SixthTest anyone?

[GIMH]

Should just cancel all other Cricket and play for the Ashes on a Test-by-Test basis tbh

Nah, 6 would be cool.

[McKanga]

Originally Posted by Richard

Are ye no aware that in cricketing terms Scotland is part of the team which is known as "England" but represents, in reality, "The British Isles"?

No, that is actually a surprise.

[Richard]

Well... given that every Scot, Welshman and Irishman who has ever got good at cricket has always ended-up playing for the team called "England" it shouldn't really.

And it's a historical quirk that mattered little for 130 years, then the genius folk at I$C$C decided it'd be a great idea to start giving Ireland and Scotland ODI status... despite the fact that these sides have proven for a century and more to be weaker than the weakest First-Class county... you might as well give Jamaica or Barbados ODI status. And if the team had been called The British Isles none of that nonsense would have happened because Scotland and Ireland would have been recognised for what they are - part of a country that already plays international cricket, like Jamaica and Trinidad And Tobago.

[age_master]

Hobart deserves a test every year for mine.

[GIMH]

Pretty sure geography teachers aren't allowed to use the term "British Isles" anymore, as it's offensive to those in the Republic. Not sure though.

EDIT - kinda contradicted myself there, nevermind

[McKanga]

Originally Posted by Richard

Well... given that every Scot, Welshman and Irishman who has ever got good at cricket has always ended-up playing for the team called "England" it shouldn't really.......

Thanks. I like this site. I learn interesting things every day, and in this case not even directly about cricket.
My wife and I lived in Scotland for just under two years in the late 80s and in pre-cable days (for scrimping Aussies anyway) you didn't even hear much about English soccer, let alone cricket.
I think there is clearly a very different mindset in England about who plays for England (rugby, soccer, cricket whatever) than there is in Australia (and NZ, SA, India, Pakistan, WI etc?). Almost worth a thread. But I'd better not start it as my Geraint Jones one went a bit berserk and in combination would make it look like I do nothing but stir the possum.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Richard

Well... given that every Scot, Welshman and Irishman who has ever got good at cricket has always ended-up playing for the team called "England" it shouldn't really.

So is Papua New Guinea represented by England now too?

[Josh]

I'd pay to go see the Hobart test, tbh. Tassie's a great place.

[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!

[GIMH]

Good idea in theory about splitting the tour to Australia. Not sure if it's practical WRT the FTP, but you never know.

What I would never like to see again is what happened last time we were down-under, whereby the Ashes was carved up by the VB series

[Richard]

Originally Posted by McKanga

Thanks. I like this site. I learn interesting things every day, and in this case not even directly about cricket.
My wife and I lived in Scotland for just under two years in the late 80s and in pre-cable days (for scrimping Aussies anyway) you didn't even hear much about English soccer, let alone cricket.
I think there is clearly a very different mindset in England about who plays for England (rugby, soccer, cricket whatever) than there is in Australia (and NZ, SA, India, Pakistan, WI etc?). Almost worth a thread. But I'd better not start it as my Geraint Jones one went a bit berserk and in combination would make it look like I do nothing but stir the possum.

Cricket and soccer are two wholly different animals.

The soccer teams have always been those of the 5 countries, not GBR, The UK or the British Isles.

In cricket it's always been a collective, just that (presumably because the vast majority were always English) the team was always known as England.

The reason you didn't hear much about cricket is probably that cricket has never been extraordinarily popular in Scotland (though more popular than most in England ever give it credit for).

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

So is Papua New Guinea represented by England now too?

I don't think it's a territory, is it...?

Just that Geraint Jones happened to be brought-up there - the reason he qualifies for "England" is because he's actually an Australian-bred Welshman - his parents are both Welsh (as you can tell by the names Jones, Emrys and Geraint).

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Pretty sure geography teachers aren't allowed to use the term "British Isles" anymore, as it's offensive to those in the Republic. Not sure though.

EDIT - kinda contradicted myself there, nevermind

Maybe not, but it's still the only term that refers to ROI as part of the same as those countries of The UK (NI and GBR - containing England, Scotland and Wales - there really are a confusing number of countries\territories in and around this place).

And in cricketing terms, ROI, NI and Britain are a collective.

[Richard]

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.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by McKanga

Thanks. I like this site. I learn interesting things every day, and in this case not even directly about cricket.
My wife and I lived in Scotland for just under two years in the late 80s and in pre-cable days (for scrimping Aussies anyway) you didn't even hear much about English soccer, let alone cricket.
I think there is clearly a very different mindset in England about who plays for England (rugby, soccer, cricket whatever) than there is in Australia (and NZ, SA, India, Pakistan, WI etc?). Almost worth a thread. But I'd better not start it as my Geraint Jones one went a bit berserk and in combination would make it look like I do nothing but stir the possum.

If you mean we're somewhat more welcoming to non-native born and/or raised English-qualified players then you do have a point with cricket, but Mother Australia spreads her petticoat quite wide in the search for ocker Rugger talent; taking in Zambia (George Gregan), South Africa (Dan Vickerman & Clyde Rathbone), Tonga (Toutai Kefu), Fiji (Lote Tuqiri) & New Zealand (Jeremy Paul).