Topping the international cricketing feast of 2019 was always going to be difficult. After a World Cup and Ashes back-to-back, 2020 was bound to live in the shadow of its predecessor.
But running the rule over Australia’s upcoming calendar next year reveals much more than just an inferior schedule. Specifically, the number of condensed three-game series is far bigger than its ever been. The shift to shortened series, already well underway in recent years, is seemingly complete.
In short, nine of the eleven series involving the Australian mens side will be three-game white ball series. It’s a staggering amount, and reflective of what cricket fixturing has become.
Three, it would seem, is the magic number. Or rather, the number cricket bosses are loathe to count beyond.
Let’s run through it: After the New Year’s Test against New Zealand, Australia travels to India (thanks to a loss at the negotiating table) for a three-game ODI series.
Next, they go to South Africa in February for three T20s and three further ODIs. They then return home to face New Zealand in mid-March for another crack at the three-game ODI jamboree, before heading across the ditch for – you guessed it – another three-game T20 series.
In June, finally, they pull on the whites for a two-Test series in Bangladesh. But soon after it’s back to the three-fixture familiarity, with three T20s and three ODIs booked against England in July.
This one, of all the short-term series littered throughout the year, is the most eyebrow-raising. For over 20 years, bilateral ODI series against England have always consisted of at least four games. The unwillingness to schedule beyond three for the game’s oldest rivals says much about the truncated series preferences of cricket execs.
(Photo by Visionhaus/Corbis via Getty Images)
After the winter trip to the UK, the Aussies return home for three game T20 series against both the West Indies and India before the T20 World Cup kicks off in late October. After the World Cup, Justin Langer’s side finally pull on the whites again, for the Test series against India.
Eleven series: nine of them three-game ODIs or T20Is.
It’s a fixture emblematic of the shortest format itself; short and sharp, no time to waste. Three-game series rarely offer a chance for rivalries to play out, and narratives to develop.
Take Australia’s historic series win over India earlier this year. It was a win credited with reinvigorating an Australian one-day side which, until that point, was bereft of confidence. Had that series been condensed to three games, India would have won 2-1. As it was, Australia won 3-2 in a brilliant fightback away from home. It underlined the value of allowing a series time to breathe.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the 2020 schedule is that Test cricket will be pushed aside for most of the year. This is despite the fact Australia has just concluded the most memorable series in 14 years in the very same format.
Australia will play two tests abroad next year (against Bangladesh), the fewest since 2007. The Test side will play just seven times, also the fewest since 2007.
In recent years, overseas tours have produced some of the most memorable moments that stick long in the minds of Australian fans.
This year, it was an enthralling Ashes series. In 2018, it was the South Africa tour which, if not for the scandal that brought down Australian cricket, would have been remembered for the sheer brilliance of AB de Villiers, Aiden Markram and the Proteas seamers.
In 2017, it was Australia’s backs-to-the-wall tour of India showcasing the best of Steve Smith and India’s spinners.
I can go on. In 2016, Rangana Herath dismantled Australia in a way few bowlers have. 2015 saw another gripping Ashes series. But in 2020, it will be a mere two-Test series against Bangladesh. By no means is this to discredit the hosts who, like in 2017 (which finished 1-1), will provide a stern test for the Australians.
It goes without saying that Bangladesh are now a Test nation – and a nation who have beaten Australia, England and Sri Lanka in recent times. But the two-Test format does little to foster the drama and intrigue of the aforementioned contests.
That’s not to say a two-Test series cannot do so. Australia’s tour of the UAE against Pakistan last year, specifically the fighting first Test, had strong investment on these shores. But by design, the side who wins the first Test has only a draw to play for. Almost for this reason alone, it is flawed.
Truncated cricket series was perhaps inevitable in the drive for more countries to play each other more often. But it leaves us with quick, snackable series that may well be forgotten mere months down the line.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I'm in two minds on this for the short forms. If it means a more equal schedule, then great. If it meant more Test cricket for smaller nations, even better (Singapore has more chance of winning the world cup than that happenong). If it just means India can play Australia, England and Sri Lanka every year then not so much. I wouldn't mind trialing some "best of " series. Schedule five, if one side is dominant the last two don't need playing. If the series is competitive it goes the distance. This has issues as well, not least uncertainty for broadcasters and host boards late in the series.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Hi Tim. Good article on the Emerging Cricket site. I agree with you that the ODI structure is a good start. It will take time to take hold in the cricket follower's consciousness and no doubt will need some wrinkles ironed out, but context is the key here. 3 game series, where ALL participating teams play the same number of matches is an excellent start IMO. The series may be "snackable" or "forgettable", but only if the cricket public chooses not to get invested in the League concept. If they do, then all series should provide real interest. I also agree that iT20 now needs to adopt a similar format/approach. I have confidence that the League/Championship approach across all three formats will start to deliver real benefits in terms of global engagement and connection and encourage cricket followers to take more interest in series in all formats not involving their own team. Again, it may take time - maybe a decade - to settle it all down, but that isn't so long really. I think where David Schout has missed a trick is not to acknowledge the CWC Super League at all in his article. Rather he has focused just on what this means for Australia. This is a backyard-centric attitude we need to move away from for the benefit of the game globally. Cricket will flourish across all three formats if the cricketing public get on board with the League approach. For this to happen, it requires cricket writers of the likes of David to acknowledge it and talk about it.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
While I agree with some of this, there are a myriad of issues around - cost, appeal, etc etc. I think the overall answer is 3 match series unless there is a high level of interest and competitive appeal. I'd go for 5 tests in Ashes, against S.A. who are a consistently tough opponent and perhaps India. If NZ are competitive then they could get an upgrade to 5 or if the Windies ever bounce back. Of course, one doesn't know how it will pan out at the start of a series so it's a hard call to make. 3 is the safer option. If it is one-sided it is over and move on, if it's competitive the taste buds are there for more next time.
