Why is it called 'The Ashes'?
926914
The Ashes is a Test cricket series, played between England and Australia - it is international cricket's oldest and most celebrated rivalry dating back to 1882. \n\nIn the Test match played between England and Australia in 1882,\nAustralia defeated England for the first time.  Following this defeat a satirical obituary published in The Sporting Times in 1882. The obituary stated that English cricket had died, and the body will be cremated and the ashes taken to Australia.\n\nThe English media dubbed the next English tour, to Australia (1882-83) as the quest to regain The Ashes. This is how the test cricket series between England and Australia has been named\nas Ashes series. \n\nA small terracotta urn was presented to the England captain Ivo Bligh by a group of Melbourne women at some point during the 1882-83 tour. The contents of the urn are reported to be the ashes of an item of cricket equipment, possibly a bail, ball or stump. The urn is not used as a trophy for the Ashes series, and whichever side holds the Ashes, the urn normally remains in the MCC Museum at Lord's because it was bequeathed to the MCC by Ivo Bligh upon his death. Since the 1998-99 Ashes series, a Waterford crystal trophy has been presented to the winners.\n\nIf you would like to have more details about Ashes, please check the following website:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ashes
807682
From my upbringing the ashes stayed on your for the entire day.  Of course, if you happened to wipe them off or if you were sweating and they washed away because of that it was considered an acceptable and approved reason for not having them.  I was raised to sleep with them as they are supposed to be washed off when you shower the next day or rub off in your sleep or during any activity that led to their loss.  Does it make sense?
187997
I think it means something like "Lead wings quickly turn into ashes!"\n\nDoes it now make any sense to you?
790452
Isn't your statement a bit puerile? Surely, you already know the answer to this question, but only wish to make a joke about the language of cricket. Frankly, they do have funny lingo. Like, what is a Silly Mid-off?...or LBW, Leg before wicket...fine but what if hits another part of the body...Scapula Before Wicket? Is that part of LBW? Or NBW. Nose Before Wicket!
956572
It was the bails that were burnt. During a test series between England and Australia in the early part of the twentieth century, can't remember when exactly, the Aussies trounced us and a cricket writer in the Times I think, wrote that the bails should be burnt and sent to Australia. \n\nSometime after that bails were indeed burnt but they have never left these shores, always remaining at Lords, home of the M.C.C., much to the chagrin of the Aussies, who feel the Ashes should always be presented to the winners.
1003987
It was NOT named after a newspaper.\n\nI dont know how many times this question gets asked, and people still say it was named after a newspaper.\n\nIT WAS NOT!
604672
A number of words are thought to be possible sources for the term cricket. The name may derive from a term for the cricket bat: old French criquet (meaning a kind of club) or Flemish krick(e) (meaning a stick) or in Old English crycc (meaning a crutch or staff). (The latter is problematic, since Old English 'cc' was palatal in pronunciation in the south and the west midlands, roughly ch, which is how crycc leads to crych and thence crutch; the 'k' sound would be possible in the north, however.) Alternatively, the French criquet apparently derives from the Flemish word krickstoel, which is a long low stool on which one kneels in church and which resembles the long low wicket with two stumps used in early cricket.
639470
This is a references to an old phrase started, not England, but Scottland... the term was mistranslated by the English in the midst of war. The Term was used by the Scottish to bring out their weapons and black axes, the axes weren't really black but that's a different story. In any case... it is now used to mean "Get ready for the worse"
811057
As far as test cricket goes the ashes is the most famous and possibly important series on earth \n\nBut for ODI (one day internationals for those who don't fully understand cricket) the world cup always has and always will be the holy grail
30426
Now that you mention it I do find it a little odd, but then again most of our nursery rhymes and fairy tales are pretty grim and creepy. Take for instance....\n                        Ring around the Rosies\n                        Pocket fill of posies\n                        Ashes. Ashes. We all fall down.\n\nThis rhyme supposedly refers to the scarlette fever,and other fatal diseases of the time. When people where sick and starting to smell of decay and sickness they put the flower petals in their pockets to mask the stinch. Then of course you die and turn to ash. Wonderful nursery rhyme for children, huh?
