Talk:The Ashes
|
|
Template:Fac Template:Oldpeerreview Template:OldCricketCOTF Votes:
- Support and very topical this year, jguk 12:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support Would be nice to get this up to featured fairly soon to have it on the Main Page on the first day of the series. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support Tintin1107 18:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support Needs a picture, and the tour details need to be moved to another page. (It makes it too long). The Ashes will make an interesting read. =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
Discussion
NB: This appeared on the page one of the mirror on Monday, September 3 2001:
"In affectionate rembrance of arrogant, penalty-scoring, and downright bloody irritating German football, which died at the Olimpiastadion, Munich, on 1st September, 2001. Deeply unlamented by a large circle of English football fans, RIP.
NB: The body of Oliver Kahn's gloves will be cremated and the ashes taken to England."
I wasn't sure about the formatting of the results list so I left it as one long, left justified bullet list. Also, the data is cut and pasted from a BBC site http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/the_ashes/history/2190854.stm I know data like this is in the public domain but did it need to be reformatted to avoid copyright violation? Gest 17:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmm, it's a pretty minimal formatting. I doubt it'll cause a problem. Although it could use prettying up a bit. I'll give it a go when I get time. dmmaus 22:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Wow. I thought I might be going overboard with all those results but it's impressive what you've done with it. One thing though; I called it the Tournament history as a series refers to the matches from one year as opposed to the hundred odd. I sort of prefer series anyway though.Gest 02:00, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Well I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it a tournament. I think using "series" to mean all of the series is fair enough, as it can be a plural. And hopefully some other people will fill in details of all the other ones! --dmmaus 03:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The 1989 Ashes series was a notable series as well. People still vividly recall this series some considerable time after it was played.
It was front page news in Australia back in '89.
I've changed Melbourne 2002/03 from being a "comfortable" to a "fairly comfortable" five-wicket win, since from what I remember about listening to it on the radio, there always seemed to be a chance - albeit a slim one - that the Australians would fall victim to one of their notorious collapses when chasing small totals. I know what-ifs can be distracting, but if Gilchrist had fallen for nought, for example, and therefore left the Aussies 90/6, the result might have been much closer. Loganberry 22:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Improving this article
Some thoughts on what this article should include (some of which is already there, some of which isn't):
- Description of how the Ashes started
- Plum Warner retakes the Ashes (and re-popularises the term)
- A brief summary paragraph of each series - highlights being Bodyline and the 1981 series
- How other sports have borrowed the term
- Picci of the urn
- Piccis of leading figures in Ashes history - some of Bligh, Warner, Jardine, Bradman, Larwood, Botham, Lillee, Alderman, Warne
- The series results - but summarised in a table
jguk 15:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think the table of results takes up an extraordinary amount of the article, and makes it look quite cluttered. How about creating List of Ashes series to take this away? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea, and that list also means we can link from the list to individual series when/if we start to write articles about those. Maybe sectioning the write-up paragraphs into "eras" (i.e. Aussie dominance from 87 till today, Bradman's era of the 30s and 40s) with Bodyline and '81 standing alone? Sam Vimes 12:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Suggestion for what the list might look like:
- etc. Sam Vimes 12:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I've modified the headings to make it short and sweet. I feel that the table should be expanded horizontally to have four columns or six columns. =Nichalp (Talk)= 14:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't sound correct - "Injuries to Botham and a less professional attitude hampered the English game after the classic 1981 series, and even though they took two series after 1981, the series were all close and could have gone the other way." The 1985 series could have gone only one way. 1986/7 too, while the early impression was that England 'can't bat, can't bowl, can't field', Australia never had a chance in the Tests. Tintin 08:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, rewritten now. If you still don't feel it describes it accurately, edit it again. :) Sam Vimes 08:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Headings
How about these headings
==The obituary== (can be renamed) ==Notable series == ===First quest === ===Bodyline=== ===The invincibles=== ===Botham's Ashes === === 2003 in Australia === (should be renamed) ==The trophy== ==The Ashes today== (a mention of how the series is viewed today by England, Australia, other test nations and the world media) ==Misc== ==Trivia== ==See also== ==External links== ==References==
=Nichalp (Talk)= 14:56, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I think we should have a section on Plum Warner's tour of 1903/4. It was the first under the auspices of the MCC, and it repopularised the Ashes myth thanks to his book How We Recovered The Ashes. We should also have a section on how the name is also used in other sports, and also describe in a very high overview what happened in other series. Kind regards, jguk 17:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've renamed the section "2003 in Australia" to "Steve Waugh's last Ashes" - think that's the most memorable thing that happened during the series (although it was also Alec Stewart's and Andy Caddick's last). As for used in other sports, isn't it only rugby league who use the term Ashes? Sam Vimes 18:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- I thought it was more sports than that - doesn't netball have Ashes? I'll have to do some (entirely unoriginal, of course) research, jguk 18:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- While being good reading (and perhaps worthy of another article), I think jguk's series overview is going into a bit too much detail. Consider that at the moment about 30 lines (on my comp anyway - out of about 120) is on the first 20 years of the Ashes - so the article would eventually have something like 270 lines, which I think is a bit too long (though I'm not really sure how long featured articles usually are). IMO we should go from "very high overview" to "satellite-overview" (for example: "England dominated the 1880s, winning the first eight series and only giving up four Tests"), so that we can condense the article a bit. Sam Vimes 14:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- I admit I did feel it was getting a bit long as I wrote it. I just read through the History of Test cricket (1884 to 1889) and History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900) articles and added stuff from there. Please feel free to edit it down to size, jguk 18:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Trivia
I've removed this (mostly as I don't like it, and it seems juvenile for what is about to become a featured article):
- In the fictional universe of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the Ashes are actually the remains of the Wooden Pillar, a piece of the original "Wikkit Key" that was created as part of the punishment of the xenophobic planet Krikkit.
Kind regards, jguk 18:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Bah, Douglas Adams was never juvenile. ;) I agree that it has little to do with the Ashes as a cricket series, though. Sam Vimes 18:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Is there any room for a section or separate page on the Ashes in fiction? Doctor Who briefly landed on the pitch during an (obviously fictional) Ashes test at the Oval in 1966 as I recall. Episode script here (http://homepages.bw.edu/~jcurtis/Scripts/DMP/dmp8.html) (scene 6).--The Brain of Morbius 00:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- How about "The Ashes outside cricket", which could encompass Doctor Who, HHGTG, rugby, and get it all out of the way of the cricket stuff. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Dates in Table of Contents
I agree with Nichalp that once we get the whole summary up, in chronological order, dates are a bit pointless - as the article will mention them anyway. For the moment we can keep them, though, to show that there is still fifty years of history to be written. Sam Vimes 20:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- They are only pointless if we mention the dates in the text. At present we don't - though I'd be happy removing the dates from the headers if the text was amended to make the years clear. The article's certainly improving loads! But still a way to go to make it a FA! Kind regards, jguk 20:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
World Series Cricket
Surely the England wins of the late 70s have more to do with the Australian bans on World Series Cricketers than Boycott (who miraculously decided he did want to play again when Lillee and Thompson were out of the way)? jguk 21:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
PS You can tell I'm not a Yorkshireman:) jguk 21:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Quite possibly. I wasn't even born then! Edit it if you like (though I think the article currently says that England won the 1970-71 series because of Boycott - a series where he scored 657 runs @ 93.85 (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=1228;class=testplayer;filter=basic;team=0;opposition=AUS;notopposition=0;season=1970%2F71;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;startdefault=1964-06-04;start=1964-06-04;enddefault=1982-01-06;end=1982-01-06;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduledovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;result=0;followon=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;viewtype=aro_list;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype), not the late 70s ones). There should be something expanded on the WSC era as well, but I don't think I'm best equipped to write it. Btw, interestingly, this (http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?p=481457#post481457) seems to indicate that the 1979/80 series wasn't for the Ashes - could someone check that out and confirm it with a better source? Sam Vimes 21:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- PS Our old friend the table [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ashes&oldid=14072832) seems to agree that 79-80 was not an Ashes series :) Sam Vimes 21:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Wisden confirms that the 1979/80 series was not for the Ashes - presumably as it was only a 3-Test series, jguk 21:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Where next?
