2009 Ashes Series - England vs. Australia **Spoilers**

HangTime said:
One thing about the Edgbaston test, ever since then I've always counted it as a bit of a robbery, you know, had we not lost ~2 days to rain then England would have won.

But the other day they were recapping the series and showed the scorecard. Australia may have been heavily behind on the 1st innings, but at stumps on day 5 they had a 262 run lead with only 5 wickets down. Clarke going along nicely at 100-odd not out and his partner had played himself in. It's not inconceivable that were it not for rain delays they could have set us a 4th innings target approaching 400.
Click to expand...
I think what made people think that way was that the test hadn't truly swung Australia's way before it ended. It floated between looking good for us, and just being pretty even. Like you say though, I never really considered that a missed opportunity for England in the same way that the first test was for the Aussies.
 
Evangelion said:
Rosbif, a few points if I may:

(a) the overwhelming majority of British settlers in Australia were free men and women who emigrated voluntarily

(b) the overwhelming majority of Australians (~80%) are not descended from convicts

(c) those Australians who do have convict ancestry, are usually proud of the fact

While I'm on the subject, it's worth pointing out that Great Britain was (ironically!) the original convict nation. The government only began sending sent her vast criminal population to other countries when it became impossible to house them all. No other nation in history has ever had this problem. (Perhaps no other nation in history has been so prone to criminality?)

Britain's first country of choice was America, which received large numbers of convicts for ~40 years. The British only switched to Australia after being comprehensively thrashed by the Yanks in their war of independence.

I don't have convict ancestry myself, but you might be one of the many Brits who do.
Click to expand...

I'm only gonna say one thing ..

You got too much time on your hands mate! :p
 
Evangelion said:
Yes, cumulative figures. They had an average audience of ~1 million per night.

Rosbif, a few points if I may:

(a) the overwhelming majority of British settlers in Australia were free men and women who emigrated voluntarily

(b) the overwhelming majority of Australians (~80%) are not descended from convicts

(c) those Australians who do have convict ancestry, are usually proud of the fact

While I'm on the subject, it's worth pointing out that Great Britain was (ironically!) the original convict nation. The government only began sending sent her vast criminal population to other countries when it became impossible to house them all. No other nation in history has ever had this problem. (Perhaps no other nation in history has been so prone to criminality?)

Britain's first country of choice was America, which received large numbers of convicts for ~40 years. The British only switched to Australia after being comprehensively thrashed by the Yanks in their war of independence.

I don't have convict ancestry myself, but you might be one of the many Brits who do.
Click to expand...

Well The UK and its colonies were a vast cumulative population.. perhaps that's why.;) "No other nation in history has ever had this problem." lol is that the propaganda they teach you in Aus.
At any rate Rosbif is French I think!?? (could be wrong)
 
Last edited:
This is good news, especially for the Ashes.

There was very little public hype around the last Ashes, simple reason... not everyone has sky.

Especially after 2005, if it was on terrestial tv this year I'm sure there would have been a lot more viewers
 
Good news. In 2005 we watched the Ashes on C4. This year I watched on Sky. A mate of mine got Sky as well so he could watch. So neither of us need home Ashes Tests on terrestrial TV but it is a matter of principle that young people without Sky Sports can watch cricket on TV and get interested in the game.
 
BBC News are confirming this story today, saying Ashes tests are being 'recommended' to be included on the 'free to air' list from 2016. Sounds like it would just be Ashes tests then, not all home tests which used to be the case. Still good news though, if it does come to fruition.
 
I see England are getting owned in South Africa today.

Doesn't look like Sky's money is doing England any favours at the moment anyway so what's the point? Just lining a few muppets' pockets at the expense of the supporters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom