Should the Ashes be downgraded to a 3 match series?

[cnerd123]

ok this is true though the pig three should pay for tests in smaller nations to sustain them and ensure every team gets consistent cricket because that's the only way the really small teams can get consistently better, by playing a lot of highlevel cricket

it also helps the Big 3 ensure they have a more sustainable cricket product to monetize for the next 2-3 decades. More nations playing cricket at a higher level = a better product to sell + an increased fanbase to sell it too.

Unfortunately the administrators appointed to make these decisions only think as far as their next paycheque and bonus. No one really wants to grow the pie, not at the expense of their own bottom line.

 

[Gnske]

A two test series with five t20s

 

[GIMH]

sounds like socialism to me





(I don't actually know anything about politics)

It’s okay, neither does the guy you’re quoting

 

[cricketsavant]

Silly thread because the assumption is test series length is dictated by quality but it isn't. Test series length is dictated by money and there is nothing bigger for Eng/Aus in test matches.

 

[Heboric]

I agree, up to the boards to stage 5 match series, its on the paying public who keep falling for the steaming pile known as The Ashes. Hey if you want to keep watching this drivel - fine

 

[chris.hinton]

England, bar one series where the moons aligned for them, have been thoroughly thrashed in the Australian leg of the Ashes this century. You'd think after years of touring there, playing 5 full games each time, they'd learn a thing or two but apparently not.

Likewise, Australia haven't won a single ashes series in England this century, so it seems like a foregone conclusion at this stage as to how things turn out.

imo the series should be downgraded to a 3 match series. It's baffling that the number 1 and 2 ranked sides recently played a 2 match series while teams 3 and 4 (who have been as low as 5 in recent years iirc) still get these magical 5 test series which aren't available to the rest of the cricketing community.

Once each team wins a 3 match series away from home then they earn the right to a 3+ match series imo.

No. Its should remain a 5 match series its still the best and most commercial test series in Cricket & still one of the leading sports rivalries

 

[cricketsavant]

I agree, up to the boards to stage 5 match series, its on the paying public who keep falling for the steaming pile known as The Ashes. Hey if you want to keep watching this drivel - fine

I have to agree. The home/away dynamic is so predictable post 2011. However, at least Aus win a bit in England, the reverse is just embarrassing.

 

[GIMH]

England have won a series in Oz more recently than the opposite of course. Who cares about individual matches and tied series. Series wins are what matters

 

[Chrish]

I wouldn’t be against the idea of starting every series as 4 or 5 tests. But if series result is decided in the middle of series, then bin the remainder of games. For example during 5 game series if one team wins first three games, then no need to play two reminders. Both teams have to “earn” the series so to speak. It would keep the exciting series alive longer while minimizing meaningless one-sided slaughter.

Of course, this would never work because of scheduling broadcast. But it’s amusing thought.

 

[NZTailender]

Let the market decide

 

[SteveNZ]

Likewise, Australia haven't won a single ashes series in England this century, so it seems like a foregone conclusion at this stage as to how things turn out.

There is almost zero chance this will still be the case by mid 2023.

 

[SteveNZ]

In regards to the original poster (who no one needs to attack, incidentally, he's merely asking a question and his perspective is weighted as a passionate NZ Test fan) - no, I'm not in favour of reducing the Ashes in length because every Test is always relevant, it always rates well. As long as people turn up and watch on TV, and talk about it, which they still do (Hobart still had plenty of drama and intrigue even at 3-0) then it stays at 5. I'd hate to be advocating for less Test cricket in any sense, and the Ashes are still a massive drawcard - even when it's not really a contest.

And as for other series', that's on the Boards to decide. Is it rubbish that we get two Tests in India, with no proper warm-up? Yeah, it's rubbish. But Boards, and ultimately TV networks, decide.

 

[GIMH]

There is almost zero chance this will still be the case by mid 2023.

Easy to say that now, but chances are similar things were being said after each of the other recent humiliations. Calling it almost zero is silly.

