As a rule, change isn't neccessary. You don't know what you're missing if it never happens.
it is kinda of broke though. otherwise you wouldn't have so many empty stadiums. Change is essential in life. Without change we we wouldn't have one cricket without change we would have the world cup etc. you don't know what you're missing if it never happens but you aren't moving forward and just being in the same position as it was 100 years ago while everything else around it changes and moves on, eventually just leaving the game to the past.
it is empty in most of the other places
that would depend on the idea and i can't think of any idea that would make it better so i'm not suggesting any thing but to be just blindly against change is also ridiculous.
Change isn't remotely essential in life, we could live very easily without it. However there's no point in changing something which many people hold dear, such as many facets of Test cricket.
I'm not sure about your asessment of the Australian FC system. Personally I think it is more tailored to developing bowlers and batsmen who are more developed to play at home then away. It just that their have been a handful of greats like Ponting, Warne and McGarth that have played brillant away from home that have made it look other wise. I'm not going to get into a Hayden v anyone arguement. But I think he is prime example of this system. There are a few others that are looking like they are going to be similar; Jaques, Hussey, Johnson, Lee etc.I don't think that's going to eventuate though. Australia's FC system breeds a bowling attack that's largely adaptable to away Tests, especially in England, South Africa and the West Indies. Given the eclectic nature of their own home pitches, it's somewhat of a necessity anyway. What you're supposing is that Australia degenerates into something like the formerly Indian or latterly English model of cricket, while a better, more adaptable side adopts an FC model that's more conducive to what would usually be an Australian team makeup. So, in other words, the universe turns upside down.
What you're saying is hypothetically sound, but I think is fairly unlikely to happen. In light of that, I think the only conclusive way of determining a changeover is by defeat in a home series.
We have been blessed (cursed?) however, with two sides in 70/80s Windies and 90s/2000s Australia, that are good enough to consistently win away and support my theory of this 'changeover', in that they started to dominate in a way that happened incidentally after they began to beat the previous best in their backyard. The competitive climate in Test cricket could well change in that there's no clear dominator after Australia eventually lose at home, and ergo no single 'world champion' to be clearly determined.
Which would **** on my argument rather emphatically.
um yeah i guess change isn't essential , i guess we should still be cave mens and be hunters and gatherers. should still live like that, hey we might as well not change from that and not even have cricket...what?!? change isn't essential? are you kidding me? everything new that happens is a change from the past when it didn't happen. And if it wasn't essential, we'd still be cave mens. And cricket isn't so easy that even a cavemen could do it.
why do you get crowd for the ashes? cause it means something.
