England v Australia ...

The Man With No Name · Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:00 pm

England v Australia have one of the best sporting rivalries in the world what matter what sport you talk about, Cricket, rugby union, rugby league and even lawn bowel lol.

But how come we donâ€™t have a traditional England v Australia tournament, just like the ashes in what is the beautiful game of football (as Les Murray calls it.)

It will be great if both countries can set up a tournament that contains the atmosphere of the ashes.

Any comments?

COLOSSUS · Post by **COLOSSUS** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:09 pm

The reason why we dont have an Ashes series in Football is because its bad enough we beat them in every other sport but to beat them at their own game would be a deadset embarrasment to them

Add to this the fact that there is no room with League games, CL games, WC or Euro qualifiers and there is barely enough time to give the players a 4 week end of season break let alone give them another tournament to play.

Would be great though if it was possible but fortunately for the poms it aint

zola · Post by **zola** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:11 pm

Would love to see Australia play England - especially the way both teams have been playing lately. Would be a great game.

ruud · Post by **ruud** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:01 pm

ive been screaming for this for years!!!

arxidi · Post by **arxidi** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:09 pm

burning a cricket bat / wickets (or watever they burnt) is different to burning a soccer ball....... imagine all the toxic fumes..............................

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:53 pm

Because England don't care about a footballing rivalry with Australia.

They already have huge rivalries with Scotland, Germany and Argentina. Compared to these, a rivalry with Australia is pretty well, non-existant.

Similarly, there is no basis for a rivalry with England from Australia's perspective. We should concentrate on rivalries with Japan, Korea and the like, just like our rivalry with Uruguay.

Trevor · Post by **Trevor** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:11 pm

COLOSSUS just remind me who has the ashes trophy AND the rugby world cup trophy. n who it was they beat.

COLOSSUS · Post by **COLOSSUS** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Trevor wrote:COLOSSUS just remind me who has the ashes trophy AND the rugby world cup trophy. n who it was they beat.

Trevor my pommy friend, winning the Ashes and the Rugby Trophies once every millenium hardly gives you bragging rights

They say Poms are miserable people because of there miserable weather but i believe throw in the fact that their sporting teams are just as miserable and no wonder the country is always miserable

Cruyff #14 · Post by **Cruyff #14** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:53 pm

Colossus that is harsh but Gold

LFTWNG11 · Post by **LFTWNG11** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:25 pm

One of the most stupidest ideas I've read on here... even taking into consideration ronnie's dumb ass posts

diegom · Post by **diegom** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:29 pm

LFTWNG11 wrote:One of the most stupidest ideas I've read on here... even taking into consideration ronnie's dumb ass posts

And why is that Lefty?????

LFTWNG11 · Post by **LFTWNG11** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:02 pm

diegom wrote:
LFTWNG11 wrote:One of the most stupidest ideas I've read on here... even taking into consideration ronnie's dumb ass posts

And why is that Lefty?????

So by making Australia play England in a series like the ashes is going to be good... um wrong, it would be shyt... football isn't cricket!! Heres some points...

1. You can't just start something like this up and expect it to be as popular like the ashes e.g. look at the World Club Championships...

2. You want Australia to play England in the off-season like the Ashes.. so what they play each other 5 times?? how shiraz competative... once again football is not cricket, the best team on the day is the best team in football as per the world cup final...

3. It's stupid

4. I would like to see what team England and Australia would bring out for the five games over the month long break the players have... lets see, I'm sure they will be risking Rooney, Gerrard, Terry and the like on such a prestigious, new and not to mention pointless competition.

5. Who would ctually give a shiraz about the game?? Maybe Australians... but the English... umm let me see ask them if they want the football version of the ashes trophy against Australia... or the world or european cup against any of the big nations... hmmm

Finally... as per point 3... ITS STUPID, I feel dumber for writing this post... and ur probably dumber for reading it...

The Kop · Post by **The Kop** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:10 pm

yer alright ill get my zippo out and we can turn the net into ashes, stick it in a fosters stubby and hey presto!

ruud · Post by **ruud** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:25 pm

i think 1 game every year or 2 years would be sufficient lftwng11...

LFTWNG11 · Post by **LFTWNG11** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:35 pm

Huntelaar wrote:i think 1 game every year or 2 years would be sufficient lftwng11...

fair enough, doesn't sound like an ashes-like series to me... sounds more like a friendly, they happen all the time, why dont you just say... "Australia should play more friendlies against England"

ruud · Post by **ruud** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:13 pm

yes the tournament wouldnt really work

but i dont think thats the point...

we all want the england v australia rivalry to continue... by us kicking the poms ass in football all the time aswell

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:44 pm

Fact is with test cricket, there is no "world cup". The Ashes series is the pinnacle of cricket for English and Australian cricketers.

An Australian v England Ashes series will also go by another name: "meaningless friendly".

Play it once every 1 or 2 years?? It will be either smack bang in the middle of the World Cup, Asian/European Championships, or their respective qualifiers.

It's a stupid idea. Seriously, ask any pom if they care that we beat them those few years ago. They don't.

