What's in the Ashes?

Australia and England begin another Ashes series next month, with more anticipation than is normal among followers in the expectation that England's increased competitiveness might result in an Ashes series that finally lives up to its reputation as cricket's pre-eminent rivalry. But even given a turnaround in England's fortunes recently, question marks remain over the relevance of the Ashes contest in the cricket world of today.

The 119-year old battle for the Ashes between the traditional home of the game and its former colony enters the new Millennium with the same familiar remarks and perspectives that have characterised previous series in the 1990s. In Australia, television commercials have promoted the forthcoming series as "the one clash that really matters" and hyped it up with an us-against-them theme which has unfortunately become the way cricket in Australia has been advertised in recent seasons. Such a crass promotion is hardly in the true spirit and "tradition" of the Ashes, one of main reasons why the series is supposed to carry such importance.

A pertinent question that needs to be asked is does the Ashes series continue to justify the belief it is cricket's No. 1 contest? If you examine it objectively, the heightened interest in the forthcoming series is not so much in "the Ashes", per se, but in whether England has improved far enough to seriously challenge a dominant but recently defeated opponent against whom it has struggled for 12 years. The most enticing aspect of the contest lies not in whether Australia retains the Ashes, which of course actually reside in England anyway, but in facing another opponent that presents a test of its supremacy. The excitement is in the unknown element, not the past.

If not for the form of the competing teams, the Ashes would not be regarded as relevant in today's cricket world. The players still make the usual remarks, offering the perfunctory line that "the Ashes is the ultimate tour for every Australian cricketer," how England is the home of cricket, the one opponent Australia wants to beat and vice versa, etc etc. Do the Australian players really consider how much it means to them in comparison to other series or are such comments just a familiar part of touring England, like landing at Heathrow, opening the tour in Worcester or, I dare say, belting the Poms?

Not only are such claims questionable, but they also do a disservice to other opponents of equal or greater merit. A series victory in India would surely have been much more dearly cherished by the Australians than retaining the Ashes, simply due to its rarity and the fact it has been so difficult to achieve. However much you build it up, Australia knows it can win in England and is familiar with the task. You can't say the same about conquering India, a unique challenge that must have rated higher on Australia's 2001 itinerary.

Ultimately, defeat to England is a considerably more disastrous prospect than losing to India because there is a certain pride to be maintained in protecting an excellent record. Victory, though, is not nearly as significant as it would have been on the Final Frontier. Steve Waugh's Australians seemed to accept defeat in India with a philosophical shrug, knowing they could have done no more in terms of effort in an epic series. That would be no consolation in succumbing to the Old Enemy, although even that is beside the point to some degree. No matter who holds the Ashes, Test cricket has evolved to an extent that Australia-England clashes every second year are not as inspiring when more testing challenges abound.

Australia and England are no longer the only two world cricketing superpowers meeting in the only contest of true meaning. There are, at least for Australia, more interesting series and opponents. India is one and South Africa is another. Yet because of the traditional nature of certain series like Australia v England and Australia v West Indies, it's as if other, worthier rivalries are not allowed to develop because programming decrees that every two years the established series will be played across 5 Tests and promoted as superior to any other contest.

Such series do, of course, attract more interest than the others and will remain on the schedule as long as they continue to do so. Unfortunately the public has little other choice. Who knows how much an Australia v India or Australia v South Africa tradition could grow if given series of sufficient length and promotion?

The 2001 Australia-India series was broadcast Down Under only to the minority with pay television. Not one ball was seen live or even in a highlights package on free-to-air TV. There is no question a significantly greater proportion of the Australian cricket public would embrace India as opponents if that series, arguably one of the two greatest of all time, had been broadcast free-to-air in prime time. Obviously Australia are already seen as highly valued opponents in India, but unfortunately commercial rather than cricketing interests will continue to dictate Australia and India do not become "traditional rivals." What greater start to a tradition could the Australia-India series have possibly been?

There will always be a place for the Ashes as one of the premier series for both Australia and England, but it is not the pinnacle of cricket or "the one clash that really matters." It would be ignorant to make such a claim. India v Pakistan surely earns the honour of cricket's chief rivalry, while the competitiveness between Australia and South Africa is genuine rather than historical.

Australia no longer proves anything by defeating England, for it has long since broken away from sentimental ties with the "Mother Country." England's cricketing stature would also not alter greatly by regaining the Ashes, other than for toppling the best side in the world.

When the first Ashes series of the new Millennium commences in a month's time, let's appreciate it for what it is, a battle between two quality cricket teams with a historical connection, and not something it is not, which is the only series of world significance. Nothing could be further from the truth.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw