Talk:List of Ashes series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured list List of Ashes series is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on November 18, 2013.

Inclusion criteria[edit]

Is it actually TRUE that this is the first time in 24 years that England have retained the Ashes? I don't think so. Delete it, you morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we delete all the non-Ashes Tests? Also, what about the Triangular tournament? Shouldn't that be there? Also, the early Test series should be linked to History of Test cricket (to 1883), or whatever. Kind regards, jguk 19:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Triangular Tournament was an Ashes series or not, therefore I've left it out (as it also included South Africa). I would like some confirmation on the one-off series were official Ashes Tests or not, I'll ask around and then quote a reference, and in the meantime I'd like them to stay. Sam Vimes 20:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Wisden says it was, but I'll see if I can check what the old 1913 Wisden said on cricinfo. Kind regards, jguk 20:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

A quick tally gives 26 wins to england, 27 to australia, However the ashes article says " To date, a total of 62 Ashes series have been played with Australia winning 30, England winning 27" Which is correct? Ghostieguide 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Much better, Cheers Ian.Ghostieguide 09:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Ashes weren't at stake in the one-off games of 1976-77, 1980 and 1987-88, and also weren't at stake in the three-Test 1979-80 "Series", these games should be deleted from the list. Should they go in a footnote though, or be removed altogether? jguk 13:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point Jon. IMO they should be removed from the table altogether but need to be acknowledged somewhere that they're not included and why so. Perhaps blank rows? -- Iantalk 13:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1st three removed, but haven't removed the three-Test 79-80 series yet. What is the explanation for it not being included? WSC? and if so why? -- Iantalk 14:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As part of the deal to end WSC, the ACB agreed to playing two series of three matches each against Australia's 2 traditional biggest draws - the West Indies and England. I think the matches were played alternately between the teams. Although England were eventually persuaded to come round to the idea (a decision I'm sure was regretted we were comprehensively beaten in the matches), we only came over to tour on the condition the Ashes were not at stake. And so they weren't. The matches with the WI were much more competitive, though. See Wisden or A History of Australian Cricket for more info, jguk 14:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and done. -- Iantalk 15:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Ian, I have a feeling that the result of the 2005 Ashes is more in line with what you may have wished it to be rather than what it was. I'm sure I remember that when I was at the drawn Oval Test last year, when the crowd was singing "Sit down if you're 2-1 down" it was Glenn McGrath, not Andy Flintoff, who sat down:) jguk 15:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Typical English hooligans. Sledging should stay out on the field where it belongs. -- Iantalk 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Compared with the barracking that traditionally goes on at the MCG or SCG, the Aussies had it real easy from the English crowds, jguk 15:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I can assure you that in November the English visitors will receive traditional Aussie hospitality Smile eye.png -- Iantalk 15:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

1981 Series[edit]

The Ashes since 1882 has generally been considered a sort of "cricket world championship" but this was decidedly not the case when two very ordinary teams by Test Match standards, both completely inferior to West Indies, contested the 1981 series. All references to this series as being "great" are therefore strictly POV and take no account whatsoever of the numerous series that took place when the two teams were the best in the world. References to Botham, a player whose career averages were very ordinary, are invariably distorted by POV. Certainly the suggestion that the 1981 series should be called "Botham's Ashes" is highly contentious and is definitely POV. Citations are needed that verify the claim that the series should be so called. --BlackJack | talk page 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wisden 1982 called it "Botham's summer. BBC claims it's "universally known" as Botham's Ashes. John Stern says "the video of the series is often called Botham's Ashes and rightly so. Sam Vimes | Address me 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned Tests[edit]

I've corrected the list to reflect the abandoned tests in 1890 and 1970/71 (the abandoned test in 1938 was already accounted for). These tests are not counted in statistics, test caps (except for the ACB who count the abandoned 1971 test in the test cap count, even though no-one else does). I've added notes, and amended the drawn figures (these tests are considered to have never occurred, so no result is possible, not even a draw).

I've yet to account for the Win/loss stats by country (the overall stats are now correct, up until the 2005 Ashes). If someone else does it great, else I'll get back to it.Manning 00:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Stats by country are now correct.Manning 01:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Manning, good work on updating this. —Moondyne 08:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-Ashes tours[edit]

An editor removed these tours without comment or justification. I have reverted on the basis that the information is both useful in explaining why those half-dozen tours aren't of Ashes status and that they are referred to in the prose as to why they're there (which wasn't removed by the other editor). I may be convinced otherwise but would like a discussion here and consensus before their removal again. –Moondyne 10:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the non-Ashes series should be included and support the reversion. --Jack | talk page 15:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashes Timeline graph[edit]

Can somebody who knows how to do so please correct the timeline graph - it clearly doesn't tally with the actual results (the first chunk is yellow, indicating the Australians were the victors, which of course they weren't) DrVxD (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Include the captains?[edit]

What do people think about having the name of the respective captains within the main table? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Suspect it'd make the table considerably longer as several series had more than one captain for each country over the course of the Tests. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Rats. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that might not be so bad, it just so happened that the one series I clicked on had two Oz captains, having clicked on a dozen others, there were just one each, it's possible that it'd just make it a little longer.... and I'd have no objections to them being added in that case. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
It would take up a lot of extra width. Perhaps mock something up in a sandbox? Harrias talk 19:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)