• 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.

The Death of the Five-Test Series

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
Friends, Romans, Cricketwebbers, an endangered species is among us. It is not, as previously thought, an Ashley Giles wicket or a Bucknor good decision. Yet it is as, if not more, noticed and celebrated than either of these two occurrences.

It is the five Test series.

In all seriousness, though, what on earth is the ICC playing at with the current itinerary? A two Test series between Australia and New Zealand was an insult to all concerned. It seems the only series remaining sacred are those concerning matches between England and Australia or South Africa.

Some say that the quality of cricket merits the series length. If that's true, then why aren't Australia-India series and the like given greater length?

Your two cents?
 

James90

Cricketer Of The Year
I think 3 test series are good. Nothing less than that, even involving Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. What really is a shame though is the Frank Worrell Trophy being reduced to 3 tests.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
The problem is having to fit so many series into a fixed time scale.

Speaking from the English point of view, we have time for 7 Tests in a summer, so can only have 2 series (which fits in with the 5 year plan quite easily) - so it's easy to have a 5 Test series and a 2 (if we get one of the minnows for the 2) and a 4 and 3 in other times.

However all the other nations have their home seasons at the same time, so it becomes a lot more complicated then.

Of course if nations stopped playing so many meaningless ODI series (or such long series), there'd be more time to fit Tests in and play proper series.
 

cameeel

International Captain
James90 said:
I think 3 test series are good. Nothing less than that, even involving Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. What really is a shame though is the Frank Worrell Trophy being reduced to 3 tests.
At least though with the Frank Worrell trophy the series will probably be lengthened when it becomes competitive again.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
marc71178 said:
The problem is having to fit so many series into a fixed time scale.

Speaking from the English point of view, we have time for 7 Tests in a summer, so can only have 2 series (which fits in with the 5 year plan quite easily) - so it's easy to have a 5 Test series and a 2 (if we get one of the minnows for the 2) and a 4 and 3 in other times.

However all the other nations have their home seasons at the same time, so it becomes a lot more complicated then.

Of course if nations stopped playing so many meaningless ODI series (or such long series), there'd be more time to fit Tests in and play proper series.
Agree 100%.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It would be great to see less ODIs and more test matches, but the truth is that the ODIs bring in the cash. Not many cricket boards make money off test matches, in fact most probably lose money. It is the ODIs where boards make their money, they need them. If tests were to be competitive and last 5 days then I guess more people would turn up and we could see more 5 test series.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
its sad really.

the ashes has been one of the most exciting test series in living memory and partly because of the amount of time it took up.

it wasn't like Pakistan v England where England lose the series and quickly try to brush it under the carpet,there is no hiding in a 5 match series,it makes for more intresting cricket and has more chance of capturing the nations attention than a 3/2 match series.

but like Marc said,its never going to be that way. The ICC shot themselves in the foot when they introduced the 'everyone plays eachother twice in 4 years'.

I don't think we should play 5 tests against everyone,but when equaly matched teams come up against each other i think the boards should take notice.

if we did a poll on here,who could honestly say that 5 test series against equaly matched sides are a bad thing?

i'd love to see England play 5 tests against Pakistan next year but its just isn't a possibility anymore.
 

archie mac

International Coach
I can see the problem if Aust. played 5 Tests series against Eng-WI-SA and played them every 4 years at home, as they try now. It would like this:

2005/06= 5 Tests V WI
2006/07= 5 Tests V Eng
2007/08= 5 Tests V SA
2008/09= Other Countries
2009/10= 5 Tests V WI
2010/11= 5 Tests V Eng
2011/12= 5 Tests V SA
2012/13= Other Countries
etc

This would result in Ind-****-SL-NZ-Zim-Ban, competing for one 5 Test series every 4 years and if they took turns this would mean India would visit Aust. once every 28 years :wacko:

Having said that 5 Test series really can't work in Aust except against England and the occassional one off 5 Test series. I love 5 Test series. What ever happened to the 6 Test Ashes series?
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
archie mac said:
Having said that 5 Test series really can't work in Aust except against England and the occassional one off 5 Test series. I love 5 Test series. What ever happened to the 6 Test Ashes series?
That was when we only had one tourist in each summer, and we would only play 5 or six in total, now we play 7 and there is literally no more time so if they played six against Aus then Bangladesh or Zim would only get one, and i think they have to have two for it to count to the ICC plan?
 

archie mac

International Coach
superkingdave said:
That was when we only had one tourist in each summer, and we would only play 5 or six in total, now we play 7 and there is literally no more time so if they played six against Aus then Bangladesh or Zim would only get one, and i think they have to have two for it to count to the ICC plan?
Fair enough. It amazes me when I read how few Test series they once played, for example after the Bodyline series in 1932/33 they did not play another series in Aust. until 1936/37. Or four years later. Even as late as the 1969/70 season no Test Matches were played in Aust. that season.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
its difficalt to keep interest for 5 tests in most series, in teh past FW trophy seris have done it well and the Ashes are always good.
 

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
but why not do like all other sports and play BEST OF 5 test series?

There is time to play two home best-of-5 series at home every season without playing less ODIs in the long run if they are stopped when the rubber is decided and replaced by the ODIs.

For instance next year England play 3 and 4 tests against Pakistan and India and then a number of ODIs. This is very unsatisfactory. One or possibly even two epic 5-test series will be lost simply to accomodate this ODI-nonsense.

