Should the Ashes urn stay in Australia since they won? Why or why not?

Question

I read an article that Richard Branson even thinks the urn should stay with the winning country - http://au.news.yahoo.com/070103/23/11y45.html - and I think it should too.
What do you think?

Answer 1

Yes it should. For all those people who say its too delicate to travel, why did they bring it out here this summer?

Answer 2

well let me ask you a question. What makes the 3 mobile ashes series so special? it is because of the history between these two sides and for begginers the commentaters go "XXXX has won the ashes back" which not everyone including me till now knew that the ashes still stay in england no matter which team wins the series. If the winning team keeps the ashes in their country then the citizens will be more supportive of the game since they can attract tourist around the world which would be a benefit the players since they know they did something very important for their country.
The ashes series is a special series because of the urn as a major feature or what will be the difference between the Commonwealth Bank series and the Ashes. NOTHING

Answer 3

No. ( and since when has Richard Branson been a cricket expert? )

The urn itself was never intended to be a trophy. It was originally given to the England captain as a joke by a group of Australian women. so it was a little gift, not a trophy. And besides, it is now very old and fragile and would just not last being moved all the time.

Since the phrase "the Ashes" was first used (which actually pre-dates the urn which now represents them), it has always been an imaginary thing. England and Australia are playing for what the Ashes represents, not for a physical trophy.

There is no need at all for an actual trophy, even though the sponsors of the series ususally present a specially produced one to the winners these days.

Answer 4

3 times

Answer 5

Now, here's an original idea (NOT).

As with the original ashes, why not, at the conclusion of each series, a bail be burned and the "ashes" of that bail presented to the LOSING team? That would preserve the true original intent (and, I think, would be a good "tradition".)

As per the original series, it should represent the "death" of cricket in the losing country!

Of course, England would need a rather large repository for the storage of the urns!!!

As an adendum.....the remaining 19 (unburned) bails (4 bails per test, and 5 tests) can be presented, one each to the players in the WINNING team as an individual trophy to them.

I guess it is possible that more than 19 players from the winning country could be involved in the series, but I'm sure that problem could be overcome with some "backup" bails!!

Whether there should be a trophy for the winning country is a completely separate matter.

Answer 6

Richard Branson only did this for free publicity and to make his airline more popular to Aussies. He also got himself quite embarassed when at the press conference a very well informed reporter pointed out to him that he didn't actually know what the ashes were! The Ashes is not a "trophy" and was never meant to be a trophy or a prize. I don't know all the exact details but from what Richie and the gang said on ABC radio yesterday I understand that it was initially bequeathed to the MCC in England in a will by the family who owned it. It was only a simple keepsake and the MCC never had permission to do anything else with it other than display it. All our teams are really playing for is the "title" of the ashes. There is NO trophy.

By the way... I'm an Aussie born and bred. Anyhow, why should we care? I think it's fine to leave the urn in England so the poms can admire what is OURS.

Answer 7

The only reason the Aussies should keep the Ashes after a win, is because we are playing for the Ashes. In short if the MCC doesn't want to hand over the urn after an England team lose, we shouldn't be playing for the ashes, we should change the name of the contest or hand the urn over to the winner!

Answer 8

I fully agree with you that the Urn should stay with the winning side.

However, since traditionally the Urn remains in the Marylebone Cricket Club Museum at Lords because it was bequeathed to the MCC by Ivo Bligh upon his death.and it has been a practice since 1998-99 Ashes Series to present a Waterford crystal trophy to the winners, I doubt whether the Ashes Urn will be handed over to the winners..

Answer 9

I agree, the MCC should consider allowing the winning side to hold it. Even though the MCC own it and it's up to them to decide what to do with it, they're not the ones who are playing for it, and it would give both teams more of an incentive to win.

I also don't buy the "but the urn is too delicate" excuse. It didn't stop it being flown to Australia for this series, and besides it would only need to be moved once every couple of years. Even less often than that if one side wins consecutive series.

Answer 10

I would definitely agree that the Ashes Urn should reside in the winner's country.

Since it is delicate, and may not travel well, perhaps it should just stay in Australia, since we win the ashes more often than the Poms.

Answer 11

Even though I am an Aussie, I don't think it should. I think regular visits are appropriate, like the one it is undertaking at the moment. However the actual Ashes was a gift to Ivo Bligh by the wives and commitee women of the Melbourne Cricket Club. When he died his wife donated it to the Marlybone Cricket Club who keep it in their Museum. Therefore, unlike other trophies, it BELONGS to the MCC. Most trophies, World Cup etc, are HELD by the winner, not owned. The winner of the Ashes doe HOLD an Ashes trophy - it's a horrible larger crystal replica which popped up sometime in the early 1990's, and that does live in Australia (except for a 443 day loan to the poms last year), however, the actual Ashes is the property of the MCC.