No more Super Series?
The ICC's future tours list from 2006 to 2012 was released yesterday. The body had, over a year ago, decided to evaluate a six year window for the Future Tours Programme rather than the existing five year window.
I have a few questions in the context of the list.
- Why is the list of teams ordered thus - England, Australia, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Zimbabwe & Bangladesh? It is certainly not alphabetical order. It isn't based on the test/one-day rankings.
- How did the BCCI agree to keep its players idle for such a long time between April 2009 and October 2009?
- Is the Afro-Asian one-day series going to last only until 2007?
- Is India never going to host Bangladesh in the next six years? I couldn't spot any such scheduling, could you?
- Why do New Zealand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka play so little test cricket, just about two thirds of what Australia, England and India will be playing over the six year period?
- Where is the Super Series? Has the event been cast aside, as was widely predicted last year?
Labels: future tours programme
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
|
It's pretty garish, but it appears that Australia are playing four Tests in a month in India ... then England are playing three Tests in India the month after, followed by another delightful seven-match ODI series. I understand that it could go well for India, but I personally wouldn't like to see England host South Africa or India in the same season as the Ashes.
Also interesting: the forthcoming India tour of England is three Tests, but the one following that is four. England are also down to play three or four Tests in Pakistan in 2010.
Neither Zimbabwe or Bangladesh play a Test for the next year. England will tour these two back-to-back (assuming the Zimbabwe tour goes ahead), and are the only country to do so. Both of the minnows only play one three-Test series, and that's against each other, in Bangladesh.
And no, I have no idea why the countries are in that order. It would have made more sense to order them by home season, so that it was easier to follow.
geoff: The scheduling does leave a lot to be desired, like you pointed out. It is also interesting how Eng invariably host NZ and RSA in the same season. It happened in 2003 too! What's with all the extra 'additional' ODIs thrown in. Are those the bilateral arrangements which the boards are coming up with? Zimbabwe are currently "out of test cricket" till 2007, which explains why they don't play any tests.
By 
Jagadish (10 May 2006, 5:07:00 pm)
England hosted New Zealand and West Indies in 2004. It was Zimbabwe and South Africa in 2003.
I assumed that 'additional' meant 'non-compulsory', but the Ashes isn't defined as such.
geoff: Mea culpa. Hosting NZ _and_ South Africa in the same season would have been doubly boring. Good show by the ECB :) I think the Ashes comes under the 'icon' or 'marquee' series category. Additional would probably either mean non-compulsory games or additional games due to negotiations between the boards. For e.g. if a series was normally a 3 test series, but had been negotiated for that season to be a 4 test one, it'd be categorized under 'additional'. That is my guess.
By Jagadish (11 May 2006, 10:31:00 am)
Doubly boring? Just because India - South Africa series are boring, doesn't mean England - South Africa series are! Hoggard's seven-for; Smith's twin double-ton's; Atherton vs Donald (several times) ... for the England fan, it's been second only to the Ashes for a good while now.
geoff: Doubly boring was in the context of hosting NZ _and_ South Africa. NZ and South Africa are boring teams, in my opinion!
By Jagadish (14 May 2006, 9:28:00 am)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment