Headingley, Edgbaston cop Ashes snub
Related coverage
Durham’s picturesque Riverside Ground will host an Ashes Test for the first time on Australia’s much anticipated 2013 tour of England, but two of world cricket’s most famous grounds will miss out.
The schedule for the five-Test series was released on Friday, with Australia’s battle to reclaim the urn that England have held since 2009 beginning at Trent Bridge in Nottingham on July 10.
As Australia look to bounce back from a 3-1 hammering at home in 2010-11, the series then moves to Lord’s, followed by Tests at Old Trafford in Manchester and the Riverside Ground in Durham.
The Oval in London concludes the series between cricket’s oldest foes, who have played 326 Tests since the first in 1887.
Surprisingly, neither the famed Headingley ground in Leeds nor history-rich Edgbaston in Birmingham will host Tests.
Australia claimed their only win of the last Ashes series in 2009 at Headingley with a crushing innings and 80-run victory.
Edgbaston was the venue for one of the greatest-ever Ashes battles in 2005 when Michael Kasprowicz was caught behind on a dramatic final day to give England a two-run win.
Australia will play two Twenty20 matches and a five-game one-day series against England after the Ashes to complete a hectic tour schedule that features 17 matches in total.
New Zealand will start the busy English summer of cricket with two Tests and three one-dayers between May 16 and June 5, while a condensed ICC Champions Trophy will be contested from June 6-23.
In announcing the schedule, ECB chief executive David Collier promised a “memorable summer”.
“The prospect of England defending the Ashes on home soil, the world’s top eight teams competing in the ICC Champions Trophy, and a full program of 50-over and T20 international cricket will provide rich pickings for cricket fans next summer,” he said.
© AAP 2013Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (19) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Ashes, Australian Cricket, Cricket, England cricket
June 2nd 2012 @ 3:14am
Johnno said | June 2nd 2012 @ 3:14am | Report comment
I have no issue with that at all. I loved the test in cardiff last time. And believe to spread a sports event or a sport you should share the tests.
It is good for the ASHES to spread all around the country not just the same places.
In cricket Eden garden Kolkota (formelyCalcutta) one of true historical goriness of world cricket does not always get allocated matches in India each year nor does mumbai or new Delhi.
Edens Gardens had over 100,000 spectator stadium until recent renovations.
I for one have no issue with Lords not getting a test each year. Yes Lord’s. If it is good enough for cricket mad India not to allocate matches to the famous and hallowed Eden Gardens Calcutta far bigger in size than Lord’s and hosted the 1987 world cup grand ifnal which australia won, plus the 2001 epic test with Laxman saving the day, then Lord’s does not need a test each year, nor does the MCG boxing day test, or the SCG. Nothing lasts forever and times and tradition must change, and a sport must be flexible in it’s scheduling and accept tradition changes.
I think 2 tests in London out of 5 is an absurd tradition , so either the oval or lord’s only get 1 test not 2 for London.
Superbowl play the match in a different city every year, and that worked not just the same place.
And AFL should change tradition and move it’s grand final out of melbourne if it is too be truly national in it’s image not Melbourne Victoria base, and same with rugby league.
A-leageu soccer spreads it’s grand finals, so why not other sports events like Ashes cricket.
So I would have no issues if a lord’s test was scrapped . Good enough for eden gardens then it can be good enough for Lord’s .
And i have always believed the Ashes in Australia should spread and expand the joy and have a test in Hobart believe , and a top end test in Cairsn, Townsvile or Darwin would be great.
If it is good enough for the super bowl, the A-league, the UEFA champions league, indian cricket eden gardens, then it should be good enough to not always have tests at Lord’s or the MCG or the SCG.
So I applaud the English cricket board for being a bit expansive and spreading the great sports event the Ashes all around the nation . But too tests in London is not needed.
June 3rd 2012 @ 7:00pm
Pagey said | June 3rd 2012 @ 7:00pm | Report comment
You can’t play Test cricket during the tropical summer… it rains all the time! Three test series against the lesser lights during winter in Darwin, Cairns and Brisbane are the go. A winter Test match at AB field would get the crowds in.
June 2nd 2012 @ 6:20am
Brendon said | June 2nd 2012 @ 6:20am | Report comment
Your crazy if you wouldn’t have a test at the MCG or the SCG every year..
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
June 2nd 2012 @ 6:42am
Swampy said | June 2nd 2012 @ 6:42am | Report comment
Johnno, Durham has a 30,000 strong population whereas London has 10,000,000.
