Ashes 2006/7: Words of the Series
There seems little point in coming up with a kind of Ashes “report card” since it’s blindingly obvious that Australia aced it, and England should be sent to summer school to resit their exams. (Maybe they should even be held back a year and forced to learn it all over again?). No, instead, I think it’d be interesting to look at the words used by the various media outlets (Six and Out included) throughout the course of the series used to describe the teams and matches. And, in fact, there are two words that stick out a mile ahead of any other, and whilst I don’t want this to turn in to a glorified English lesson, it’d be interesting to look into them in a little more detail and consider the metaphysical implications of the new age vernacular designated to evaluate the aforementioned series.
Um. Here we go, then:
Australia: Ruthless
Ah, the ruth of Australia. I thought ruth was just the name of some girl that I had a major crush on when I was at school. She sadly didn’t feel the same way, and didn’t care, either, as she repeatedly snogged my best mate. Ironic, really, considering that a quick definition of ruth, is:
- pity or compassion
- sorrow or grief
- self-reproach; contrition; remorse
so add the -less and you’ve got an Australian team who are without pity or compassion when they demolish their opponents (and not as the Wiki would have you believe, that they’re without a big lunar crater…). It’s an interesting expression to use to describe a cricket team and its performance. Is ruthlessness a prerequisite of a winning team? Many of the Australian selectors would certainly agree, considering that following the loss of the Ashes in 2005, the team got a barracking for being too friendly in the press by calling their counterparts by their nicknames. Maybe not a sign of ruthlessness, but indicative of a mindset that Test cricketers need to be in. It seems the word was used in this series to describe Australia’s clinical approach to each game. They were always focussed on the job at hand and played to a standard well above England. They gave very few chances, and when given a let-off made sure to make the most of it (read: Ponting at Adelaide dropped by Giles). Some of the comments that depressed me the most from the England camp is when they spoke of how Australia never let them get in to the game or that they didn’t have a chance to find some form. These are such flimsy excuses - did they actually expect Australia to do that? Did they expect that any Test side should ever do that? If they did then they’re sorely mistaken. Australia never wait for their opposition to let them in the game. They always go out there, do what they do, and make the most of what comes along. England, in contrary, rarely looked to have turned up, and Australia had racked up 400 before England appeared to have had their morning dump. Australia weren’t particularly ruthless in this series, they just played excellent cricket against an inept opposition.
England: Capitulation
Now there’s a word that terrifies me to my very core. It actually sounds dirty and evil. If someone’s speaking and you sense they’re going to use that word, for the love of God don’t look directly at them. In my mind, capitulate sounds like a metaphor for something that Australia did all over England. Let’s have a look:
- surrender unconditionally or on stipulated terms
- to give up resistance
The word has been thoroughly overused throughout the series, but maybe that’s because it’s just so damn appropriate. Except perhaps the bit about stipulated terms? I’m not sure what terms might have been stipulated. Perhaps England winning the Ashes last year were the terms and this was some complicated masterplan cooked up years ago ahead of Shane Warne’s retirement. Australia let England win in 2005 on the condition that Australia would be allowed a 5-0 whitewash this year as the perfect exit for Australia’s great players? Well, regardless, unconditional surrender describes exactly what England’s batsmen did on so many occasions this series. Get a reasonable start and then lose the last 5 wickets for half a dozen runs. It could equally be used to describe what Duncan Fletcher and Andrew Flintoff finally did: capitulated under the pressure to get rid of Ashley Giles and Geraint Jones (after already losing the Ashes). Yes, I’m still bitter about that.
So there you have it: English Language 101 for the Ashes. Australia were ruthless whilst England capitulated. I hope we’ve all learnt a little something something.
Tags: Australia, capitulate, England, Notice-Board, ruthless, Test Cricket, The-Ashes, wordsRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Cricket
0 opinions for Ashes 2006/7: Words of the Series
No one has left a comment yet. You know what this means, right? You could be first!
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: