Talk:2010–11 Ashes series

Internet

Does anyone know who has internet broadcast rights for this series in various territories? 130.225.25.207 (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Test locations map

I'm affraid, global warming has made Sydney and Brisbane sink into the ocean on the map. Does anybody know how to correct this, I'm not familiar with this type of map, only know the coordinate type. Calistemon (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Must be my laptop, its a bit small and must be distorting the map, on this computer it all looks alright. Calistemon (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I adjusted it the other day and should have come back here to say so. –Moondyne 02:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Map

I'm pretty sure Brisbane is further north. 117.4.200.141 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Worst start?

In the second Test, Australia "made their worst start to a Test match in 60 years", or so we are told. It is what the source says, but no explanation is given. What happened 60 years ago? How does one define a "start"? The better comments I heard said things like "one of their worst starts ever". Cricket is a game of numbers. I'm not comfortable with the "60 years" without further explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In the game 60 years, Australia were reduced to 0-3 against England. By worst start, it means their lowest total for the loss of 3 wickets since that match 60 years ago. Although, they did win that match!

This shows the worst positions Australia have been at for the loss of 3 wickets: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=fow_in;partnership_wicketmax1=4;partnership_wicketmin1=4;partnership_wicketval1=partnership_wicket;team=2;template=results;type=fow;view=innings

m@tt (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Strewth! Thanks for the cricinfo link - I've included it into the paragraph. Lugnuts (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos

If any of the contributors to this article attends a match, could you take a photograph of the field during play if that's allowed? The only photo in the article so far is of the stands during the second test. Cla68 (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you stump up the cost of my flights from the UK and accomadation in Aus?! ;-) I was at the Gabba last November, but that's not much help now... I'm sure there must be some contributors who'll be able to take some pics, or some who have taken pics, but are too busy enjoying their holiday right now to update WP! Lugnuts (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the Adelaide Oval page. There are many (better in my biassed opinion) photos of the 2nd test there (than this one), but I didn't see any point in starting an edit war. Pdfpdf (talk)

I understand why, I think, the photo of the stands was put there, because the photographer was sitting/standing too far away from the field to get a good picture of the action. Anyway, I replaced it with a picture of the field with some of the athletes present and we'll see if it sticks. It looks like one needs a powerful zoom lens to get any good close-up photos of these tests. Cla68 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Modern point-and-clicks are very good for wide-angle shots, but to get detail, you need a good quality camera with an even better quality lens. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Previous Ashes in Australia

Why do people keep removing the info about Australia's whitewash of England in the 2006-07 Ashes from the lead section? Surely the result of the last Ashes series held in Australia is just as relevant as the result of the 2009 Ashes in England? Furthermore, I say this as an England fan, so no one can accuse me of being a biased Aussie. – PeeJay 14:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not as relevant. The result of the last series in England is part of the explanation of why "England are the current holders of the urn", which is stated just before that text. The result of the series before that is irrelevant to that point and really looks like an attempt to balance the information about English win (a misguided attempt at NPOV?), rather than being relevant to the current series. It's quite a stretch trying to justify the inclusion of a result from two series ago in an article about the current series. Can you give us a reason why it should be there? (And I say this as an Australian!) HiLo48 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the conditions in Australia and in England are vastly different. Winning a Test series on your home grounds is far easier than winning away from home, so the result of the previous Ashes series puts England's 2009 win (and the 2010-11 win, by extension) in perspective. – PeeJay 21:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Then we should list lots of previous results. But that would really be off topic. No, we cannot list all of them. The last series result is directly relevant. All other are not. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be glib. I didn't say we should list lots of previous results; only the most recent results in both England and Australia. The last England-hosted Ashes series is relevant because it was the last one overall, and the last Australia-hosted Ashes series is relevant because this one is also being hosted by Australia. It makes perfect sense. – PeeJay 01:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you still don't get it. Read the current structure carefully. The most recent result in England is there because it completes the sentence "England are the current holders of the urn,..." You are asking for results to be included for a different reason. Perhaps it needs a new section called "Recent form" or similar, but not where we're talking about who holds the Ashes. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because a sentence starts out talking about one thing doesn't mean it has to finish the same way. As I read it, the sentence is about recent results, and the fact that the current holders of the urn are mentioned in that sentence is a bonus. The last series between the two teams in the same country is just as important as the one in the other country. Oh, and by the way, there is a section about past results between the two teams. It's called "Background". – PeeJay 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you make a page called The Ashes Results then if you think the 2006/07 result should be included on the 2010/11 page. Its like the World Cup page, you list the current champions. E.G, Spain are the current champions because the won the 2010 world cup. That goes on the 2014 page if you get me. You include the last series no matter where it's held not a series set 4-5 year ago. Migitgem2009 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, don't be glib. I'm not suggesting for a moment that all of the previous results should be included; I'm only suggesting, because this series is being held in Australia, that the result of the last Ashes series held in Australia should be included. I really don't see the problem with this, especially when it only adds a few words to the sentence. – PeeJay 01:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The result of the previous Australian Ashes is irrelevant that only result that matters is the last Ashes series.Tubby23 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to explain that opinion? You can't just say things and expect people to take you seriously without presenting something to back your statement up. – PeeJay 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Several reasons have already been given in this thread. Stop wasting your time on this issue. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not by Tubby23, they haven't. And to be honest, I find your reasons as empty as you seem to find mine. I think we need a third opinion on this issue from someone outside the cricket community. – PeeJay 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not in the cricket community really. I am a rugby league guy and just check up on the Ashes. And if you want someone that is totally outside the cricket world then they won't have the slighest idea of what you mean. Just leave it as it is because your the only person to complain. Anyway off the record I see we have the same interests as we both like Man Utd and like the NFL. Migitgem2009 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is quite a coincidence! But just to add, just because other people haven't said anything doesn't mean I'm the only one who thinks the info should stay. – PeeJay 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Leave it as it is then because the result is there now so might as well just leave it. Migitgem2009 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. We're not losing anything by including it, but we could very easily be removing useful info if we take it away. – PeeJay 23:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cook was lucky on 99 then. And yeah good point might as well have it as long as we include 2009 result on 2013 one ;) Migitgem2009 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be the logical conclusion. – PeeJay 01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't changed my opinion that it's not appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your point? – PeeJay 01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's somewhat equivalent to that of your post of 23:21, 3 January 2011 HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. And to be frank, I can't really understand why you are objecting so vehemently to the inclusion of this info. Does it really throw your entire perception of the world so out-of-whack that you need to expunge it completely to return to any sense of normalcy? I think not. – PeeJay 02:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to semi-retire from this chat again, but I do have to point out that you have made a lot more posts on the matter than I have. You're obviously a little more concerned about some state of normalcy than I am. I have made my point. You have made yours. We don't agree. I didn't expect to change your view with my last post. You writing more words is unlikely to change mine, especially when you start becoming rude. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

False information

Here, it says this is the most recent time a visitor has won the Ashes but in 2019 Australia won in England.