Only because we sucked? 3 game ODI series are ok if we are coming of a 3-4 test match series as well, but makes no sense if we are playing them standalone. Same as 2 test series, just stupid.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
That sucks. I guess that other rubbish reality tv stuff is cheap as for them to make and put on. I wouldn’t even mind a web company buying it to show
Tim Cutler
Roar Rookie
The advent, or perhaps proliferation of the short series – again, as David mentions – does present the potential of forgettable ‘snackable’ series. I agree here, but importantly, only when there’s little/no context (i.e., when connected to a convoluted rankings system). And this is not the case with the majority of Australia’s 2020 schedule. My reply to the story turned into this article: https://www.emergingcricket.com/insight/of-bilaterals-and-bangladesh-crickets-short-series-conundrum/
Trevor
Guest
The one-day series are all a waste and no one really cares. We do care about tests, however, which is why the series against India is a travesty. Can't we play someone different? I'm sick to death of India. We haven't played the Windies since Adam Voges was in his prime. What about Ireland, Afghanistan or even Bangladesh at home. Anyone but India. Help us, Cricket Australia. You're our only hope.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Dwanye Apparently they're too expensive. CA has to pay for it, as Nine didn't pay CA any extra to broadcast them, and they don't really make they're money back. I don't know how Seven & Foxtel feel about paying for them though.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Yes I think cost is a key factor. Ireland v Afghanistan and Netherlands v Zimbabwe for example would be quite financially draining for those nations if it were 5 matches, so if it is to have fairness to the comp all teams need to play the same amount of games in a series. Plus scheduling no doubt, just trying to fit it all in. A 3 game series could be done in a week. 5 games needs an extra week and that is an extra month's cricket per calendar year (assuming the 8 series per team are evenly split across the 2 years).
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Not going to improve either with trying to jam Test series into a 2 year WTC programme, where countries have to play 8 nations in that timeframe.
Paul
Roar Guru
thanks Jeff, I wasn't aware of much of this. I guess the unanswered question is, why a 3 game series and not 5? Again, I assume it comes down to cost/profitability.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I think the closeness of the two India tours of Australia is a quirk of the WTC scheduling. The Ashes are on in Australia next summer and both West Indies and South Africa are touring the summer after that.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Certainly - for the ODIs anyway - the ICC's intention was to provide a consistent approach among all nations of 3 game series which would be more meaningful/easily understandable in terms of the ICC Cricket World Cup Super League. Over 2 years in the WCSL, each of the 13 competing nations will play 4 series at home and 4 series away, only ever playing any team once (so for each country there are 4 nations they don't play; just the way it has to be to make the scheduling work within the 2 year timeframe). Every series is a 3-game series. So commencing in May, that's 52x 3-day series with each team playing exactly the same number of games as each other and exactly half at home and half away. The top 10 nations at the end of the Super League qualify for the 2023 WC. I think that's actually a really good structure and provides some meaning to the bilateral series. IMO the 3-game approach works really well in that regard.
Paul
Roar Guru
hi David, I was wondering about the purpose of short form cricket. Test cricket has a number of purposes. It will entertain ( perhaps not for everyone and perhaps not all the time, but it still delivers), it's a true test of players skill, technique, stamina, courage, etc and, in Australia at least, it's a financially viable proposition. IMO, ODI's & T20s are "designed" games, which are simply supposed to entertain. There is obviously a certain skillset required to play these games, but they are such short duration and their primary purpose is to make money. The various Boards have obviously decided a 3 game series of short form cricket is the right formula to fill stadiums, thus maximizing tour profits. Sides like Australia going to England could have that tour done and dusted in 7 - 9 days, thus keeping down costs. I don't have a problem with this approach for short form cricket, but this type of thinking needs to stop with these sorts of games. Test series need to be structured based on all of the factors you mentioned. Short form series are designed to be snackable ( as long as they make money) and easily forgotten, so 3 games, 2 games what ever - it's neither here nor there.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
Hi Jeff. I liked the idea of Aust doing the northern games those years back and have waited from them to happen again for an excuse to bust up there. Lol
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I'm happy with 3 game white ball series. It provides for more nations to play each other and as stated by Tim above, a one-sided 5 match series can become boring quickly if it's one-sided. I'd like to see more Test cricket in Australia's off-season next year, but can understand that there is a focus on T20 leading up to the WC. That said, there isn't much availability for other teams to play Australia as they all seem to have a pretty full schedule. I wouldn't have minded seeing the one-off Afghanistan Test in November (which actually precedes the India series - I wonder if the Gabba will get that one?) perhaps shifted to a few months earlier to allow a 2 or 3 Test series in northern Australia during the winter.
AREH
Roar Guru
What I also take from that is Australia playing India at home in 2018-19 and then again in 2020-21. Not sure where it leaves the South Africans or West Indies, with scarily large gaps between tours to Australia.
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
A five game series is only entertaining if it's competitive. The whooping Australia received in England immediately after South Africa went four games too long. To play everyone without shortening the series would require national squads, like a Premier League team putting out a different eleven for cup tournaments. Can't see that going over well.