It is fine in India, where even the smallest outposts have populations in the millions, to move games around but in Australia where population is massively centred in the major capitals it would be commercial suicide not to have a game at the MCG or SCG.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
June 3rd 2012 @ 6:53pm
Pagey said | June 3rd 2012 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
Durham has approx 90 000 people, and 1 million in the County! I agree with you however that MCG and SCG are goldmines, although The Gabba is now up there. The Oval and Lord’s have strong, independent traditions and Ashes tests must be played there.
June 3rd 2012 @ 7:01pm
Don Corleone said | June 3rd 2012 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
I think it’s yet another sign that test cricket is being relegated to park cricket…by literally playing in nothing more than parks. This has been the case with tests in New Zealand with tests being played at Dunedin’s universtiy ground rather than at the traditional venue, Carisbrook.
It least in Australia we are hosting test cricket at traditional venues and still getting good crowds.
June 3rd 2012 @ 7:25pm
Pagey said | June 3rd 2012 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
Carisbrook doesn’t exist anymore. Cricket will always play second fiddle to rugby in NZ.
June 4th 2012 @ 10:28am
Ian Whitchurch said | June 4th 2012 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Don Corleone,
No. Cricket is not getting good crowds.
Last year Canterbury rugby league club has 234 332 people through the gate over 12 days.
Fremantle’s AFL side had 378 331 people through the gate over 11 days.
These are not the most popular footy clubs in Australia, and between the two of them they had more people through the gate than the 431 751 Test cricket did in the 2011-12 season.
In 2011, a popular footy club, Richmond, had 470 624 paying spectators over 11 days.
http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/2011.html
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/2011.html
http://www.austadiums.com/sport/comp.php?sid=9
June 5th 2012 @ 10:51am
Brendon said | June 5th 2012 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Difference is you can get into NRL and AFL matches for about a $1 but cricket international matches cost a lot more.
Richmond’s 470624 would mostly be members who again pay next to nothing to be members compared to being a member of the SCG. Out of cricket’s 431 751 test spectators the vast majority be individuals buying expensive tickets – not members repeatedly making up the numbers.
June 5th 2012 @ 12:39pm
Timmuh said | June 5th 2012 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
That is true, but there are also a lot of MCC members who are members for the footy more than they are for the cricket. That’s hardly a cheap option. I’m not sure what Richmond’s 11 home game membership price is, or how many pay for more expensive bands of membership that allow other priveleges (social club access, first rights on grand final tickets, etc).
International cricket does still get good crowds for many games, if not as high as they used to be.
Part of the drop is in the 50 over game, where T20 has taken the attraction out of the longer bastardised game. I wonder how much attendance drop is attributable to Nine being allowed to broadcast more into the home state. And Test cricket very much depends on who is touring. Against England, close to full houses for three days; against Sri Lanka, almost stands other than to open the Melbourne or Sydney Tests; and would there be more officials than spectators if Australia were to play Bangladesh in Hobart or Perth? (No disrepect to Bangladesh is meant, just that the Australian consumer is frustratingly picky when it comes to cricket.)
June 5th 2012 @ 2:13pm
Ian Whitchurch said | June 5th 2012 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Timmuh,
“the Australian consumer is frustratingly picky when it comes to cricket” is actually another way of saying “the Australian consumer doesnt care about cricket as such – they are only fans of the Australian national cricket side, and will only pay to attend to see them play against high quality opposition”.
This is why you cant get ten thousand to see Queensland play NSW at cricket.
June 8th 2012 @ 10:10am
Don Corleone said | June 8th 2012 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Well actually you can in the T20 format not in the 50-over or Shield. Big Bash League crowds averaged 17,000 last season.
June 4th 2012 @ 1:32pm
Don Corleone said | June 4th 2012 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
True, Carisbrook has been demolished this year, but tests were taken away from the venue (and Eden Park) a few years ago due to crowd apathy.
Ian, it’s hard to fairly compare the crowds on those stats. Test cricket has the following influencing it’s stats:- played on weekdays, played in smaller stadia (ie WACA max 20,000) and crowds drop on days 4&5 due to early results etc. Whereas fottball codes play on the weekend or weeknights on larger grounds.
June 4th 2012 @ 6:16pm
Ian Whitchurch said | June 4th 2012 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
Don Corleone,
Y’know, Australian football sides used to play at the WACA.
Then they moved because it was too small for their crowds.
June 5th 2012 @ 10:56am
Brendon said | June 5th 2012 @ 10:56am | Report comment
So what?
Raw numbers mean nothing. Michael Clarke, Ponting and Hussey make a lot lot lot lot more money than the highest AFL players does. A LOT more.