477025
history and tradition is oaky but keeping it to australkia and england is just like saying that the ashes is only for good OLD WHITE BOYS. I think you are right that 2 teams can be added to the tournament based on the top 2 rating points besides the 2 countries.
783332
If the series is tied the English will "retain" the ashes as they won the last series, however on current form it is unlikely the series being tied. If you are English I suggest praying for rain, the Aussies need the rain to cos of the drought!!!
1066303
Cuz criquet means 'bat' in French. And criquet is what they called cricket in France. I guess we wren't far off, when as kids we called it 'Bat n Ball'!!
805490
Pseudonyms should not be a birthright. They should be stripped off when the master stops blasting. Like someone here rightly said that this name was first given to V. Richards. When Richards retired I'd say the name then moved to S.Tendulkar and now the title of Master Blaster is rightfully deserved by B.Lara.
1028704
1.5 Why England. not Saxonland? \n\nIf the Angles established themselves in one half of the country and the Saxons in the other, why did the name of the modern country derive from the former rather than the latter? The historical evidence, though meagre, does not suggest that the Angles were any more numerous than the Saxons, or had greater military successes. Why, then, is the country called England, and not Saxonland, Sax land, or some other such form? It is a puzzle, but we can make some guesses. \nThe original use of the name Angli (for the people) and Anglia (for the country) is found in Latin writers during the seventh century, but only with reference to the Angles (as opposed to the Saxons and Jutes). A king of Kent, AEthelbert, is called rex Anglorum -'king of the Angles'. Angl- is later found in Old English as both Angel- and Engl-. In the Alfredian translation of Bede (Book IV, Chapter 26), for example, we find the phrase on Engla lande, translating Latin in regione Anglorum, which meant 'in the Country of the Angles'. Bede never used Anglia for the country as a whole: his name for it was Brittania or Britannia {'Britain'). \nThere was one context, however, where the early Latin writers did give the Angl- element prominence. This was in the phrase Angli Saxones, used at least from the eighth century to mean the 'English Saxons' (of Britain) as opposed to the 'Old Saxons' (of the Continent). A long time afterwards, as the historical facts began to blur in the popular mind, Anglo-Saxons came to be interpreted as' Angles and Saxons', the combined Germanic people of Britain, which is how the term is used today. But in the eighth century Angl- did not have this sense. Rather, it was the crucial, contrastive element in the phrase -the English Saxons, as opposed to other kinds. Issues of identity being so important, perhaps it was this prominence which fixed Angl- in the intuitions of the people, as a label for the people as a whole? \nWhatever the reason, we can see the name broadening its meaning in the ninth century. The Old English translation of Bede uses the term Angelcynn {literally, 'race of the Angles', Bede's gens Anglorum) to refer to all the Germanic peoples. The adjective English makes its first appearance at that time, too, - long predating the name England. In a treaty made between Alfred and the Dane Guthrum (c. 880) we see English opposed to Danish, and it plainly refers to all of the non-Danish population, not just the Angles. Also, at around the same time, English is used for the language: the translation of Bede at one point {Book Ill, Chapter 19) talks about a monastery nemned on Englisc ('called in English') Cneoferisburh, and A!fred quite often uses the name in this way. \nIt took over a century before we find the phrase Engla lande referring to the whole country, by the writers of the eleventh-century Chronicle. There was then a long period of varied usage, and we find such forms as Engle land, Englene londe, Engle lond, Engelond, and Ingland. The spelling England emerged in the fourteenth century, and soon after became established as the norm.
756388
I'm English, but there is no way that we will reatain the ashes. Aussie should beat us 4-0 with a draw I reckon.
919019
I am in US. never thought about it, but some of us like to have a tree grow where we were buried.  The tree will use up our ashes and put us back to the earth from which we came.  The spirit cannot be freed as long as we hold on to the body.  The tree also is cheaper than a stone and os self sustaining and keeps someone else from burying their dead on top of us.