A Lions series win or retaining the Ashes?

First topic message reminder :

The thought occurred to me yesterday evening: if I had to choose, on pain of death, between a Lions series win and England (and Wales) retaining the Ashes, which would it be?

Which would you choose?

Anyway, for me the Ashes is ahead of the Lions.

Both good contests, but the Ashes has a certain frisson not really present in the Lions/Aussies contests.

I guess you need to enjoy Test Cricket and be English (and Welsh) or Australian to really get it.

There's room for both.

Linebreaker wrote:No, much more recent than that, Doc.

1989 -2005... or 16 long years.

You get a bit tired after 10-12 years and start to feel sorry for the opposition.

No, no, no.  Can't be!
I think that's just revisionist history perpetrated by News Corp. or Al Queda or something (oh wait..........)

England.........lose......at...........sport?







although there are times we graciously bow out to give others a whisper of glory, but don't tell anyone.

Everyone is entitled to enjoy cricket if they so choose, but in all honesty, I care more about The Voice, Taylor Swift's relationship troubles, Cambodian folk dancing and the fate of the lesser spotted woodpecker than I do about the Ashes.

There are so many more important things to be worrying about in life: arms for Syrian rebels, GCHQ wire tapping, Hogg at 10...

IanBru wrote:Everyone is entitled to enjoy cricket if they so choose, but in all honesty, I care more about The Voice, Taylor Swift's relationship troubles, Cambodian folk dancing and the fate of the lesser spotted woodpecker than I do about the Ashes.

There are so many more important things to be worrying about in life: arms for Syrian rebels, GCHQ wire tapping, Hogg at 10...

Each to their own I guess
The Hogg at 10 thing is just weird though...

It'll be was watching both, but definitely the Lions for me. There's something special about Lions tours, between the rarity and the folklore of great players from the past.

doctor_grey wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:No, much more recent than that, Doc.

1989 -2005... or 16 long years.

You get a bit tired after 10-12 years and start to feel sorry for the opposition.

No, no, no.  Can't be!
I think that's just revisionist history perpetrated by News Corp. or Al Queda or something (oh wait..........)

England.........lose......at...........sport?







although there are times we graciously bow out to give others a whisper of glory, but don't tell anyone.

I know you do. Cycling & jousting for instance.

Do cricket outfielders really have "athlete" on their passports? I suppose "standing in pyjamas chewing gum and occasionally shouting "how's heeeeee ref?"" is probably too long to write on the form.

If Matt Stevens can say he's an athlete then I think the most unfit of cricketers have the right to call themselves athletes.... that would even stretch to Phil Taylor.

August 17 Linebreaker.

On that day Oz could well already be 4-0 down in the Ashes and that's the day the ABs come to town to hand out a right hammering to put England in 3rd spot in the IRB rankings.

And all that on top of a Lions whitewash.

(Well I can dream...)

greytiger wrote:August 17 Linebreaker.

On that day Oz could well already be 4-0 down in the Ashes and that's the day the ABs come to town to hand out a right hammering to put England in 3rd spot in the IRB rankings.

And all that on top of a Lions whitewash.

(Well I can dream...)

and England #1 by Christmas, right?

Here we go, right from the maths my younger son was doing in school:

If A=B, and B=C, therefore A=C.
With me so far students of exotic maths (and probanly other exotic things)?

Now, here is where everyone needs to follow closely:
England invented the musical group Queen.
Queen invented the song 'We Are The Champions"
Therefore England are Champions.

See?  Easy.

Well Freddie Mercury was born in Zanzibar, which I think used to be part of India, so would that make India the champions?

Was Freddie Mercury English? I thought he was from East Africa from an Indian family??? No wonder they won on the weekend in the ICC trophy match!

beat me to it LP!

Zanzibar? You kidding? Never knew that.

But, please keep in mind the English seed spread far and wide in former days. So, still of the English stock, my equation still applies (tenuously).

doctor_grey wrote:Zanzibar?  You kidding?  Never knew that.  

But, please keep in mind the English seed spread far and wide in former days.  So, still of the English stock, my equation still applies (tenuously).  

Yep, Farrokh Bulsara aka Freddie Mercury was born to Parsee parents in Zanzibar. Of course that technically makes him Persian (the Parsees are Zoroastrian Persians who migrated to India 1200 years ago to avoid Islamic persecution)

Pete if I'm ever in a pub quiz I'll know who to call!!!

Personally I'm in favour of scattering the ashes. May not be environmentally sound but I find it a bit creepy to keep ashes on the mantelpiece.

As I understand, all animals which have bifocal vision (maybe even those with compound eyes), even those with simple light receptors share a common gene which presumably emerged from the Earth's primordial swamp.

Therefore by logic, any human activity that depends on vision (let alone rugby) represents not a country or a race but an unknown soft-bodied organism.

Hard to see how fate spat out Freddie Mercury from that genetic conundrum, but it did.

Allez Angleterre!