20,000 people turning up to the SCG to watch a test match where the cheapest ticket is more expensive than the most expensive seat at an AFL game will generate more $$.
TV and sponsorship is cricket’s strength. Even though cricket is one of the worlds oldest sports is ideal for TV where ad breaks are common but do no interrupt the game (end of over, wickets, drinks etc)
June 5th 2012 @ 11:45am
Ian Whitchurch said | June 5th 2012 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Brendon,
Top Australian footy players make about a million a year, regardless of code. While it’s true the top half dozen Australian cricketers get more than that, it isnt much more – earnings probaby cap out at around $4m for cricketers in Australia.
Where it gets devestating is the next layer down. The example I would use is a middle order batsman called Stephen Coniglio, who in two years might have been good enough to play State cricket for WA, making him one of the hundred best cricketers in Australia.
If he had managed that, and he played a number of Shield, T20 and one day games, he might earn $100 000 a year as a cricketer.
Instead, he nominated for the AFL draft, and – with match fees – is currently earning about $100 000 a year.
As he is one of the best hundred or so AFL players (*), when his contract is extended by his club, he will ask for, and get, about the same as one of Cricket Australia’s “fringe” central contracted players gets, at about $400 000 a year.
This is about what is earned by the middle dozen players at each of 18 AFL clubs, and about what is earned by the rop-middle half dozen at each NRL club.
Regarding ticket prices, a ticket to the SCG Test is $60, yes ?
The equivalent would be an AFL final. Here’s what the AFL asked last year.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/120851/default.aspx
By the way, a Richmond membership is $425-$500. Yes, it’s less than a SCG Trust membership – but they sell a heck of a lot more of them, and Richmond is one of many clubs.
As far as TV contracts and sponsorships go, Cricket Australia’s current contract isnt that great.
At the moment, Cricket Australia gets a pretty trivial $40m a year. Theres talk this might go up to $100m … or half of what the AFL gets, or rugby league will get.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/t20-may-win-cricket-australia-a-100m-deal-20120207-1r5gk.html
Its a similar story with sponsorships – Collingwood and Sydney’s sponsorships are about equal to Cricket Australias, and the State cricket teams get two thirds of nothing.
So. Yes. Cricket doesnt get a lot of people through the gate, doesnt get a lot of sponsorship income and their TV contract isnt fantastic either, and until they can get ten thousand people to watch Queensland play NSW, that isnt going to change.
I love my cricket, but telling pork pies about it’s strengths and weaknesses doesnt help it.
(*) Yes, Im a Giants fan. But West Coast or Fremantle would offer a player and a first round pick in a heartbeat for Cogs.
June 5th 2012 @ 1:25pm
Johnno said | June 5th 2012 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Well Ian I have a question for you. I am clueless about AFL, and occasioanly watch bits and pices and drabbs of an AFL grand final and that is about it.
Iv’e tried to get into AFL but for one reason or another havent .
But in terms of tv ratings would an AFL finals match or grand final or even a big regulars seaon match eg ANZAC day blockbuster rate higher than say a boxing day test day 1, or maybe a SCG day 1 test match.
June 5th 2012 @ 1:52pm
Ian Whitchurch said | June 5th 2012 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Johnno,
The AFL gets about $200m a year from TV and pay TV.
Cricket gets about $50m now.
Thats what pays players.
No code gets bonus payments beecause their one, two or three good days get ratings of whatever.
*If* you’re looking for evidence, no matter how weak, to support a case that cricket is doing well, then, yes, one off results are more important than the sustained week in week out.
That said, the AFL grand final last year had 3.42m viewers.
http://www.tencorporate.com.au/lib/pdf/2011/mf477.pdf
I dont know how far I’d trust this … part of the issue is that if two million people watch for 30 minutes each, is that worth more or less than half a million people glued to the box for three hours ?
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/indiaaus-series-surpasses-ashes-in-tv-viewership/896942/
But if you’re looking to pay professionals, its about the money.
I’d also like to know the revenue per spectator split between the trusts that own the grounds and Cricket Australia. I suspect CA actually doesnt see that much of the $60 per head per day.
June 8th 2012 @ 10:13am
Don Corleone said | June 8th 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
“The AFL gets about $200m a year from TV and pay TV.
Cricket gets about $50m now.”
A free-to-air TV rights deal for the Big Bash League is estimated to be in excess of $100 million.
This is money independant of international tours or ICC dividends…which is why the BBL is vital for the future of cricket in Australia…whether people like it or not.