Instead play them as best-of 5 series.
If a series lasts 5 matches then no ODIs are played.
if it lasts 4 matches a 3-game ODI series is played
if its over in 3 games it will be a 5-game ODI series.


England´s summer would then be between 6-10 tests and 0-10 ODIs. That should not change the overall amount of cricket much and shouldnt be too much of a bother regarding the itinerary if the possible ODI-series are played at the venues that would otherwise have staged the 4th and 5th tests.
 
Last edited:

Slifer

International Regular
Except against Zim and Bang. i think that a test series should have a minimum of 3 tests. 5 when the series is of some historical significance (ex; Aus vs Eng, Pak vs Ind) or the series is between two top teams who would draw an interest (ex Aus vs Ind, RSA vs Eng.)
 

Craig

World Traveller
LongHopCassidy said:
Friends, Romans, Cricketwebbers, an endangered species is among us. It is not, as previously thought, an Ashley Giles wicket or a Bucknor good decision. Yet it is as, if not more, noticed and celebrated than either of these two occurrences.

It is the five Test series.

In all seriousness, though, what on earth is the ICC playing at with the current itinerary? A two Test series between Australia and New Zealand was an insult to all concerned. It seems the only series remaining sacred are those concerning matches between England and Australia or South Africa.

Some say that the quality of cricket merits the series length. If that's true, then why aren't Australia-India series and the like given greater length?

Your two cents?
IIRC with regards to the Australia-New Zealand series, I believe the West Indies pulled out and New Zealand came in and only had time for two Tests as they had to be back home to host Sri Lanka (before the series was sadly prematurely ended).
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
swede said:
but why not do like all other sports and play BEST OF 5 test series?

There is time to play two home best-of-5 series at home every season without playing less ODIs in the long run if they are stopped when the rubber is decided and replaced by the ODIs.

For instance next year England play 3 and 4 tests against Pakistan and India and then a number of ODIs. This is very unsatisfactory. One or possibly even two epic 5-test series will be lost simply to accomodate this ODI-nonsense.

Instead play them as best-of 5 series.
If a series lasts 5 matches then no ODIs are played.
if it lasts 4 matches a 3-game ODI series is played
if its over in 3 games it will be a 5-game ODI series.


England´s summer would then be between 6-10 tests and 0-10 ODIs. That should not change the overall amount of cricket much and shouldnt be too much of a bother regarding the itinerary if the possible ODI-series are played at the venues that would otherwise have staged the 4th and 5th tests.
Scheduling difficulties would hamper that.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Here is a possibility

1. ICC restricts test playing nations to 8(dropping Zimbabwe and BD out)
2. Ask these 8 nations to chose one nation with whom they would prefer a 5 test series. Like Aust - Eng, India-Pakistan. (and say NZL vs SAF and SRL vs Windies)
3. Other than with the one nation of their choice all countries would play two three test series every four years against every other test playing nation - one at home and one away.
4. This would mean 23 away and 23 home games for each team every four years. 11.5 tests per year each.
5. Each nation would host five (single series) or six (two series) tests every year.

This is absolutely workable. Will give enough tests. Will give the special series like Ashes and Indis-Pak, a longer series.

All countries would play each other every two years except England since the season is at a different time.

Having a non-test playing set of nations which includes Zim and BD with a separate schedule is a must.

If any nation did not want to play a five test series ah=gainst anyother, that would be okay. It would reduce the overall tests slightly.
 

archie mac

International Coach
SJS said:
Here is a possibility

1. ICC restricts test playing nations to 8(dropping Zimbabwe and BD out)
2. Ask these 8 nations to chose one nation with whom they would prefer a 5 test series. Like Aust - Eng, India-Pakistan. (and say NZL vs SAF and SRL vs Windies)
3. Other than with the one nation of their choice all countries would play two three test series every four years against every other test playing nation - one at home and one away.
4. This would mean 23 away and 23 home games for each team every four years. 11.5 tests per year each.
5. Each nation would host five (single series) or six (two series) tests every year.

This is absolutely workable. Will give enough tests. Will give the special series like Ashes and Indis-Pak, a longer series.

All countries would play each other every two years except England since the season is at a different time.

Having a non-test playing set of nations which includes Zim and BD with a separate schedule is a must.

If any nation did not want to play a five test series ah=gainst anyother, that would be okay. It would reduce the overall tests slightly.
Sound like a good idea, just a couple of things. You may have Aust-WI and Sth Afr wanting to play England in a 5 Test series? And NZ wanting to play Aust. in a 5 Test series, how would they decide?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
swede said:
but why not do like all other sports and play BEST OF 5 test series?

There is time to play two home best-of-5 series at home every season without playing less ODIs in the long run if they are stopped when the rubber is decided and replaced by the ODIs.

For instance next year England play 3 and 4 tests against Pakistan and India and then a number of ODIs. This is very unsatisfactory. One or possibly even two epic 5-test series will be lost simply to accomodate this ODI-nonsense.

Instead play them as best-of 5 series.
If a series lasts 5 matches then no ODIs are played.
if it lasts 4 matches a 3-game ODI series is played
if its over in 3 games it will be a 5-game ODI series.


England´s summer would then be between 6-10 tests and 0-10 ODIs. That should not change the overall amount of cricket much and shouldnt be too much of a bother regarding the itinerary if the possible ODI-series are played at the venues that would otherwise have staged the 4th and 5th tests.
I fully agree.
 

Top