Least interesting ashes series since (name your date)?

I can't help but think that this aussie-pom bash is the least worth bothering with or getting up at 3 am for since before Botham.or even Edrich. What with Stokesy out and others injured, what with all the bullshine bar room stories, does anybody think this was ever going to be a closely-fought 5 games with it going down to the wire? Forget it. It's the least interesting ashes for me since forever and it's all about the 6 nations rugger and the footie world cup now. With Cooky and Jimmy soon if not now past their best they need 6 places filled come the next ashes. Good luck with that.

Since I read this, I suppose. It's dead to me now.

2013/14

1932/33

I was about to say 10/11 was decent but with 3 innings defeats it's difficult to make a case for it being competitive really.

Don't think there's been a competitive series down under in my lifetime. 86/87 is probably the closest.

vilkrang wrote:I was about to say 10/11 was decent but with 3 innings defeats it's difficult to make a case for it being competitive really.

Don't think there's been a competitive series down under in my lifetime. 86/87 is probably the closest.

Fair. 32/33 wasn't that competitive.

1977 was boring as batshit.

None of the Australian players wanted to be there; and Woolmer, Steele and Tavare were all competing with one another to see who could score the most tedious hundred of all time. Just couldn't be arsed staying up to listen.

Even 1978-9, when our "thirds" were thrashed, was more interesting.

I found the soap opera event of that Pomgolian tour here to be most entertaining. The "retirement" of the despised Chinhead was a highlight.

Since the last tour. Once it was obvious England had no stomach for a fight as soon as Mitch Johnson banged a few short balls in, the contest was all over bar the screaming - or in England's case, the finger-pointing, whinging, huffing, retirements and recriminations.

Well, it's all a matter of perspective. I'm guessing most Aussies disagree with whitburn's OP.

The current series isn't as tantalising as 1972, 1974-5, 1981, 1989, 2005, 2009, or a number of others ... but it's not as bad as mooted by whitburn in his fishing mission.

England was on top for the first three days of the first Test before it swung violently towards the good guys, and the position was virtually reversed in the Second Test, before a significant swing back in England's direction, a swing which in the end proved illusory.

Talk of 5-nil is very premature and it seems to be coming mostly from negative nellies ...

"fishion" - a new word.

This Ashes has had 2015 in its entirety covered for twists and turns and momentum swings, from the moment Smith and Marsh got together on Friday afternoon in Brisbane.

Must say it has been more interesting than I thought.

The Oz selection of a ten man team and a set of blunt steak knives makes T3 interesting and brings the Poms in with a show.

It'll be highly embarrassing for the NSP if we get beaten, with Puddle failing twice and not getting a bowl, or worse, getting flayed wicketless.

Perhaps then they might abandon this ridiculous quest for an allrounder and pick the best available no. 5/6 batsman in the country.

lardbucket wrote:The current series isn't as tantalising as 1972, 1974-5, 1981, 1989, 2005, 2009, or a number of others ... but it's not as bad as mooted by whitburn in his fishing mission.

England was on top for the first three days of the first Test before it swung violently towards the good guys,  and the position was virtually reversed in the Second Test, before a significant swing back in England's direction, a swing which in the end proved illusory.

Talk of 5-nil is very premature and it seems to be coming mostly from negative nellies ...

May be so, but can't help but share his opinion. Been quite boring, tbh, and there are three more tests of this to go. Will stand by my original prediction of 4-1 Australia.

It's got nothing to do with fishing, it's a genuinely held view which most of the cricketing people i speak to happen to agree with, as does the poster above this one i see. 5-0 is very possible but 4-0 with a high-scoring draw is the best bet, on reflection. The point i am making is that the moment Stokes was out of the picture, combined with injuries and a series played away to a strong team on their own patches, the ashes had effectively gone before we got off the jet. Anyone who actually believed England would retain the trophy wants their lumps felt, quite seriously. A real case of ''hello?''. Good luck to the lads. But they'll need more than luck i am afraid.The Aussie media getting off on bar room banter was pretty pathetic, they've clearly never been to a north-east bar on a Saturday night. But any chance to put the knife in i suppose is the way now. England retaining the ashes? About as much chance of Maggie getting back into number 10.

It's a good thread, w. It generated decent discussion.

Agree with S.

Talent wise the Poms are down on the last tour, but have the advantage of no Chinhead and no Prior

lardbucket wrote:1977 was boring as batshit.

None of the Australian players wanted to be there; and Woolmer, Steele and Tavare were all competing with one another to see who could score the most tedious hundred of all time. Just couldn't be arsed staying up to listen.

Even 1978-9, when our "thirds" were thrashed, was more interesting.

Think you'll find Woolmer was the only one of that unholy trinity to play that series - Steele was before & Tavare was after. (Mind you, the second coming of the Geoffrey was more than tedious enough for both combined)

It was also 1977 when we got our first look at Professor Mike Brearley (who as a batsman was not that much more interesting, and a lot less accomplished) who was the same visual as Steele with both having the Shaun Micallef silver crown.

In each of the three matches England have had a point at which they were pretty much on level terms at least. So less dull than most of the series in Australia since the early 90s.

Fair enough, they’re not exactly the greatest two sides ever to contest the urn, there’s plenty of silly stuff going on and Australia ultimately won the first two comfortably - but it’s been a lot more of a contest than most. We’ve only had two genuinely close Ashes series in recent memory, 2005 and 2009. One was perhaps the greatest series ever, the other was a smash and grab England win in a poor quality encounter. The bar isn’t set that high, for all the hype.

I had minimal expectations of the series between two poor teams. I have found it more interesting than I expected. Still, a keenly fought park cricket match can be interesting.

I am really happy the Bannies are not touring here atm. They'd be a good thing to win their first ever series here.

I hope our English comrades are at least a little more interested now.

A great day for England could translate into a series comeback.

skully wrote:I hope our English comrades are at least a little more interested now.

A great day for England could translate into a series comeback.

And a crap one could mean time to concentrate on the football/NFL/darts/Christmas movies until the JAMODIs start...

Beams, I'm gutted you'd put any stock in the value of the JAMODIs!!!