Cabinet96
Global Moderator
Two test series get a lot of criticism on here and in the media. While I don’t think they’re the ideal length for a series I do think said criticism goes too far, so I wanted to put in some kind of defence for them.
For a start, in modern times there just isn’t always the time for long test series. There are more test sides than ever these days and boards are under pressure to play all 8 or 9 in 4/5 year stretches. The IPL taking a chunk out of the calendar has only exasperated the problem. The natural result is a lot of tours will be less than two months and with international tours also being three formats in the current era, it’s sometimes hard to devote a month purely for the test leg of a tour - which is what is reasonably needed for a 3 match or longer series. A lot on here will argue that boards should do away with the limited overs leg of certain tours, but there are massive sections of fans who prefer the shorter formats, and it’s important to cater to all types of fans, not just hardcore test ones; both for purposes of fairness and for financial means (a lot of countries are dependent on limited overs money to fund test matches). One solution to this is to do separate test and limited overs tours, which have been done by the likes of India and Australia. I actually quite like it as a solution, but the reality is that doesn’t satisfy a lot of people, who simply complain when the ODI leg of the tour comes and there aren’t any tests being played. A great examples of this is the India v Australia ODI series of late 2013, which was effectively the ODI leg of the test tour in Feb/March, but sandwiched between two Ashes series it got a lot of hate for being pointless and an unnecessary distraction.
I also think, on top of the fact they’re something of a necessity at times, that two test series can actually be really good, and a lot of them end up being better than 4 and 5 match series. Long series sound great in theory, and a good 5 match series will always eclipse a good 2 match series. But I think in reality a lot of long test series end up being disappointing. The logic that sides can adapt to foreign conditions better if given more time and that players can turnaround bad or good form in long series is pretty sound, but we just haven’t seen many examples of it in recent series. A number of series have seen sides get ahead early and lead to boring, predictable dead rubber tests later in the series. The Ashes whitewashes, arguably the 2013 Ashes, the 2011 India tour of England and basically every Australia v India series are illustrations of that. There’s the odd one where the balance fluctuates; the 2009 Ashes, England’s 11/12 tour of India, India’s tour to England two years later, England’s tour of South Africa in 2009/10, and most obviously the 2005 Ashes, but I’d say they’re the exception rather than the rule. Long series have also seemingly rarely helped the likes of India and Australia in adapting to foreign conditions, while we’ve seen Sri Lanka and New Zealand fare better and get positive results in two match tours to England. We’ve also seen plenty of examples of players dominating or struggling throughout five match series. Cook in the 10/11 and 13/14 Ashes and Kohli in India’s big tours in 2014 are clear instances were a player has either scored heavily from the first test to last or struggled throughout, which can, in all honesty, get pretty boring.
In contrast, two test series can obviously by design not have any dead rubber games. As a result series have a greater chance of remaining interesting until their conclusion and only ever become inevitable towards the end of the 2nd test, at the earliest. There’s also rarely issues of repetitiveness when it comes to which players are dominating, simply because they don’t have enough innings for it to start feeling like groundhog day. A number of my favourites test series in the last five years have been two match ones; South Africa in India 2010, Australia in South Africa in 2011, England in Sri Lanka 2012, India in NZ in 2014, Sri Lanka in England and NZ, NZ in England 6 months ago, etc. There are plenty of others that I didn’t see a lot of which I imagine were similarly good as well.
Of course, like I’ve said previously, they’re not perfect. The strengths of longer series and flaws of short ones are well documented and I don’t need to tell you them. A perfect series would always be a fluctuating five match one between two sides of similar quality. But I’ve read people who have suggested two match series are completely pointless and worse than nothing, which is quite frankly ridiculous for all the aforementioned reasons.
In my opinion, the biggest issue with two match series is the unequal handing out of short and long series among the test playing countries. Maybe a Kiwi would say it’s easy for me to defend them when they’re a rarity for England and the norm for NZ. I think in an ideal world the number of two test series wouldn’t necessarily reduce, but the burden of playing them would be more equally distributed. More long series for the likes of NZ and SL and more short series for the likes of India and Australia. But I think this particular issue is down more to the politics of world cricket at the moment and the significant, well documented, problems there; which is something different entirely and not something to be held specifically against two match series.
