There has been some comment recently about the unprecedented back-to-back Ashes, with two series taking place almost directly after each other.
Kevin Pietersen has suggested the English side are mentally fragile because of it.
While I don’t doubt some of his reasoning, the journalist may be incorrect in suggesting the scheduling is unprecedented.
So, have there been back-to-back Ashes before?
Certainly almost every series in the 1800s was a back-to-back Ashes as there were just two Test playing nations until South Africa joined the fold.
This can be seen most clearly in the series that gave birth to the Ashes.
The single Test of 1882 where English cricket died at the Oval was August 29th.
Ivo Bligh spoke of recovering the Ashes at a Melbourne function on November 15th 1882. The English side actually beat the Australians at home who were still returning from the UK, so that’s as back-to-back as you can get.
But what of more 20th century times?
In 1920-21 England and Australia played 10 Tests in the space of eight months, exactly five in Australia and five in the UK.
That sounds familiar. By the way, Australia won the two series 8-0, including the first 5-0 Ashes whitewash in Australia.
In 1974-75 there were another 10 Tests in 10 months (admittedly the 1975 World Cup in England took place in-between, but incredibly by today’s standards this took up just 14 days, directly in the middle.)
The current “unprecedented” back-to-back Ashes series, which was interspersed with a seven match ODI series in India for the Aussies in October and November, doesn’t seem so unprecedented.
It might have been a while since the last one, but certainly not unprecedented.
Steve Johnson
Guest
I'd suggest the current crop of players don't have a lot of time for history and stats when it doesn't suit them. Easy for them to overlook things that happened well before their own playing career, or even before they were born for that matter.
Michael Fahey
Roar Rookie
It was an AAP article 28th December. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/20515907/pietersen-back-to-back-ashes-hurt-us/ I thought it odd, hence the article. As the comments suggest Ashes series are now becoming more frequent. The rotation for a home series will be every 3 years rather than 4. That said we have had 4 series in 4 and a half year...with another in 2015 in the UK.
John Hamilton
Roar Pro
I would actually prefer to see more back to back Ashes series but have them count together. E.g The teams would be going into the current Sydney test with Australia leading 4-3. Hold the series every two years and alternate which nation hosts first (e.g. under my proposal, Australia would host the first leg next time and England host the return leg). I think this would make for more exciting cricket as there would be less dead rubbers and force teams to play better cricket for a longer period of time.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
Nice one Mick !
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
I haven't seen any written suggestion that the back-to-back 2013-14 Ashes series is unprecedented. Unusual, yes. Undesirable, certainly. But even the laziest journalist can hit Google and find that there were 10 back-to-back Ashes Tests in 1974-75 and 1920-21. You can have too much of a good thing, as the events of 2013 have shown. We go into the fifth Test of the Australian summer on Friday with the series already decided, 4-0 _ bad news if you've mortgaged the house and sold the kids into slavery to be able to afford tickets. Next year there will be another five-Test Ashes series in England, the fifth in six years. And yet South Africa and India have just completed a two-Test "series" in South Africa. Perhaps this is to be expected. Test cricket remains popular in Australia and England, but nowhere else. The Ashes at least keep the pure form of the game alive, and that's one reason why it needs to be competitive: if one side wins too easily too often, public interest will wane and cartoon cricket will prevail.
slane
Guest
How can the English side continue to say that the back-to-back ashes are the problem when the Australian side is doing the exact same thing. Did the English team get less preparation than the Aussies? Did they have less time off? Did they have to travel to India to play an ODI in between?