Although they actually have won one this century tbf, 2001

 

[SteveNZ]

Easy to say that now, but chances are similar things were being said after each of the other recent humiliations. Calling it almost zero is silly.

Although they actually have won one this century tbf, 2001

I mean, it would have to be 5% or so, right? You play that series 20 times and England probably wins it (or draws) once with the way the sides are going to look? That's near zero. I'll stick by it. Maybe it's been said in the past, but those sides weren't as bereft as this one.

 

[NZTailender]

And as for other series', that's on the Boards to decide. Is it rubbish that we get two Tests in India, with no proper warm-up? Yeah, it's rubbish. But Boards, and ultimately TV networks, decide.

Honestly I don't think it's that simple, otherwise everyone would do it. The figure that kept getting mentioned on NZ comms is that it costs 1 million dollars to stage a test match. So 5 tests would be 5 million dollars. You'd have to hope the broadcast rights would cover enough for that, not to mention trying to get the punters through the door. It's hard to see smaller boards being able to afford loads of tests, and easy to see why T20s and ODIs are more popular for boards to hammer into their schedule.

Ashes is a cash cow that's been milked for yonks. Throw some money to the other boards who don't have the population or economy to support it, raise the standards over time, and it will pay for itself imo

 

[GIMH]

I mean, it would have to be 5% or so, right? You play that series 20 times and England probably wins it (or draws) once with the way the sides are going to look? That's near zero. I'll stick by it. Maybe it's been said in the past, but those sides weren't as bereft as this one.

England are never going to be certs to lose at home with our bowling stocks. Let’s not forget that India, a better side than Australia, still had a Test to run and 2-2 was well on the cards. Obviously nothing to shout home about but to suddenly downgrade us to 5% against a weaker side is wide of the mark.

 

[SteveNZ]

England are never going to be certs to lose at home with our bowling stocks. Let’s not forget that India, a better side than Australia, still had a Test to run and 2-2 was well on the cards. Obviously nothing to shout home about but to suddenly downgrade us to 5% against a weaker side is wide of the mark.

You're a glass half full man, I like it. I don't see how 2-2 was on the cards, though. England won one Test, just as they did in India. I stick to the 5%.

 

[SteveNZ]

Honestly I don't think it's that simple, otherwise everyone would do it. The figure that kept getting mentioned on NZ comms is that it costs 1 million dollars to stage a test match. So 5 tests would be 5 million dollars. You'd have to hope the broadcast rights would cover enough for that, not to mention trying to get the punters through the door. It's hard to see smaller boards being able to afford loads of tests, and easy to see why T20s and ODIs are more popular for boards to hammer into their schedule.

Ashes is a cash cow that's been milked for yonks. Throw some money to the other boards who don't have the population or economy to support it, raise the standards over time, and it will pay for itself imo

It's capitalism in its purest form, my man. No one from the ECB nor CA have any interest in throwing money to other Boards. The ICC can try and create a framework that allows the power to be shared, but we know the game is run by those two organisations plus the BCCI. You said it right, it's too hard to see smaller Boards (NZC) being able to afford Tests, and David White is not a visionary - he's an accounts man. He goes with what makes the bottom line look the strongest, therefore what makes him look competent in the eyes of his own Board.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If the Ashes were 3 Test series England would have had 4 white washes in the last 5 away series.

I mean, it would have to be 5% or so, right? You play that series 20 times and England probably wins it (or draws) once with the way the sides are going to look? That's near zero. I'll stick by it. Maybe it's been said in the past, but those sides weren't as bereft as this one.

Would say the same about 2005 and probably 2009 too but not to the same extent. 2005 was a culmination of freakish circumstances and Aus should have won 49 times out of 50. 2009 the teams were definitely closer.

One thing the last few Ashes in England has shown us though, is that England will overperform and Aus will underperform relative to their teams on paper.

 

[Red]

Should be 7 or 9 tests tbh. And they should all be timeless.

With each touring team playing every state/county in a 3 day game while on tour.

And they should travel on ships rather than planes (even intra-continental where possible).