Originally Posted by Poker Boy
Since I started this I'll just say that there should only be a sixth Test if England do something I've always thought they should do - namely split their tour of Australia - just go for the Ashes and then two years later just go to play in the CB series as the third team who don't play Tests (as NZ are doing just now). IMO this has three advantages 1. It shortens the Ashes tour. 2. If England went just for the CB series it means we could concentrate on the one-day game for a spell - one of our problems in ODIs is a lot of them (especially on tour) are played after the Tests so the players are tired and disinterested 3.If we went to Australia every two years it gives us more experience of Aussie conditions which might help us adapt quicker in Ashes tours - its amazing to think if it hdn't been for 2005's Super series Freddie would nver have played a test in Australia before this tour. One question - in 1970-71, 1974-75 and 1978-79 Australia did have six-Test Ashes series(in fact one turned into a seven Test series because of a wash-out - much to Ray Illingworth's disgust) - why did they stop them?
As for six Tests in England, it won't happen unless we can go back to Australia being the only touring country in a summer - seven tests a season is argubly too much. Eight definately is. And about Scotland - IMO matches not involving Full Members should not be ODIs except in WC - but I can understand why Scotland choose to go down the ICC route as they will get more publicity by playing in the WC than ever they would just playing in English competitons - even if they won't cause Ricky Ponting or Graheme Smith any sleepless nights.
I'd rather scotland were like Wales and competed in the CC -as Glamorgan do - then one day there might be an Ashes Test in Edingburgh one day as there will be in Cardiff in 2009 - but I reckon there's more chance of us voting for independence than that happening!
Why did 6-Test series in Australia stop? Simple. The tri-series. The first time there was a ODI tri-series was 1979\80, they used the idea Kerry Packer had practised - indeed, at the start the tournament was even known as The World Series Cup (eventually becoming the -insert sponsor's name- Series).
England, on the other hand, went from 6 Tests to 7 and
added the tri-series in the same summer.
And that was the summer where England players appearing for their counties became a virtual non-event.
I highly doubt Scotland's ODI status had anything to do with their own ideas - everyone knows I$C$C are obsessed with the expansion idea, 8 teams at a World Cup doesn't sound Global enough, does it? I'd be prepared to bet I$C$C were falling-over themselves to give Scotland and the rest ODI status. For mine, indeed, games involving any substandard side shouldn't be given ODI status, World Cup or outside.
As for the split tour of Australia, I can't say it's an idea I fancy, if you're going somewhere you might as well go there to play Tests and ODIs at the same time. If English players can't take ODIs seriously enough simply because they're being played after the Tests they deserve to suffer for it IMO. And it's not like that's the problem anyway, England just don't produce enough cricketers who are good enough at the one-day game and that's shown by the domestic records of the players who get picked.