Cricket XXIII

[The Marquis de Leech]

I know this would be controversial (since it would basically entrench a two-tier system) but I would prefer longer series between the established Test nations and shorter series between the others (so that we don't get massively lopsided ones).

Grrr. The only way we are going to improve is by playing more test cricket, ideally through longer series, and against opposition that is better than us. We haven't played a five test series since 1971-72, and only one four test series (1999) since 1984-85, so we were getting neglected even we were competitive.

[Ser Eric]

I wish the ECB would sack Giles before he destroys the team beyond repair. And anyone who thought appointing Giles would be a good idea also needs to go. The most uninspiring appointment since...well forever.

Grrr. The only way we are going to improve is by playing more test cricket, ideally through longer series, and against opposition that is better than us. We haven't played a five test series since 1971-72, and only one four test series (1999) since 1984-85, so we were getting neglected even we were competitive.

Wow, those are some stats especially as NZ have been very competitive.

[Jeor]

Grrr. The only way we are going to improve is by playing more test cricket, ideally through longer series, and against opposition that is better than us. We haven't played a five test series since 1971-72, and only one four test series (1999) since 1984-85, so we were getting neglected even we were competitive.

Oh, I'm not against longer Test series. Longer Test series are good - because they really do allow for a side's development over a 6-8 week tour and it's better travel-wise than two small tours - but it helps no one if the series is not competitive. I think NZ could be competitive over a long series with most Test sides but long series should be chosen carefully. The upside being that things like South Africa vs Australia should have gotten more than 3 Tests.

I guess in my earlier post the emphasis should have been more on the too-much ODI/T20s rather than the Tests themselves. I think generally-speaking the Test calendar is fine as it is. I know for financial reasons they want to do it this way but they're going to cannibalise their revenue if the short-form gets overexposed.

[Consigliere]

I think that both SA and NZ are in the same boat. Both sides are competitive at Test level and really should be playing more Test cricket. Yet since 2009 the only sides that have played fewer Test matches than these two are Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. In the lead up to the series with Australia, SA had only played two Tests in a period of four months.

From a South African perspective it is really frustrating that a side that has been so consistent for so long in the Test arena gets treated like a second class citizen. With the Future Tours Programme scrapped and bilateral series returning, things could get even worse for sides like South Africa and New Zealand. Australia and England have agreed that they will tour all nations, which is a good start, but how many Tests those tours will consist of remains to be seen.

[Jamie's left hand]

Possibly, if he'd played as many tests as England players do in English conditions he'd probably have a lower batting average as well.

Depends - Sri Lanka's tours of England are only ever two test matches right at the start of the summer on extremely green pitches and cold conditions.

[Paxter]

Totally agree with RBPL and Titans on this one; the South Africa situation is particularly pathetic.

[Pinkie Baelish]

The Big 3 are clearly just trying to slow down Steyn's race to 500 wickets.

I heard recently that Cricket Australia are looking to arrange 4 tests for the next Australia/SA series, which is great news. As a neutral fan, Australia/South Africa really have been the most competitive rivalry in recent years. It's a damn shame that South Africa have the best test team in the world, yet aren't allowed to showcase their abilities as much as the Big 3, whose 4-5 match series have been nothing more than one-sided home team whitewashes recently.

I'm also annoyed that we have to wait another year to see a Trans/Tasman test series. It would have been great to see this year with both teams being in such red hot form. Oh well, at least we'll get to see Dhoni lead his team to a record 19 away losses in a row.

[Alester Florent]

Oh, I'm not against longer Test series. Longer Test series are good - because they really do allow for a side's development over a 6-8 week tour and it's better travel-wise than two small tours - but it helps no one if the series is not competitive. I think NZ could be competitive over a long series with most Test sides but long series should be chosen carefully. The upside being that things like South Africa vs Australia should have gotten more than 3 Tests.

Longer Test series are a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, five-Test series make for a compelling narrative and allow for development over the series, as you say. On the other hand, it's already harder for an underdog to beat a favoured opponent in a Test than in a limited-overs match, and it's correspondingly more difficult for an underdog to beat or hold a favoured opponent in a longer series. We saw this in the England-New Zealand tours last year, which was effectively a five-Test home and away series. New Zealand were initially competitive and probably had the better of the three draws in New Zealand, but were beaten pretty easily in the last two matches. Home advantage will have had a bit to do with that, but - certainly at that point - the England team was simply better, and there's only so long you can hold off the inevitable. Apart from anything else, the longer players get to look at each other in the field, the easier it becomes to work opponents out.

On the other hand, if teams like New Zealand never get to play longer series, they won't get the experience necessary to become competitive. This has almost certainly been the case for Bangladesh (although, frankly, Bangladesh are still much worse than they should be even in limited-overs matches).

It also assumes, of course, that matches between similarly-ranked teams will be competitive and more interesting than on-paper mismatches, which isn't always the case, as the various whitewashes, particularly by - and of - the big three, in recent years have demonstrated.

