Historically it was a match between england and australia. However at the time they were the only 2 nations playing the match. Do you think ashes should  include another 1 or 2 teams (either rotated or picked on bases of top rating)while keeping the orignal two teams aus and eng as permamnent members
217806
yes definitely. more the merrier
34901
Performance should be teh key to selection..\nIF it was implemented 2 years before ganguly would have played some 40 ODI's lesser than his current number and sachin would have played some 330 ODIs in his whole carrer..\njust to naarow this discussion based on the 2 in the question
361556
Good Idea for all teams, it would generate more publicity as a stage cup or final with winners of league playing each other (Scot vs Eng) This would give a good training match for teams serious about winning the Campions League.\n\nthey could create a knock-out cup like that of FA Cup, with Scottish league teams and Welsh league teams and English League team and Irish league teams all fighting to win the Anglo Cup.\n\nOr you could change the FA Cup so it would include participants from the whole UK and not just England, they have made big changes before so why not again.
159972
Australia is a great team..\nIf not ponting there will be somebody else to rise up to the\nsituation\nAustralia is not a one man army depending on Ponting...\n\n\n... I am Indian
153184
OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS NO BAT IN FIFA BUT THERE ARE LOT MORE DIFERENCES LIKE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SIZE OF THE BALLS IN TWO EVENTS. ALSO THE NUMBER OF TEAMS TAKING PART IN  AFOOTBALL WORLD CUP IS MUCH MORE THAN THOSE TAKING PART IN CRICKET WORLD CUP.
469595
The truth is the current England team is crap. The public doesn't realise it because the British media would like to make them believe otherwise. \nJust wait till the ashes begin in 2 weeks to see more feeble excuses from the press! (and also from the team itself)
83977
I think it was to give the fans the best possible games to see.  Often 1-4 is a very lopsided series and the 2-3 is very close.  In some senses, team 1 has an unfair advantage and team 2 has a much more difficult time.  This sort of gives both the # 1 and2 teams an equal chance against their opponents.  The top teams should win still, but it should also give more entertainment.
426263
After the second days play in the test, the best the Aussies can hope for in this game is a draw. \nThat's your 5 - 0 gone.\nCome on England.
675007
For me, I felt that it was very unlucky of Australia to have lost in that way. They deserved extra time. But if that's how the game ended, there's no way to change it. At least many were impressed by Australia's performance, and that's good enough. Work harder next time, and I hope they get better and better.
132423
Good point, geezer, Look at the workload shifted on Freddie and the boys for England this year - Sri Lanka and Pakistan for 7 tests and 12-odd one-dayers in the summer, Champions Trophy in India in October, Ashes Series down under November to January and then the bleedin' World Cup in the Caribbean in March/April. I love watching the game and feel now this is one of the most exciting periods in the game for many years, but you've got to ask questions.
192157
whan the series is a draw, the team that had won the series before this one keeps it. remember saurav was given the cup in australia when the series was drawn
460740
LOL! Not much point checking that wikipedia link when he 's just cut & pasted most of it!\n\n\nA briefer answer, based on the fact that you understand how limited overs cricket works:\n\n..Unlike one day cricket, both teams have TWO batting innings each. The only limit to when an ininings has to end is when the batting side lose their tenth wicket, although a captain can also call an early end to his side's innings if he believes his side has more than enough runs to place them in a very strong position (this is called "declaring") \n\n...The first objective of the team batting first is to score enough runs to make the match almost impossible for the fielding team to win. Remember, they can take as long as they wish to do this providing they have at least one wicket left. \n\n...The first objective of the team bowling first is to dismiss the batting side for as few runs as possible, as quickly as possibly.  \n\n..Once the bowling side have taken all 10 wickets, the batting side's first innings end, and the teams change over. Alternatively, if the batting side have such a big total that they think the bowling side will seriously struggle to match it, they can declare an end to their own innings.\n\n.. so, here's an example. Lets say Australia go on today to make 560 all out. England then bat and make 420 all out. This means Australia would have a lead of 140 runs on the first innings. Australia then have their second innings, and make 300 all out. They now have a lead of 440, so.. England must make 441 in their second innings to win the match OR avoid losing all their wickets to force a draw. \n\n...Bear in mind that although there is NO limit on the length of \na team's innings, there IS a time limit in the match..namely five days. So a team has to judge how to pace its two innings and the speed of its scoring.. too long, and it does not allow itself enough time to dismiss the opposition, making it easier for the opposition to play for a draw. Any team which finds itself in a position where a win becomes unlikely ( like England at the moment !) will always try to avoid defeat by playing defensively for a draw.\n\nThats as simple as I can make it!
459272
I dont really understand the point you are trying to make. Football, boxing, basketball, and many other sports are included in the Olympics...and all of them retain "identities of their own". The fact that they make up the Olympics for a mere two weeks every four years has no bad effect at all on them, it only puts them in a huge world-wide spotlight of publicity. and allows people who are unfamiliar with a particular sport to watch and appreciate it.\n\nAnd even if cricket were to be in the Olympics, it would have to be a limited overs tournament beceause it would be physically impossible to schedule so many test matches in only two weeks.\n\n\nAnd besides, cricket was already once an Olympic sport..Paris 1900, Great Britain beat France...check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics
317841
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.\n\nIT MUST BE FAMILIORIZED. IT CAN BE CONDUCTED IN ODI FORMAT AND EVERY TEAM SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE CHANCES TO PLAY.\n\nABOVE ALL NO PARTIALITY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
672593
Currently, only the 2010 and 2014 finals have been decided. After that, it’s anybody’s. I think Australia should host it. Australia has world class stadiums including: Suncorp Stadium (Voted best Rugby stadium in the world), Telstra Stadium, The Telstra Dome, The MCG, and more. Also, as the Australian FA is run by Australia’s second richest man, funding shouldn’t be a problem.
339426
There will be a couple of iffy moments, but us Aussies should get over the line pretty comfortably. We need to shut down Peiterson and Flintoff early on.\nGO THE AUSSIES!!!
486037
No way. It will be a whitewash in favour of the Aussies. This England team is over rated. Flintoff is the most over rated player I have ever seen.