December 7, 2013

Why long Ashes tours are hurting Test cricket

England's and Australia's established schedules of a five-Test series every other year makes it hard for other teams to create rivalries
27

One of the ICC's jobs is to seek to make a contest like Bangladesh v England as popular as Australia v England, however long that process may take © Getty Images

England v Australia has been a peculiar rivalry in that very few series have been competitive. The vast majority of Ashes series have found one of three conditions - decisive Australian superiority, decisive English superiority, or weakness in equal measure on both sides that have made stalemates inevitable. The third was the rule in the 1960s.

Competitive Ashes series have been rare, and when they occur, are talked about for years. Come what may every four years England tour Australia and every four years Australia return the favour. With an increasing number of teams vying for spots on the international calendar, the Ashes use up a lot of time and space, much like an old, inefficient handmade limousine on a contemporary city street. The chart below shows the extent to which the Ashes dominate the Test-playing commitments of England and Australia.

Period Test teams Team Ashes Tests Total Ashes share Share if equal
1952-1970 7 Australia 47 118 40% 20
1952-1970 7 England 47 166 28% 28
1971-1982 6 Australia 41 115 36% 23
1971-1982 6 England 41 100 41% 20
1982-1992 7 Australia 28 90 31% 15
1982-1992 7 England 28 103 27% 17
1992-2000 9 Australia 22 92 24% 12
1992-2000 9 England 22 86 26% 11
2000-2013 10 Australia 36 157 23% 17
2000-2013 10 England 36 177 20% 20

Periods have been defined by calendar year. Pakistan became the seventh Test-playing nation in 1952, joining England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, West Indies and India. In 1970, South Africa were banned. In 1982, Sri Lanka became a Test team. In 1992, Zimbabwe joined and South Africa returned. In 2000, Bangladesh became a Test team.

Since the end of World War II, anywhere from a third to two-fifths of the Tests played by England and Australia have been Ashes Tests. Since the advent of the Future Tours Programme (FTP) and the ICC in its contemporary form, this share has fallen to about a quarter. But this decline has to be seen in the light of an increase in Test teams. If England played 36 Tests against all Test teams in the nearly 14 years since January 2000, they would have played about 325 Tests during this period. If the larger number of Test teams is taken into account, then Ashes Tests continue to be about twice as frequent as they would be if England and Australia played Test cricket equally against all Test teams. Gains due to the FTP remain marginal.

The standard argument for this preferential distribution of Tests has been that it is what the public wants to see. From the 1970s to the 1990s, West Indies were invited to play a lot of Test cricket. Since 2000, their share has dropped, while India's share of Tests has risen. To some extent this is due to West Indies' decline and India's contemporaneous improvement.

While a review of the number of Tests suggests that Ashes contests occur more frequently than they might in a more equitable Test calendar, the problem is not merely one of numbers. The BCCI justified its decision to invite West Indies for a series in India this month by arguing that without West Indies' tour, they would have no more international cricket for the remainder of the 2013-14 home season. This is a genuine problem in the FTP.

The Ashes show that quality is not necessarily an important ingredient in a successful rivalry

While the English and Australian seasons are an established part of the international calendar, all other tours have to be arranged around these commitments. With the advent of windows for T20 cricket (including IPL), this calendar has shrunk even more. While the IPL is rightly blamed as one of the reasons for smaller Test nations being unable to have a designated time of the year when they play home Tests, the established Test schedules of England and Australia are another even more long-standing reason.

Given the way England and Australia organise their home seasons (to a lesser extent, South Africa as well) and their Ashes calendar, it is currently nearly impossible for other sides to have full tours of either country. Unless the five-Test tour is abolished, it will be impossible to abolish the two-Test tour. Sadly, instead of being a voice for equity at the ICC, the current FTP suggests that India have joined England and Australia in the self-serving mini-club at the top. It is not surprising that when the BCCI combined its desire to host Sachin Tendulkar's 200th Test in India with a desire to teach Cricket South Africa a lesson by objecting to its choice of CEO, the English and Australian boards were conspicuously silent.

