SA Footy

Perhaps it is time for Cricket Australia to consider fixturing just a 3-Test series' against England over here in future until the Poms pull themselves up by the bootstraps and prove they are worthy of a full programme?

We've yet to play South Africa or New Zealand in a 5-Test series over here so maybe it's time to make a statement and give these more competitive Test cricketing nations a full series at the expense of England.

Maybe this will be just the jolt the old enemy needs. If they refuse to put the Ashes up for grabs in a 3-Test series (just as they did in 1979-80) then so be it. It may be a good thing.

The same argument was made prior to the 2005 Series- & look what a series that turned out to be.
Just because the Poms lost yesterday, why do we need to change their status?
They lost the 1st Test because they had no 1st Class games to acclimatise to.
They lost the 2nd Test the same way Australia lost it to India a few years ago (& if Strauss wasn't wrongly given out, the result may have been different).

The Poms have at least been competitive, their second dig in Brisbane was very good, as was their 1st dig in Adelaide (albeit on the slow side). They will improve if they take a few risks- ie dumping that pie-chucker Giles (has the dress sense/style of a high-school teacher), & bringing in Pannesar or Mahmood, Flintoff backing his pace bowlers (again, why wa Giles giving away runs when the Poms needed to stop the flow?) & playing attacking cricket.

The Poms will win a Test in Ausralia, as they have a talented side- it just needs to click/have a few things go their way.

[quote="Punk Rooster"]
They lost the 1st Test because they had no 1st Class games to acclimatise to.
They lost the 2nd Test the same way Australia lost it to India a few years ago (& if Strauss wasn't wrongly given out, the result may have been different).
quote]

What was the game in Adelaide, they must have some say in their lead up games, and bad decisions are part of the game. slow batting and poor attitude had alot more to do with the lost than any decisions. But i dont tjink a 3 test series is warranted. lets beat them as much as possible, i vote for a 7 match series!!

scoob wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:They lost the 1st Test because they had no 1st Class games to acclimatise to.
They lost the 2nd Test the same way Australia lost it to India a few years ago (& if Strauss wasn't wrongly given out, the result may have been different).

What was the game in Adelaide, they must have some say in their lead up games, and bad decisions are part of the game. slow batting and poor attitude had alot more to do with the lost than any decisions. But i dont tjink a 3 test series is warranted. lets beat them as much as possible, i vote for a 7 match series!!

1 First Class game does not constitute a warm up.
I agree, they made poor decisions & scored runs too slowly, & yes, & poor attitude on the 5th day cost them the game (along with 1 dodgy umpiring decision)
But yes, we should always play 5 Tests against the Poms.

Do Australia ever play 5 Tests at home against nations other than England?

India played 4 against us in 2003/2004, but for the last few years that I can remember it has been two teams playing two, three test series.

We always play 5 against the West Indies.

Also India played in a 5-Test series in 1991/92 and Pakistan did in 1983/84 but apart from that it is just England and the West Indies who get 5 Tests.

westozfalcon wrote:We always play 5 against the West Indies.

Last year West Indies only played three, during November & December. South Africa played the other three.

We played four against the Windies in the Caribbean during 2002-03...

So if Ashes series were to be downgraded to only 3 tests, that then means Australia would no longer play a 5 test series against anyone - because it wouldn't be fair if we only played 3 at home, but 5 in England...

westozfalcon wrote:We always play 5 against the West Indies.

Also India played in a 5-Test series in 1991/92 and Pakistan did in 1983/84 but apart from that it is just England and the West Indies who get 5 Tests.

West Indies only get three Tests.

NEVER have Aus v Eng as just a 3 test series. Bring back the 7 Test series!!

westozfalcon wrote:Perhaps it is time for Cricket Australia to consider fixturing just a 3-Test series' against England over here in future until the Poms pull themselves up by the bootstraps and prove they are worthy of a full programme?

We've yet to play South Africa or New Zealand in a 5-Test series over here so maybe it's time to make a statement and give these more competitive Test cricketing nations a full series at the expense of England.

Maybe this will be just the jolt the old enemy needs. If they refuse to put the Ashes up for grabs in a 3-Test series (just as they did in 1979-80) then so be it. It may be a good thing.

A lot of people have been told they know nothing about cricket on this site lately. You have my nomination after this post. How many times do you have to see full cricket grounds to realise the foolishness of the above statement? Five tests against New Zealand who don't fill stadiums?? Er..no!

regards,

REB

Well all I can say to that is that Ian Chappell suggested something similar in one of his columns a few years back in saying that the (then) ACB should reconsider England's automatic entitlement to a series over here every 4 years in light of continual deplorable performances.

