Ashes series may go for six

[Jono]

SL get two tests and England six?

Nah that's BS for mine.

EDIT: Sorry just realised this was the 2009 series in England, not in Australia. Still think its overkill.

 

[Richard]

Hahahaha, daym, had written everything I've written so far in this thread on the presumption that it was regarding the 2010\11 series. Have finally read the thing and realised it's actually for 2009 over here.

In which case - no chance. Unless the summer was to go back to 6 Tests from the 7 it's been for the last 8 summers, it ain't happening. What's more, as the Fox article says, it'd mean just a single series in the summer, which, again, ain't happening, the current requirements are just too tight. If Bangladesh and Zimbabwe were removed that'd change, obviously, but it'd still be far from straightforward.

In any case, the notion of only 1 touring team in a summer is a notion I now find virtually inconceivable.

 

[NUFAN]

Haha, how on Earth I could omit that? Ever since readmission, Aus and SA have played 6-Test home-and-away series, 4 of them so far.

The only surviving 6-Test series as of this post, but officially split into 2 3-Test ones in each country. Usually, though, an overall scoreline is given such as "Australia won 5-1" (in 2001\02).

That's not true.

They are very much seperate series.

If Australia won the first series 3-0 and South Africa won 2-1 in South Africa. It would be one series win each.

 

[Richard]

In official terms it would be, but who d'you think would buy that line (other than eternal South African optimists)?

I certainly wouldn't.

 

[NUFAN]

In official terms it would be, but who d'you think would buy that line (other than eternal South African optimists)?

I certainly wouldn't.

TBH I would buy it.

Completely different conditions. If Australia won 2-0 then lost 2-1 in South Africa I wouldn't be jumping around saying we've won the series 3-2.

 

[Richard]

You might not, but I'd be surprised if a fair few of your countrymen wouldn't. And a fair few international folk too.

Could try putting it to the poll again I guess - not that, as ever, CW is an entirely scientific means of dealing with the matter.

 

[NUFAN]

You might not, but I'd be surprised if a fair few of your countrymen wouldn't. And a fair few international folk too.

Could try putting it to the poll again I guess - not that, as ever, CW is an entirely scientific means of dealing with the matter.

Ok but if you did a poll make it the other way around.

If you lost a series 2-0 then won a series 2-1 (losing 3-2 overall) would you feel as though you lost.

TBH I think you'll find people from other countries will say they've won the series overall if said situation happened (lol I've never used 'said' before) more so then Australians..

 

[FRAZ]

I was gonna vote but the upper line said "Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected."
What the hell is the problem with 5 ? They don't give total 5 tests to Pakistan to play in a year and what's the point in giving so many tests to already the best team ever. Australia will get more and more test cricket practice and they will whoop more ..... No need for 5 and actually it's gotta be even less than 5 .

 

[Richard]

Is disappointing that Pakistan don't play 5- (or even 6-) Test-series, especially against India, more TBH.

Ok but if you did a poll make it the other way around.

If you lost a series 2-0 then won a series 2-1 (losing 3-2 overall) would you feel as though you lost.

TBH I think you'll find people from other countries will say they've won the series overall if said situation happened (lol I've never used 'said' before) more so then Australians..

It'd probably just be best if I said "if these 6 Tests had these 6 results, what would you consider", rather than a win-lose thing. I'd imagine those who had the opportunity to claim the win nearly always would.

It'd be more interesting from a neutral perspective. As I said, I'd reckon that most internationals would treat it as a victory for a 3-0, 1-2 side TBH.

 

[NUFAN]

Is disappointing that Pakistan don't play 5- (or even 6-) Test-series, especially against India, more TBH.

It'd probably just be best if I said "if these 6 Tests had these 6 results, what would you consider", rather than a win-lose thing. I'd imagine those who had the opportunity to claim the win nearly always would.

It'd be more interesting from a neutral perspective. As I said, I'd reckon that most internationals would treat it as a victory for a 3-0, 1-2 side TBH.

No but that's slightly different.

If you said 3 tests played in one country and then a few months later 3 more tests were played in another country then what would you consider..

 

[Richard]

That's basically what I said. Wasn't expressed terribly well in that post.

 

[archie mac]

If we don't want an even number lets play Seven

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think five's enough, personally. Just a pity more series aren't five overall. Outside of the Ashes I reckon five test series might be a thing of the past now.

 

[howardj]

Used to love the six Test series in England throughout the 1990's and 2001.

 

[Top_Cat]

Is disappointing that Pakistan don't play 5- (or even 6-) Test-series, especially against India, more TBH.

Good Lord, why? So we can watch more boring bat-fests? Yawn. The only competitive Test is the first and if the home side wins that, you can be guaranteed the rest of the Tests will be played on pitches with less grass than my parched South Australian front lawn.

The topic at hand, no. 6th Tests have usually been dead tests in my viewing experience. Adds nothing to the contest and that's why they were banished in the first place. I'd rather watch two tightly-contested 3-Test series' than a boring 6 or even 5-test series.

 

[Top_Cat]

The above said, however;

Used to love the six Test series in England throughout the 1990's and 2001.

So did I. At least that 6th Test was often competitive in and of itself but most of the time, the winner of the series was decided. Plus, that 2001 series only had 5 Tests.

 

[howardj]

Moreover, I used to love the days when an Ashes tour was an Ashes tour! The players used to arrive around Anzac day, play a million tour games, and not get home until the football finals were in full swing. As a kid/teen, I used to fantasise about arriving in England in April and zooming around on that giant, luxurious Ashes bus for four and a half months with my team-mates. Still do actually!

 

[Richard]

Good Lord, why? So we can watch more boring bat-fests? Yawn. The only competitive Test is the first and if the home side wins that, you can be guaranteed the rest of the Tests will be played on pitches with less grass than my parched South Australian front lawn.

Well, obviously hopefully if there's more Tests then, y'know, there might be some more bowler-friendly pitches...

It's a waste of money laying-on 5 Tests which are, basically, pointless.

 

[FRAZ]

Well, obviously hopefully if there's more Tests then, y'know, there might be some more bowler-friendly pitches...

It's a waste of money laying-on 5 Tests which are basically, pointless.,

My man !

 

[Richard]

I think five's enough, personally. Just a pity more series aren't five overall. Outside of the Ashes I reckon five test series might be a thing of the past now.

Oh, they are, and that's no great problem IMO. There's still the odd series of 4 here and there (mostly involving West Indies and South Africa). England have rarely played more than 3 against the subcontinental sides or New Zealand, and certainly there's no point playing more than 3 against West Indies at the moment.

It's only England-South Africa that I hope continues to be 5 Tests outside The Ashes at present, and hopefully it will. It's 4 next summer, obviously, but aside from that it's always been 5 since the 2nd series after readmission.