The Ashes show that quality is not necessarily an important ingredient in a successful rivalry. The Australians thumped England in the Ashes from 1989 to 2002-03. In the last three series, England have won at first by breaking a stalemate in the final Test of 2009, and then quite comprehensively in 2010-11 and 2013. Similar periods of dominance (mainly Australian) are to be found earlier in the 20th century as well. The ICC justifies giving its members a relatively free hand in determining the length of their bilateral series by pointing to the demands of the market. This is exactly backwards. Frequent contests are the surest way to long-lasting and lucrative rivalries. Kerry Packer got interested in broadcasting cricket because it was already available every single summer.

Frequent contests are also the surest way of developing quality Test teams. If West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Pakistan are going to continually get two-Test series because longer series are not as lucrative, then these teams will surely decline. It is the ICC's central responsibility to ensure that these teams do not decline. Producing an iron-clad calendar that serves the interest of all teams and not just India, England and Australia is the first step in fulfilling this responsibility.

It is self-defeating to argue that five Ashes Tests cannot be reduced to four because the Ashes are popular. The ICC's job is to make Bangladesh v England as popular as Australia v England. This will take time, perhaps as long as a generation. But the ICC exists precisely to fulfill such difficult, long-term ambitions.

The ICC must provincialise the Ashes instead of falling into the trap of seeing them as Test cricket's marquee contest. Currently, the ICC's attitude to Test cricket's lesser teams (from Pakistan downwards) is a mixture of paternalism and condescension. On the one hand the ICC's policies leave most of the details of organising bilateral series, including the financial part, to the participating boards, leaving them to fend for themselves. On the other, the ICC insists that they follow their detailed playing conditions strictly.

The FTP has given in to every existing bias that broadcasters and advertisers might have about the marketability of games. All this will do is to perpetuate these imbalances. The ICC must insist on a minimum of three and a maximum of four Tests per series, across the board. It must insist that every single Test-playing nation has a fixed window in the year to host two series per year, and require all the established teams to make adjustments in their calendars to permit this. It makes business sense in the long term to invest in this and make sure that Test cricket has a larger number of competitive contests and rivalries to offer. The only way to have this is to allow more teams to play more Tests.

If cricket is to survive as a sport, the ICC must run it as a sport. A good place to start would be to ensure that all teams play more or less the same amount of Test cricket. I agree that the T20 windows carved out by BCCI hurt the Test calendar. But it is equally true, and less frequently pointed out, that long Ashes tours, which prevent a second full tour of at least three Tests being played in England and Australia every fourth summer, is another, longer-standing challenge for the Test calendar.

Kartikeya Date writes at A Cricketing View and tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • kensohatter on December 10, 2013, 7:35 GMT

    This article is nonsense. Ashes is the pinnacle of test cricket and remains the reason Australian and ENglish cricket aspire to play test cricket. The only people who have an issue with it are those jealous of its success and traditions... well there is an easy way to combat that.. stop whingeing and start your own series. I know I would love to see a regular SA v Ind tour or SA v SL tour. India dislikes this tour so much because they are simply not required in crickets showcase which is lucky cause the BCCI controls everything else. I do agree however that more 5 test series should be played but only between top nations ie. SA, Ind, Aus, Eng and maybe one more like SL. The last thing you want is a regular 5-0 thrashing of NZ or WI. This article should have focussed on the real issue affecting test cricket... that being the emergence of 20/20 and its ability to ruin a good contest between bat and ball

  • VivGilchrist on December 10, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    The Ashes is HUGE because both nations value Test cricket as the pinnacle of the game. So naturally when the two teams meet, this is the result. Other teams have sold out on Tests for more ODI/T20's. The others just don't get it.

  • Clavers on December 9, 2013, 2:06 GMT

    England versus Australia is a major contest but so is South Africa versus Australia. The latter is usually more competitive and has often been a battle for the Number One title. For Ashes series to always be five tests and SA vs Australia only three tests is an anachronism.

  • on December 8, 2013, 21:51 GMT

    so you're saying that there will no longer be 5 match series. That's not going to be a good thing for cricket.

    what happens when more nations become test playing nations, will we have a maximum 3 tests and eventually 1. that's not going to work to well is it

  • on December 8, 2013, 20:19 GMT

    I totally agree with Clint Nelson. Mr. Date talking about BAN vs ENG...why it can't be BAN vs IND??? IND never wants to play a full series with BAN...why??? and I really can't see any point of such crying of him about such a series like Ashes, when he knows it very well, what IND is busy with, he talks about quality...what quality IND really have...??? with all those T20 stuffs...??? when they are getting humiliated by SA in ODI...??? I really think they need to learn about real cricket...Test cricket a lot...as they still now cant dare to offer their opponents to play in sporting pitches...:p

  • milepost on December 8, 2013, 14:09 GMT

    @Fithman, I tend to agree with you. I think all test series should be a minimum of three tests and that there should be less of these stupid 7 ODI's + T20 series. Bring in Ireland and get more test matches in.