Just trying to think where the article should go next? What else needs to be covered? What bits should be expanded? Any thoughts? jguk 12:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- From up the article, there were suggestions to make sections/articles on "The Ashes outside cricket" by Snoddy, and "The Ashes today" by Nichalp. I particularly like the last bit - writing about how it's viewed by the English and Aussies (diehard cricket fans or more casual sports fans) and also the other cricketing countries. Sam Vimes 12:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I know how it's viewed by the English - and I can pretty much guess about the Aussies - but as for the Indians, West Indians, South Africans and Norwegians, someone else will have to help there:) jguk 18:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Brett Lee implied in May 2004 [2] (http://cricket.indiatimes.com/articleshow/656213.cms) that he felt the India-Australia series was of greater significance than the Ashes, at least in terms of being an "unofficial world championship". I'm not sure how many of his compatriots would agree, though. Loganberry 22:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Presumably as India was the last team to beat them in a series! jguk 05:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Brett Lee implied in May 2004 [2] (http://cricket.indiatimes.com/articleshow/656213.cms) that he felt the India-Australia series was of greater significance than the Ashes, at least in terms of being an "unofficial world championship". I'm not sure how many of his compatriots would agree, though. Loganberry 22:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
FAC?
Should we give FAC a bash now? It'll either get through or we'll highlight more areas for improvement if we do. Kind regards, jguk 20:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hold on. I want to add some matter on the section I suggested. Jguk, is it possible that a scanned pic of the ashes trophy be obtained? It would seem odd that the article does not have a pic of its trophy. =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
If you can find a picci that we can use, please add one. I'm not sure about copyright myself - and it's impossible to take a good photo of it in the MCC Museum because of the glass case it is kept in, jguk 15:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Foreign relations
I believe that the rivalry started because of underlying political relations. I find it hard to believe that the governments of the two countries allowed the manifestation of the situation. I do believe that relations between the two nations were cooler than normal. Just as the India-Pakistan rivalry wouldn't have been had such ramifications as it does today, had the two nations not gone to war in the past. We need to cover the political relations at the start. =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:53, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Foreign relations
It is doubtful if the ashes commenced because of difficulties in the Anglo-Australian relationship. However, the Ashes have on occassions had the potential to worsen the relationship.
Two examples. 1. The body line series when the Australian board of control considered asking the English to leave and diplomatic messages were allegedly sent to defuse the situation.
2. Prior to the Ashes during an English tour in 1879(?), in an England vs NSW match, the umpire (Edmund Barton, who coincidentally was to become the first prime minister) turned down an English appeal. A section of the crowd heard an English fieldsman say " what do you expect from a group of convicts" (a very touchy subject in C19 Australia). A riot ensued and it was only due to the efforts of Barton that a diplomatic situation did not develop.--Porturology 00:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note that there are very good articles about both of these at Bodyline and Sydney Riot of 1879. --Ngb 08:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Porturology is slightly wrong here. The riot started after George Coulthard, Barton's fellow umpire, gave Australian batsman Billy Murdoch out "run out". It was a close (but correct) decision, jguk 19:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lifted from my talk page:
- I don't think there was any hostility between Australians and British in the 1870s. The majority of Australians were British by birth and most of the rest regarded themselves as British by blood and by loyalties. Most Anglo-Australians were Empire loyalists, the only significant exception to this was the Irish minority. I don't think your thesis will hold water in this instance. In any case I've never seen any suggestion that sporting relations between Britain and the Australian colonies were anything other than friendly. Adam 12:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Opinion of Adam. I guess that relations were warm. =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:19, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- The main hostility in the 1870s was between Victoria and New South Wales. The riot in Sydney did damage England/Australian cricket relations - but these were repaired by the end of the next Aussie tour to Britain, jguk 19:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Peer review
I've put this article in Peer review so that we can get some more eyeballs on this page in its goal to become a featured article. =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Botham's picture
unrelated: botham's pic doesn't show. --Peripatetic 23:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2005 series
Considering that the imminent series was one of the reasons that the article was put forward as hopefully moving towards featured article status, it's suprising there's nothing here yet about Australia in England in 2005, other than one sentence at the end of the Steve Waugh section. Admittedly it hasn't started yet but surely there's a bit to say! - Ian 14:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Please ignore. I re-read and found the Ashes Today section - but maybe it could be a bit expanded. Ian 14:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Venues
Shouldn't we put all the six venues in England ? Tintin 11:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ashes in Fiction
The Ashes are a key plot element in Life, the Universe and Everything Morwen - Talk 14:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That was originally mentioned, but it was deleted, as we didn't think it really relevant. Do you think you can find a good reason to keep it in? Perhaps the Rugby league section could be retitled "The Ashes outside cricket", then this could be mentioned along with the rugby. What do people think? smoddy 14:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)