All Ashes tours since 1989 have followed a similar pattern
David Wiseman18-Nov-2002All Ashes tours since 1989 have followed a similar pattern.Enthusiasm is quickly replaced by a feeling of déjà vu as Australiasystematically put England to the sword. That is then followed by the Ashesthemselves being put under the microscope.The Ashes was so fondly followed because it produced cricket of the highestquality. Feats of wonder such as Laker’s 19 wickets, Massie’s 16 wickets,Cowper’s 307 and Botham’s 149* were all performed in the forum of an AshesTest.If the one sided nature of it continues, interest in it will surely decline.This doesn’t matter to the ACB who would of course persist with it. Whywouldn’t they, when it produces record ticket sales? So they will keepplaying England twice over a four-year period.That doesn’t leave a lot of scope to play the other countries.England, South Africa, the West Indies, Pakistan and now India for the mostpart play in Australia on a regular cycle.New Zealand were in Australia in 2001/02. Their next trip is 2006/07.Sri Lanka last played a Test match down under in 1995/96. Their next trip is2004.With Australia so far ahead of the rest of the world, it should be in theirinterests to foster and promote competition or otherwise there will be noone left to play.Sadly, Australia has traditionally been remiss in this area.Australia should have looked after New Zealand and promoted New Zealandcricket. A strong trans-Tasman rivalry seems logical. England played NewZealand on four separate occasions before Australia first played them.From the first game in 1946, there was a 27-year hiatus before the nextencounter.When Australia finally played Zimbabwe in 1999, only the West Indies hadn’tplayed a Test against cricket’s newest Test-playing member. Why shouldAustralia be near the end of the queue when it comes to playing newcountries? They should be at the forefront, welcoming them to the cricketingcommunity.Sachin Tendulkar played as an 18-year-old in Australia in the summer of1991/92. Already then, he was something special and his 114 at the WACAagainst an attack with the might of McDermott, Hughes, Reiffel and Whitney was animpressive innings. So good that Tendulkar rates it his finest.It was nearly eight years later before Australian crowds got to againwitness this superstar in the flesh.The major flaw in Australia’s schedule is their noted inability to playSouth Africa in a five-Test series either in Australia or in South Africa.Notwithstanding the fluctuations in form of either side, world cricket iscrying out for these two great teams to lock horns over such a tussle.The way things have been going, the Ashes are decided by the time they hitMelbourne and Sydney. Is there any point in having massive ticket sales andattendances for dead rubbers?Australia have been so good in recent time that last year’s series with NewZealand really captured the imagination. Had it not been for some highlyquestionable umpiring decisions in the third Test, which all wentAustralia’s way, New Zealand would have won the three-Test series, 1-0.If it had been a five-Test series, the buzz would have been amazing headingto Melbourne with New Zealand one-up with two to play. Unless, New Zealandhad won in Melbourne, it would have meant that for the first time since1992/93, the fifth and final Test of a series in Australia would have beenlive.Before the advent of one-day cricket, five-Test series were the norm. Therewas nothing else to play but Test matches. One-day cricket pays the billswhich is why it’s hard to fit in a five-Test series.On the basis of form, other countries would have fair claim that they andnot England deserve to play Australia in one.Australia may soon possibly find that it has put all its eggs in the onebasket. That playing England will cease to be anything but a charade andwhen it could have spent time creating new traditions and new rivalries, itwas concentrating on a past one.