|
Originally Posted by playarf
|
i understand the significance and the history of the rivalry and how much the aussies detest the english. however, a rivalry is only a rivalry if its competitive. england australia is lop sided, and it doesnt even have that global viewership...not more than 15 million people (out of 70 million )in england watched the 2005 ashes on TV...and australias popn is around 25 million..so max...their own country's viewers are like 40 million, and that is saying it nicely...india pakistan viewership exceeds 500 million easily!
and this whole burnt ashes business and the history behind it...the hype is created by both the english and the aussie media because they tend to think that they 'own' cricket, and want to remind everyone how significant this is...
wait 50 years, and ashes wont be any different than any other rivalry, because the other rivalries will have the time behind them to play itself out.
so again, although i do not undermine the importance of the ashes and the history behind it...i do think that its over-exagerrated, and the rivalry is not really that competitive or close to be a real 'rivalry'. england winning once every 20 years is not really a 'rivalry' hehehe 
|
I would disagree on a number of points there yaar.
Firstly, competitiveness, isn't a necessity. India Pakistan will always be rivals irrespective of how good either was or how one sided it got.
Similarly, on audience, cricket is the MAIN sport in the Asian Sub. In the UK, cricket is still a very middle class sport. That said u just need to look at the Barmy Army to see how competitive we are.
Australia may have lost to India, however beating or losing to England would make 5 times as many headlines...trust me!