  • Fifthman on December 8, 2013, 10:02 GMT

    The author has arrived at his conclusions based on the premise that it's somehow unfair for great historic rivalries to dominate a sport, particularly when India isn't involved in it. The Ashes rivalry is the backbone of cricket and it's preposterous to suggest that it should somehow be lessened or weakened. To do so would lessen and weaken cricket itself. It smacks of the rdiculous notion that rivalries should be somehow fairly shared about between all nations and if necessary manufactured where none exists. This is poppycock. And why, while we're on the subject, don't we see more of one of THE great rivalries; India vs. Pakistan? Because it doesn't suit the BCCI, is why. Same as why the current India vs. SA Test 'series' comprises only 2 Tests; because the BCCI is involved in a playground spat with CSA and wants to show who's boss. Sort out the politics and the rest will follow.

  • on December 8, 2013, 3:03 GMT

    The following may help: yearly promotion and relegation between three divisions. D1 is the top two teams only, they play two five Test series in a year. D2 is teams 3-8 inclusive, playing ten matches, home and away round robin, like Sheffield Shield. D3 is teams 9-12, playing six matches home and away round robin. Equal number of matches amongst the top eight. Annual result, perhaps deciding winners and losers by April 1.

  • foozball on December 7, 2013, 22:53 GMT

    @ModernUmpiresPlz has got it spot on here. Things have been equitable for the last 13 years - where's the story again?

  • on December 7, 2013, 22:48 GMT

    Mr Date, I don't see your point! Real cricket has always been Test Cricket! Why isn't India, as one of the so called top teams, not engaged in a 5 test match series with South Africa? The only time that you know that a cricketer is an expert at the game, is when he is able to withstand the gruel and grind of 5 days of cricket, and come out with flying colours! But India is trying to abridge the the value of the game with all this T/20 stuff; but if you want to see what real cricket means, look at the Ashes - whether in Australia or England! Then get your authorities to organise proper cricket, instead of criticising those who are doing it for their fans!

  • kensohatter on December 10, 2013, 7:35 GMT

    This article is nonsense. Ashes is the pinnacle of test cricket and remains the reason Australian and ENglish cricket aspire to play test cricket. The only people who have an issue with it are those jealous of its success and traditions... well there is an easy way to combat that.. stop whingeing and start your own series. I know I would love to see a regular SA v Ind tour or SA v SL tour. India dislikes this tour so much because they are simply not required in crickets showcase which is lucky cause the BCCI controls everything else. I do agree however that more 5 test series should be played but only between top nations ie. SA, Ind, Aus, Eng and maybe one more like SL. The last thing you want is a regular 5-0 thrashing of NZ or WI. This article should have focussed on the real issue affecting test cricket... that being the emergence of 20/20 and its ability to ruin a good contest between bat and ball

  • VivGilchrist on December 10, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    The Ashes is HUGE because both nations value Test cricket as the pinnacle of the game. So naturally when the two teams meet, this is the result. Other teams have sold out on Tests for more ODI/T20's. The others just don't get it.

  • Clavers on December 9, 2013, 2:06 GMT

    England versus Australia is a major contest but so is South Africa versus Australia. The latter is usually more competitive and has often been a battle for the Number One title. For Ashes series to always be five tests and SA vs Australia only three tests is an anachronism.

  • on December 8, 2013, 21:51 GMT

    so you're saying that there will no longer be 5 match series. That's not going to be a good thing for cricket.

    what happens when more nations become test playing nations, will we have a maximum 3 tests and eventually 1. that's not going to work to well is it

  • on December 8, 2013, 20:19 GMT

    I totally agree with Clint Nelson. Mr. Date talking about BAN vs ENG...why it can't be BAN vs IND??? IND never wants to play a full series with BAN...why??? and I really can't see any point of such crying of him about such a series like Ashes, when he knows it very well, what IND is busy with, he talks about quality...what quality IND really have...??? with all those T20 stuffs...??? when they are getting humiliated by SA in ODI...??? I really think they need to learn about real cricket...Test cricket a lot...as they still now cant dare to offer their opponents to play in sporting pitches...:p

  • milepost on December 8, 2013, 14:09 GMT

    @Fithman, I tend to agree with you. I think all test series should be a minimum of three tests and that there should be less of these stupid 7 ODI's + T20 series. Bring in Ireland and get more test matches in.

  • Fifthman on December 8, 2013, 10:02 GMT

    The author has arrived at his conclusions based on the premise that it's somehow unfair for great historic rivalries to dominate a sport, particularly when India isn't involved in it. The Ashes rivalry is the backbone of cricket and it's preposterous to suggest that it should somehow be lessened or weakened. To do so would lessen and weaken cricket itself. It smacks of the rdiculous notion that rivalries should be somehow fairly shared about between all nations and if necessary manufactured where none exists. This is poppycock. And why, while we're on the subject, don't we see more of one of THE great rivalries; India vs. Pakistan? Because it doesn't suit the BCCI, is why. Same as why the current India vs. SA Test 'series' comprises only 2 Tests; because the BCCI is involved in a playground spat with CSA and wants to show who's boss. Sort out the politics and the rest will follow.

  • on December 8, 2013, 3:03 GMT

    The following may help: yearly promotion and relegation between three divisions. D1 is the top two teams only, they play two five Test series in a year. D2 is teams 3-8 inclusive, playing ten matches, home and away round robin, like Sheffield Shield. D3 is teams 9-12, playing six matches home and away round robin. Equal number of matches amongst the top eight. Annual result, perhaps deciding winners and losers by April 1.

  • foozball on December 7, 2013, 22:53 GMT

    @ModernUmpiresPlz has got it spot on here. Things have been equitable for the last 13 years - where's the story again?

  • on December 7, 2013, 22:48 GMT

    Mr Date, I don't see your point! Real cricket has always been Test Cricket! Why isn't India, as one of the so called top teams, not engaged in a 5 test match series with South Africa? The only time that you know that a cricketer is an expert at the game, is when he is able to withstand the gruel and grind of 5 days of cricket, and come out with flying colours! But India is trying to abridge the the value of the game with all this T/20 stuff; but if you want to see what real cricket means, look at the Ashes - whether in Australia or England! Then get your authorities to organise proper cricket, instead of criticising those who are doing it for their fans!

  • on December 7, 2013, 19:53 GMT

    this 10 test series is a win-win for both Aus and England as neither team can stretch its dominance beyond 5 tests in go.Its too much to ask from players.They don't just get bored but the intensity and all the noises around these series have left them mentally exhausted.Trott is a testament to this.

  • on December 7, 2013, 18:29 GMT

    What's wrong with a Five Tests Ashes Series if they are playing to packed stadiums. Instead of a West Indies Test in Dominica where Three Hundred people are watching. It's great to see White Clothes & Red Ball Cricket still attracting a large audience.

  • on December 7, 2013, 18:18 GMT

    The ICC should put forward the Future Tours Calendar, Including all the test playing countries. No Test Series less than three games. The ODIs should not exceed Five games for any series. The 20/20 Tournaments should be scheduled around the FTP with no 20/20 tournament lasting more than 14 days. The BCCI & The IPL is ruining Cricket as we know it.

  • shillingsworth on December 7, 2013, 15:52 GMT

    You assume that the ICC is a proper governing body. It isn't - contrary to your statement, it doesn't even control the playing conditions, with boards free to choose whether or not to employ DRS. The length of Ashes series is a symptom of the problem, not its cause.

  • on December 7, 2013, 15:45 GMT

    I get the sense in the number of comments that the ICC is seen as a separate institution. It is not. If the "ICC" has to act, it has to basically be India, Australia and England who act (since they make most of the money), and make it possible (financially and calendrically) for each team to play 4 series ever calendar year - 2 at home, and 2 away, each series being at least 3 Tests long and at most 4 Tests long.

    It is bad for the ICC in the long run to put itself in a situation where only 2 or 3 of the Test series rivalries are established and therefore lucrative. If the poorer members don't want to play Tests, the ICC must make it worth their while to do so.