El Capitano · Post by **El Capitano** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:05 pm

LFTWNG hit the nail on the head

3. It's Stupid

Trevor · Post by **Trevor** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:16 pm

yeh ur right we dont care that u beat us a few years back considering we changed our whole 11. we really took that game seriously

ruud · Post by **ruud** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:19 pm

excuses

Trevor · Post by **Trevor** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:23 pm

obviously its not an excuse its a fact.

Jono82 · Post by **Jono82** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:35 pm

Half time vs England's first XI - AUSTRALIA 2 - England 0

FULL TIME (2nd half vs a team of players all under the age of 26) AUSTRALIA 3 - England 1

Your juniors did better than your best!

How's that for a fact?!

Trevor · Post by **Trevor** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:23 pm

the fact that we changed our whole team just goes to show how concerned we were about the game. anyway WE HAVE THE ASHES TROPHY!!

Judge Judy · Post by **Judge Judy** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:40 pm

there is no ashes in football Trevor, i thought we just established this?

Post by **Randoman** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:00 pm

Trevor wrote:the fact that we changed our whole team just goes to show how concerned we were about the game. anyway WE HAVE THE ASHES TROPHY!!

actually, the ashes are in Australia as we speak....

avenell_road · Post by **avenell_road** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:35 pm

Jono82 wrote:Half time vs England's first XI - AUSTRALIA 2 - England 0
FULL TIME (2nd half vs a team of players all under the age of 26) AUSTRALIA 3 - England 1

Your juniors did better than your best!

How's that for a fact?!

Like all friendlies, the English players didn't give a fck about this game and played accordingly. Whereas many of the Australians played out of their skins cos it was the highlight of their career.

Although the attitude of the English to these friendlies is a bit of a disgrace in my opinion, to say that this result in any way reflects the footballing abilities of the 2 countries is delusional.

LFTWNG11 · Post by **LFTWNG11** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:53 pm

avenell_road wrote:
Jono82 wrote:Half time vs England's first XI - AUSTRALIA 2 - England 0
FULL TIME (2nd half vs a team of players all under the age of 26) AUSTRALIA 3 - England 1

Your juniors did better than your best!

How's that for a fact?!
Like all friendlies, the English players didn't give a fck about this game and played accordingly. Whereas many of the Australians played out of their skins cos it was the highlight of their career.

Although the attitude of the English to these friendlies is a bit of a disgrace in my opinion, to say that this result in any way reflects the footballing abilities of the 2 countries is delusional.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I say lets look at the world cup results... England made the Quarters, Australia made the Second-round... I dnt see much of difference there especially if you consider how lucky England were to get past Ecuador playing the footbal they did and the way the Aussies went out (not that I care, cos Italy won the world cup and thats all that counts)... just stating the facts that at the moment Australia could more than compete with England, especially seeing how they competed against the world champions!

Its funny how England (or English fans) thinkt hey can look down at countires like Australia, or even Croatia for example, and say "we are technically and tactically better than them because we have the most popular league in the world".

Heres the thing, England havent done anything in a major tournament since Italia 90, the fact they have sooo many world class player is also funny... Gerrard is world class, Rooney is world class, J.Cole is world class, Rio and Cashley used to be world class but now they care about their looks more than football!!! you have 3 world class players and 2 that used to be. John Terry would be a squad player at best in the Italian B team, fat Frank would be playing for Reggina and G.Neville would be playing Bologna... therfore it can be said ENGLAND ARE OVER-RATED!!!!

COLOSSUS · Post by **COLOSSUS** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:16 pm

Lefty whilst i agree with most of your last post you have made a very wrong and false claim about John Terry. Im sorry mate but John Terry is one of the best defenders in the world, you can call him what you like but he for me is better than Materazzi and nearly as good as Canavaro. Would easily feature in the best defence in the world but hey thats only my opinion, the rest of your post is spot on my friend

zola · Post by **zola** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:24 pm

I agree wit Colossus. I even agree with the beginning of your post LFTWNG. I understand you have some serious dislike for Frankie boy but to insult Terry and claim that he is equivalent to a Serie B player is just crap and brings down the validity of your entire post. FACT - John Terry is a class defender.

LFTWNG11 · Post by **LFTWNG11** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:25 pm

COLOSSUS wrote:Lefty whilst i agree with most of your last post you have made a very wrong and false claim about John Terry. Im sorry mate but John Terry is one of the best defenders in the world, you can call him what you like but he for me is better than Materazzi and nearly as good as Canavaro. Would easily feature in the best defence in the world but hey thats only my opinion, the rest of your post is spot on my friend

No problems mate, cant agree with everything

Look at ronaldo07, he disagrees with people just to make a shiraz name for himself!!

But I can see what your saying about John Terry as he is the centre of the best defence in the EPL... but he always gets found out at international level, seriosuly did you see his world cup?? I mean the whole standard of Englands play was piss-poor so it covered how shyt he was up a bit... and I wasn't even referring to Materazzi, who IMO is prolly Italy 4th or 5th best defender... sorry but I would definately prefer Nesta and Cannavaro in my defence... Barzagli and Dainelli would also show John Terry up!