If your assessment is truly based on the 2004, 2005 series too, our tastes obviously differ. As for jingoism, the Ashes has been 99% 'jingoism' for almost 2 decades before the last series. So you can forget about claiming that as a factor. The last 2 India-England series (except for the Headingley test) were absolute bores. If anything, I'd have chosen the India-Australia series if I were in your place trying to justify that position.Sanz said:
Yes, but for the first 30 years of the India v Pakistan series, both sides were rubbish. Now they're both good, no-one wants to watch. What's that about, then?C_C said:
In India and Pakisan, test cricket tends to be followed predominantly from television rather than be on site- part of the reason why day/night encounters are so popular in the subcontinent is because of that- you'll find the same thing in Sri Lanka for example- people dont have time to go to the grounds 5 days in a row.luckyeddie said:
Ashes was dying affair ? Is that why there were more people watching Ashes than Ind-Pak cricket in Pak despite the population of Eng/ausbeing 1/50th of Ind-Pak Population ?C_C said:
How can Ashes be about Jingoism to a person who is neither a pom nor an aussie ?Deja moo said:
I watched the first day of the first test match between Pakistan and India (the freeby sweetener from the tv company), but if you had grouped every single spectator together, you could have covered most of them with a decent sized fishing umbrella. Not exactly what I expected for such an eagerly anticipated series.C_C said:
What you say are also applicable in the case of the Ashes- biassed umpiring in the era of home umpires were dime a dozen for every single team.
That's ridiculous argument, people have time to follow the game over television but not in the ground ? Also You are assuming that same group of people will go to the ground 5 days in a row ? Contarary to the belief, people in India have more time than people in England or any other countries, Its a fact that longer version of game isn't that popular in the Subcontinent more so in Pakistan.C_C said:
Did you check the # of people watching it from TV or following it through radio ? Or is there a high falutan cosmic rule somewhere stating that inorder to be counted as a fan, thou must try to secure a ticket at the venue ?luckyeddie said:
Yes. they do. Far far more time to follow it through television than going to the ground.Sanz said:
The sub continent is predominantly a television watching audience when it comes to tests.Sanz said:
Rivalry being defined as 'The act of competing or emulating' . Now I have failed to see either England competing with Australia over almost 20 years, let alone emulating them. No competition = no rivalry. There might have been a rivalry before then, there might be one after this last series, but sorry, all that existed for the last 2 decades was eternal optimism on the part of the English, and series after series mooching off past glory.
There was a time in the 90s when Australia dominated England to the rtune of 16-5, in fact if it were not for dead rubbers inevitable in their 5 match series', it would probably have been 18-3 or something. The matches that were played were heavily influenced by one team beating the other to pulp. Purely merit, no umpiring biases, placing a question mark on the existance of a 'rivalry' . If what occured over those 2 decades is rivalry, then meh, suit yourself. India and Pakistan might have played draw after draw, but there never was a period when one test team was consistently the others female dog.
No, of course I didn't take into account people watching the game through television or listening on the radio - I was merely stating a simple fact that not many people were sufficiently motivated to get off their fat behinds and go along to the first day of the first game.C_C said:
No, It has never been as blatatant as it has been in case of India Pakistan throughout the 80s (that's when I started watching cricket).C_C said:
Well I have no way of knowing it, Please enlighten us with the source you have been reading all through.
What has that got to do with people going in to the stadiums to watch the game ? These are low income group people and they are least likely to go to any game, be it ODI, Tests, D/N, Day, Ranji whatever form of game you talk about. It doesn't explain how stadium can be full for 10 ODIs but empty for most of the Tests.
That explains why ODIs are packed..
It is because those guys take their fat behinds to work and work 10-12 hours a day, not mentioning commuting. And that is why even sometimes one day matches held during the daytime are undersold in the subcontinent. People dont have as much time or money to waste back there as they do in England or Australia. I can afford to quit my job right now and coast for the next 2-3 months before i would need a new job. 99.9% subcontinental folks cannot afford to miss a day's work.luckyeddie said:
Way to generalise and make a big issue about nothing at all as usual.C_C said:
Utter Bull. Michael Holding, Gavaskar, Viv Richards, Imran Khan, Garry Sobers, etc. are all on record saying that the most biassed umpiring they've ever faced has come from England or Australia. I would take their word over your's.
Perhaps you would like to contact the relevant media outlets to get their viewership numbers. My way of knowing it is spending time in the subcontinent living there. I've seen more people huddled around a tv or radio, spending anywhere between 10minutes to 30 minutes before being whisked away for work only to return than the entire population of England.
Because ODIs in the subcontinent are mostly day/night affairs. One can sometimes steal oneself away for a day if the person knows the whole deal will be over within the day. There is simply no point in going to the ground for TEST cricket, waste a whole day and not know the outcome. Better to follow it in patches and inbetween work. Or atleast, that is the common subcontinental mentality. That can't be construed as a lack of interest in test cricket- mere pragmatism aligned with the thrill factor.
If you think that working 10-12 hours a day not counting commute is a 'generalisation', i got news for you - take a plane trip to India and spend a few weeks there, not in some airy fairy hotel but mingling with the people.luckyeddie said:
That's not true, I lived in India for close to 25 years and as per my experience people were not interested in watching TEST Cricket at all except for the 5th day (or Final day of the test). They do flock to the stadiums when an extra ordinary performance is going on..e.g. Lax 281 and Dravid 180 @ Edens, Stadiums were empty until the 3rd day but from 4th afternoon onwards..it was packed.Deja moo said:
20 years ?? I guess you need to watch the series in 80s and late 90s. They were fairly competitive for the most part. Yes 2000s were fairly one sided but the last ashes series topped every ashes I have followed so far.
Yeah a 3-2 and 2-1 until the 4th test (3-1 after 5th test) are one sided sided games worse than 0-0 series played on dead tracks.
There was no way of finding this because a. Home umpires would make sure that hosts dont lose b. Pitches would be ROADs.
16-5 overall. Pretty one-sided.
home umpires were more pro-home team in the OZ and ENG than in IND or PAK. several independent cricketers ( predominantly west indian ones- who are neutral to this whole perspective) have claimed so. I will take their word for it rather than perceptions fostered through the media.