    The ICC has to invest in Test Cricket. This means more Tests, more evenly distributed. This means India giving up the chance to play 5 Tests in England, and the Ashes being reduced to 4 Tests, to accomodate a second team that can play a full 3 Test tour.

  • heathrf1974 on December 7, 2013, 13:43 GMT

    Not only does Australia play England in five test series but also play India in four test series. The thing that has concerned me is that Australia has not played the WI or Pakistan for quite a while. I don't think we've played a test series at Pakistan's new home ground yet. I do get annoyed also with seven ODIs. Five would be better and perhaps three T20s.

  • yorkshire-86 on December 7, 2013, 11:12 GMT

    You forgot the main factor - money. Ashes tours originated as a way for cricketers to tour another country and make money. The countries along the way a sailing galleon would sail, ie SA, India, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the nearby New Zealand became big cricketing countries because of this - and the sailing boats would stop off at NZ, SA and India/Pakistan to make more money there, this is how they became the next Test countries. The only exception to this route is the West Indies. The money factor is even more true today - the simple fact is that a series between, lets say, NZ and WI would LOSE money therefore the boards want to make it as short as possible to save time for the money making tours like England, Australia and India. This obviously means those 3 countries are in big demand, but they make the most money touring each other, therefore they make those tours the longest possible.

  • sifter132 on December 7, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    I definitely groaned when I saw back-to-back Ashes, and 7 game ODI series vs India, but money talks. These are the matches TV viewers/advertisers want to see, and ultimately that money is GOOD for cricket. It's all lovely and flowery to demand equal matches against each country, but the matches would be even less competitive than the author claims the Ashes has been (I disagree with him BTW). I think ultimately a mix of money and fairness is best. Have a minimum amount of matches that need to be played vs the lower ranked teams eg. perhaps one home and one away series vs Bangladesh/Zimbabwe every 8 years instead of the 4-5 that is currently suggested.

  • on December 7, 2013, 8:51 GMT

    An interesting read,however I cant say I can agree to everything.You seem to give very little significance to the fact that poor test playing nations tend to get less test matches in a year.This is the prime reason for WI,NZ,ZIM and BND getting lesser and lesser test matches.As for Eng I think they hosted Pak in 2010,Ind in 2011 and SL and BND in 2012.so this summer they had their ashes wats wrong with that?I would surely want to see more cricket in Aus being played though.Similarly SA played Pak and now Ind in the same year and its not there fault the Ind tour has been cut short to 2 tests.My opinion is Ind should settle their differences with Pak and reignite one of the great crickiting rivalries in the world,we should not let petty board politics damage such tours like SA vs Ind between great test nations,hope that WI,NZ,ZIM,BD get good enough to play competitive test cricket and most importantly stop bashing one of the only good test rivalries left in cricketing world the ashes.

  • ModernUmpiresPlz on December 7, 2013, 8:39 GMT

    2000-2013: Ashes share for Australia, 23%, 17% if equal. 2000-2013: Ashes share for England, 20%, 20% if equal.

    All I can see that you've managed to point out here is that in the past there was generally less touring going on, but the Ashes rivalry was consistent thereby taking up a larger proportion, and that in recent times this has evened out due to the greater ease of travel.

    I genuinely don't understand this article unless you've been saving it since the early 80's.

  • DMJR on December 7, 2013, 8:25 GMT

    Its not a matter thay creating a window for IPL in your view. Playing the ashes is a matter. You indians cant change Test cricket traditions

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on December 7, 2013, 8:13 GMT

    if not 3 tests, eng and oz have played 3 odi and one test series against zim and bangladesh. eng and oz fans saying bcci destroying cricket by dictating terms but failed to realise that their board did nothing to cricket by rejecting smaller nations. why they are playing 10 test matches, money!

  • on December 7, 2013, 7:38 GMT

    For once and all ICC should along with all its members and associate nations...decide on a course of action...if espn does not want to telecast a Ireland vs Afghan test, to hell with it...its a pity that bigger nations who should play more tests are not in favor whereas associate nations who want to play tests are denied.

  • Fan1969 on December 7, 2013, 7:25 GMT

    @ BCG Please get facts right before commenting. India is playing just 2 tests in NZ this time.