Regarding South Africa, I'm never quite sure whether it's that nobody wants to play Tests against them or they don't want to play Tests against anyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit of both.There always seem to be huge gaps in their schedule that you'd have thought they could fill with matches against Sri Lanka, NZ, Zimbabwe, heck, even Bangladesh, even if England, Australia and India don't want to play them in extended tours. It has been something of a disgrace to see the #1 ranked team playing two- and three-Test series against its nearest rivals, whether that was India vs South Africa in 2010/11, England vs South Africa in 2012 or South Africa versus anyone else since.

[Pinkie Baelish]

snip

I'm all for longer test match series, provided that they're an even and enthralling contest. There was some perverse entertainment in seeing the utter annihilation of England in the recent Ashes, but all these bloated Big 3 wankfests of late have just been one-sided whitewashes that become pretty redundant after the first 3 or so tests. The recent Australia/South Africa series was well deserving of 5 matches, as witnessed by the intense rivalry and back-and-forth momentum between the two sides, and the fight South Africa put up in the last day of the 3rd test.

The England/South Africa series in 2012 would have been great if it was 5 matches as well, given that it was the top 2 teams in the world going at it for the #1 position. Heavyweight bouts like that are well deserving of 4 or 5 match series.

From a realistic position, I highly doubt that New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and West Indies will have any 4 match series any time soon, due to the lack of demand and revenue from hosting such an event. 3 match series are fine, because there's still enough time for rivalries and contests to develop between individual players of each team. It's 2 match series that are a complete waste of time, especially when the series is tied 1-1, and robs the fans of a decider.

[Hereward]

There doesn't seem to be much demand in South Africa either if the crowds to be seen at home Test matches on TV are anything to go by. Though, if the cameramen are to be believed, 90% of those who do turn up seem to be bikini models. God bless 'em.

[williamjm]

According to Cricinfo England's new coach will be Peter Moores. It seems an odd decision, given that Moores' previous stint in the job wasn't that impressive in terms of results and overshadowed by the Fletcher and Flower eras on either side of him. Probably better than Ashley Giles, but I'm surprised they can't find a better option somewhere.

One thing for sure is that I guess it definitely rules out any return for KP.

[Alester Florent]

I was flabbergasted by the Moores decision given that English cricket probably reached its fifteen-year nadir under Moores's tenure. But then I've heard commentators argue that Moores deserves credit for some of the improvements normally attributed to Flower, and he seems to have done a half-decent job at county, so maybe it's not quite such a mad choice.

Really, though, like williamjm, I'm amazed they couldn't find a better candidate. I guess the job just isn't attractive for top-flight coaches? That's something worthy of investigation in itself.

[Jeor]

It is a bit odd, but Moores might still do a good job. He's bound to have learned from his last stint in charge, at least.

I'm not sure that there are too many top-tier coaches looking for work at the moment though - the two that come to mind are Dav Whatmore and Mickey Arthur. I wouldn't have thought the England setup is too bad - certainly there's not quite the same level of hysteria as on the subcontinent, there's a large pool of players in county cricket to scout and draw in new blood, there are now centralised contracts too. Tabloids might be a problem, though.

[arya_underfoot]

It looks like Rogers has no intention of slowing down- a fourth innings double century at a strike rate of 80+ to comfortably chase down 470!!!!!!!!!!

[Jeor]

And apparently Australia are on top of the Test and ODI rankings again.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/rankings/content/page/211271.html

I must say that's a bit unexpected. One suspects the series against South Africa had a lot to do with it, but I'm not for a second imagining that this will be another long spell of dominance. It certainly doesn't 'feel' like we are the number one side in the world, even if we did beat South Africa convincingly - it seems that some of the other sides (eg England) are just playing badly than us playing well.

[Paxter]

No I disagree, I think Australia are good value for top spot. SA are undergoing a transition period with the departure of Smith and Kallis, India are rubbish away from the subcontinent and England are just plain rubbish. On paper, SA is still probably the best team, but no team deserves the number one ranking simply on the back of reputation.

Australia should have a pretty good chance to consolidate this lead as well with India touring next summer, although Pakistan in the UAE could prove challenging depending on which Pakistani side shows up.

Overall, I'm very annoyed.

[DemonKing]

Apparently Australia's "rise" to #1 has a lot to do with some unfavourable previous results either no longer being taken into account or having their significance halved (I think the 4-0 loss in India falls under this category). Also they are only a fraction of a point ahead of SA, so it's a bit early to refer to it as a new era of domination.

[The Winged Shadow]

No I disagree, I think Australia are good value for top spot.

Did you die a little on the inside while you were typing that?

[Paxter]

Did you die a little on the inside while you were typing that?

Not just a little bit. Rigor mortis has well and truly set in.

[arya_underfoot]

I don't think any team can truly claim to be No.1 at present. South Africa and Australia are probably the closest, as the rankings reveal. England and India have a lot of lost ground to reclaim, and the rest are well behind in the field.