-sided for a decade, but none of the series were a waste of time.

Why not ? It was a given that Australia would win every series.