Anyway, those are just my arguments. Massive tl:dr but I don’t care, it’s fun to ramble occasionally.
For a start, in modern times there just isn’t always the time for long test series. There are more test sides than ever these days and boards are under pressure to play all 8 or 9 in 4/5 year stretches. The IPL taking a chunk out of the calendar has only exasperated the problem. The natural result is a lot of tours will be less than two months and with international tours also being three formats in the current era, it’s sometimes hard to devote a month purely for the test leg of a tour - which is what is reasonably needed for a 3 match or longer series. A lot on here will argue that boards should do away with the limited overs leg of certain tours, but there are massive sections of fans who prefer the shorter formats, and it’s important to cater to all types of fans, not just hardcore test ones; both for purposes of fairness and for financial means (a lot of countries are dependent on limited overs money to fund test matches). One solution to this is to do separate test and limited overs tours, which have been done by the likes of India and Australia. I actually quite like it as a solution, but the reality is that doesn’t satisfy a lot of people, who simply complain when the ODI leg of the tour comes and there aren’t any tests being played. A great examples of this is the India v Australia ODI series of late 2013, which was effectively the ODI leg of the test tour in Feb/March, but sandwiched between two Ashes series it got a lot of hate for being pointless and an unnecessary distraction.
I also think, on top of the fact they’re something of a necessity at times, that two test series can actually be really good, and a lot of them end up being better than 4 and 5 match series. Long series sound great in theory, and a good 5 match series will always eclipse a good 2 match series. But I think in reality a lot of long test series end up being disappointing. The logic that sides can adapt to foreign conditions better if given more time and that players can turnaround bad or good form in long series is pretty sound, but we just haven’t seen many examples of it in recent series. A number of series have seen sides get ahead early and lead to boring, predictable dead rubber tests later in the series. The Ashes whitewashes, arguably the 2013 Ashes, the 2011 India tour of England and basically every Australia v India series are illustrations of that. There’s the odd one where the balance fluctuates; the 2009 Ashes, England’s 11/12 tour of India, India’s tour to England two years later, England’s tour of South Africa in 2009/10, and most obviously the 2005 Ashes, but I’d say they’re the exception rather than the rule. Long series have also seemingly rarely helped the likes of India and Australia in adapting to foreign conditions, while we’ve seen Sri Lanka and New Zealand fare better and get positive results in two match tours to England. We’ve also seen plenty of examples of players dominating or struggling throughout five match series. Cook in the 10/11 and 13/14 Ashes and Kohli in India’s big tours in 2014 are clear instances were a player has either scored heavily from the first test to last or struggled throughout, which can, in all honesty, get pretty boring.
In contrast, two test series can obviously by design not have any dead rubber games. As a result series have a greater chance of remaining interesting until their conclusion and only ever become inevitable towards the end of the 2nd test, at the earliest. There’s also rarely issues of repetitiveness when it comes to which players are dominating, simply because they don’t have enough innings for it to start feeling like groundhog day. A number of my favourites test series in the last five years have been two match ones; South Africa in India 2010, Australia in South Africa in 2011, England in Sri Lanka 2012, India in NZ in 2014, Sri Lanka in England and NZ, NZ in England 6 months ago, etc. There are plenty of others that I didn’t see a lot of which I imagine were similarly good as well.
Of course, like I’ve said previously, they’re not perfect. The strengths of longer series and flaws of short ones are well documented and I don’t need to tell you them. A perfect series would always be a fluctuating five match one between two sides of similar quality. But I’ve read people who have suggested two match series are completely pointless and worse than nothing, which is quite frankly ridiculous for all the aforementioned reasons.
In my opinion, the biggest issue with two match series is the unequal handing out of short and long series among the test playing countries. Maybe a Kiwi would say it’s easy for me to defend them when they’re a rarity for England and the norm for NZ. I think in an ideal world the number of two test series wouldn’t necessarily reduce, but the burden of playing them would be more equally distributed. More long series for the likes of NZ and SL and more short series for the likes of India and Australia. But I think this particular issue is down more to the politics of world cricket at the moment and the significant, well documented, problems there; which is something different entirely and not something to be held specifically against two match series.
Anyway, those are just my arguments. Massive tl:dr but I don’t care, it’s fun to ramble occasionally.