Pehaps Chappelli can be your next nomination as someone who knows nothing about cricket?

westozfalcon wrote:Well all I can say to that is that Ian Chappell suggested something similar in one of his columns a few years back in saying that the (then) ACB should reconsider England's automatic entitlement to a series over here every 4 years in light of continual deplorable performances.

Pehaps Chappelli can be your next nomination as someone who knows nothing about cricket?

No mate it's still you if you are repeating three year old Chappelli opinion (i.e. prior to the 2005 Ashes Series which has proven that statement wrong). I'd sincerely doubt that Chappelli would suggest the same thing these days but nice try though.

regards,

REB

Arent England the 2nd ranked team in the world???

South Africa only play 3 tests here but we usually then go over to SA and play 3 there within 2 months so its a genuine 6 test home and away series.

Whos coming here next year?

Dutchy wrote:Arent England the 2nd ranked team in the world???

South Africa only play 3 tests here but we usually then go over to SA and play 3 there within 2 months so its a genuine 6 test home and away series.

Whos coming here next year?

india 4 tests
sri lanka 2 tests

adelaide favoured over perth for test against india with the loser to host sri lanka with hobart

Westozfalcon - stupid post. A result with 19-balls to spare is a great contest (despite the fact England snatched defeat from the jaws of victory), and I am grateful that I was able to watch most of the game. This test could (very) easily have been a draw, and (probably) an English win if it weren't for "Smashme Miles" and his (non) fielding skills.

Also, imagine an Ashes series in Australia without an Adelaide test...

REB - good points on this one.

The Ashes contests will always draw a crowd - and rightly deserve a 5-test series. The money generated will also filter-down to grass-roots cricket, and (or) at the very least give the game a much higher profile amongst our younger generation. This interest and profile will thereby ensure the long-term future of the game.

Stupid post...

ASHES test will always be a five test series becasue of

$$$$$$$$

The biggest crowds in Australia over the past 20 years have always been Australia England tests even when England was losing

So for the sake of advertising, TV and crowds England will always be a five test series...

Punk Rooster wrote: They lost the 1st Test because they had no 1st Class games to acclimatise to.
They lost the 2nd Test the same way Australia lost it to India a few years ago (& if Strauss wasn't wrongly given out, the result may have been different).

Punky,
Ian Botham didn't hold back on this point last Thursday night at Adelaide Oval. Apparently the pre-match program was put together by the ECB effectively. Botham said it was a joke to have two, 3-day "hit and giggle" games and only about 3 weeks of acclimatisation in Australia. He also sledged the selectors of both teams for not picking second spinners.

On another note, Botham, Geoff Merrill and Bob Willis have now got a joint venture going with wine - red from McLaren Vale (a Shiraz). Its called "Botham Merrill Willis". A fair bit to roll off the tongue, hey....BUT - when abbreviated it's known as the "BMW"! They served it up at a function last Thursday night and it was very well received indeed. Not available in bottle shops here according to Beefy but possibly available at Merrill's cellar door in McLaren Vale. I also heard that the Bavarian Motor Works ("BMW") put up a case against the name of the shiraz but were unsuccessful!

magpie in the 80's wrote:
india 4 tests
sri lanka 2 tests

adelaide favoured over perth for test against india with the loser to host sri lanka with hobart

How did you find that out Pie? Pakistan haven't been here for a while. FYI, Sri Lanka have only played ONE test in Adelaide and at the moment might prove to be a better test as India on bouncy tracks are a disgrace.

regards,

REB

Cricinfo and the ICC site have a future tours page

FWIW TC Pakistan were here in 2004-05 with NZ for six test SL played the one dayers, I think....

The Age is reporting that we play Zimbabawe in June next year, I'm not sure if it is here in the Top End or over there. Once again my claims that our next test series is against SL in November next year is demonstrated to be erroneous again!!!!

We shouldn't be playing against Zimbabwe because

a) They are crap and couldn't beat the Redbacks

and

b) For the same reason we didn't play against South Africa for nigh on two decades. Mugabe's murderous regime is legitmised by our premier sporting team. POOR FORM.

regards,

REB

REB - what do you mean?

Robert Mugabe is the Zimbabwe president (came into power in 1980). The South African president is Thabo Mbeki. He succeeded Nelson Mandela in 1999. Whay should we boycot South Africa because of the leader of Zimababwe? It would be like the West Indies boycotting New Zealand because of the politics of John Howard.

POOR FORM indeed...