• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Can someone tell me...

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
... what the point of this series was?
The Ashes were not at stake, why are England and Australia playing a Test-series if not for The Ashes?
Does anyone know? It's something I've been wondering for ages.
 

SteveG

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Richard said:
... what the point of this series was?
The Ashes were not at stake, why are England and Australia playing a Test-series if not for The Ashes?
Does anyone know? It's something I've been wondering for ages.
The TCCB refused to put up the Ashes. Australia had just welcomed back the WSC defectors and were at full strength. Thats why they won 3-0.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, it wasn't the only reason, England didn't play anywhere near their best, and presumably that's because there was nothing at stake.
So it was a sort of "welcome to the post-WSC World" series, then? I wondered...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
So, '98\99 wasn't the first time a three-Test series against England was countenanced!
 

archie mac

International Coach
Richard said:
... what the point of this series was?
The Ashes were not at stake, why are England and Australia playing a Test-series if not for The Ashes?
Does anyone know? It's something I've been wondering for ages.
England/WI were not meant to tour that season, from memory India were due to tour, but PBL decided that they wanted the teams that would make the most money to tour.

The ACB were pretty much down and out at that stage and had little to no say. MCC agreed but refused to put up the Ashes for two reasons one that it was only a 3 Test series and two because they were not meant to tour until 1982/83.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Richard said:
MCC? D'you mean The TCCB?
If so, they were quite right not to put-up The Ashes.
MCC ran England tours for many many years, but most likely stopped in the 60s I think, I just prefer to call them that.

I watched every ball of this strange series, where one week Aust would play the Windies and cop a flogging. The next they would play England and win with ease. Plus they would all be playing ODI games in-between times.

The one thing I remember is England refusing to wear coloured clothing for the OD games.
And a game where Brearley put everyone, including the WK (I think) on the boundary when the WI needed four to win a OD match :)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
archie mac said:
MCC ran England tours for many many years, but most likely stopped in the 60s I think, I just prefer to call them that.
MCC relinquished control of the game in England in 1968, and The TCCB and another party (can't remember the name) was formed.
These were superseded in 1997 by The ECB.
However, English teams overseas still reprisented MCC until 1977\78, and still wore the MCC colours until at least 1987\88.
I watched every ball of this strange series, where one week Aust would play the Windies and cop a flogging. The next they would play England and win with ease. Plus they would all be playing ODI games in-between times.
What, the Tests were mixed with each other? Aus would play Eng then WI then Eng? That's the only time that's ever happened!
 

archie mac

International Coach
Neil Pickup said:
What about the 1912 tri-series?
94 years later and we are still waiting for another tri series (Tests) I think England would be the best place maybe an ENG/IND/PAK series would be the go?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
archie mac said:
94 years later and we are still waiting for another tri series (Tests) I think England would be the best place maybe an ENG/IND/PAK series would be the go?
With the ICC Test Championship it became (briefly) unneccessary.
It's still unneccessary now - what we now need is a return to the original simple Championship concept, rather than the current Rankings system.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Neil Pickup said:
What about the 1912 tri-series?
Ha! Thought I'd catch somebody.
That was a tri-series. This was not - England did not play West Indies, did they?
It was simply two series for Australia played concurrently.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Richard said:
Ha! Thought I'd catch somebody.
That was a tri-series. This was not - England did not play West Indies, did they?
It was simply two series for Australia played concurrently.
Didn't stop Eng playing Aus then SA :p
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
It's still unneccessary now - what we now need is a return to the original simple Championship concept, rather than the current Rankings system.
The same rankings that had SA as number 1 in spite of it being clear Australia were far ahead of them?

I can see why you liked them in that case.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
The same rankings that had SA as number 1 in spite of it being clear Australia were far ahead of them?

I can see why you liked them in that case.
And that would have been corrected within three or four months - if ICC had been prepared to wait just that long.
Instead they got David Kendix to devise this formula that probably only he fully understands.
 

Top