    For few years now NZC wants to schedule just 2 tests vs the major teams and occasionally play 3 like they are doing against WI right now. NZC has been stressing on T20 and ODIs in that order where they feel they have better revenue prospects and also winning prospects for their team.

    Too much has already been written about Ind-SA tour and the reasons.

  • B.C.G on December 7, 2013, 7:01 GMT

    Here's a revealing truth.India(rank 2) will be playing SAfrica (rank 1) in 2 tests.Then it will play NZL(rank 8) in 3.How come no one broaches this?

  • Charith99 on December 7, 2013, 6:24 GMT

    Finally someone has the guts to tell the truth

  • Udendra on December 7, 2013, 5:46 GMT

    yes. we are now fed-up of seeing Ashes!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Udendra on December 7, 2013, 5:46 GMT

    yes. we are now fed-up of seeing Ashes!

  • Charith99 on December 7, 2013, 6:24 GMT

    Finally someone has the guts to tell the truth

  • B.C.G on December 7, 2013, 7:01 GMT

    Here's a revealing truth.India(rank 2) will be playing SAfrica (rank 1) in 2 tests.Then it will play NZL(rank 8) in 3.How come no one broaches this?

  • Fan1969 on December 7, 2013, 7:25 GMT

    @ BCG Please get facts right before commenting. India is playing just 2 tests in NZ this time.

    For few years now NZC wants to schedule just 2 tests vs the major teams and occasionally play 3 like they are doing against WI right now. NZC has been stressing on T20 and ODIs in that order where they feel they have better revenue prospects and also winning prospects for their team.

    Too much has already been written about Ind-SA tour and the reasons.

  • on December 7, 2013, 7:38 GMT

    For once and all ICC should along with all its members and associate nations...decide on a course of action...if espn does not want to telecast a Ireland vs Afghan test, to hell with it...its a pity that bigger nations who should play more tests are not in favor whereas associate nations who want to play tests are denied.

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on December 7, 2013, 8:13 GMT

    if not 3 tests, eng and oz have played 3 odi and one test series against zim and bangladesh. eng and oz fans saying bcci destroying cricket by dictating terms but failed to realise that their board did nothing to cricket by rejecting smaller nations. why they are playing 10 test matches, money!

  • DMJR on December 7, 2013, 8:25 GMT

    Its not a matter thay creating a window for IPL in your view. Playing the ashes is a matter. You indians cant change Test cricket traditions

  • ModernUmpiresPlz on December 7, 2013, 8:39 GMT

    2000-2013: Ashes share for Australia, 23%, 17% if equal. 2000-2013: Ashes share for England, 20%, 20% if equal.

    All I can see that you've managed to point out here is that in the past there was generally less touring going on, but the Ashes rivalry was consistent thereby taking up a larger proportion, and that in recent times this has evened out due to the greater ease of travel.

    I genuinely don't understand this article unless you've been saving it since the early 80's.

  • on December 7, 2013, 8:51 GMT

    An interesting read,however I cant say I can agree to everything.You seem to give very little significance to the fact that poor test playing nations tend to get less test matches in a year.This is the prime reason for WI,NZ,ZIM and BND getting lesser and lesser test matches.As for Eng I think they hosted Pak in 2010,Ind in 2011 and SL and BND in 2012.so this summer they had their ashes wats wrong with that?I would surely want to see more cricket in Aus being played though.Similarly SA played Pak and now Ind in the same year and its not there fault the Ind tour has been cut short to 2 tests.My opinion is Ind should settle their differences with Pak and reignite one of the great crickiting rivalries in the world,we should not let petty board politics damage such tours like SA vs Ind between great test nations,hope that WI,NZ,ZIM,BD get good enough to play competitive test cricket and most importantly stop bashing one of the only good test rivalries left in cricketing world the ashes.

  • sifter132 on December 7, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    I definitely groaned when I saw back-to-back Ashes, and 7 game ODI series vs India, but money talks. These are the matches TV viewers/advertisers want to see, and ultimately that money is GOOD for cricket. It's all lovely and flowery to demand equal matches against each country, but the matches would be even less competitive than the author claims the Ashes has been (I disagree with him BTW). I think ultimately a mix of money and fairness is best. Have a minimum amount of matches that need to be played vs the lower ranked teams eg. perhaps one home and one away series vs Bangladesh/Zimbabwe every 8 years instead of the 4-5 that is currently suggested.