Why is there so much variability in how the series are structured? For example, the current Australia - England series has the 5 Ashes tests, followed by 6 ODI’s, followed by a few T20’s. England’s following series at New Zealand starts with 2 T20’s, then 5 ODI’s, and ending with 2 Test matches. India-Sri Lanka started with 3 tests, then 3 ODI’s and ending with 3 T20’s. Why are they so different and who decides?
Also, are there any great players that won’t play test matches? I could see someone not wanting to stand out in the sun for 5 straight days.
Ask us an easy one - like the secret to cold fusion or some such.
It’s, unsurprisingly for cricket, not especially transparent. The International Cricket Council mandates that every Test playing nation must* tour any other nation twice in any given 10 year period - this is essentially the structure of the Future Tours Program. The FTP is a minimum; if sides want to tour more frequently, that is fine. The FTP also mandates that the shortest Test series that can be played is 2 matches long. There are no upper limits - and I don’t believe there’s any mandatory number of limited overs games for any tour.
*Exceptions are made for where security considerations render touring a nation difficult. Pakistan hosting matches in the UAE has been due to this. India currently don’t play Pakistan outside of ICC events mostly due to security issues.
Once the tours are set, the number of games per series, the number of ODIs and T20s, etc, are set bilaterally between the two cricket boards. The Ashes has always been a lengthy series and tradition has basically dictated that England and Australia will play a 5 match series as a result (they used to play more matches per series before I was born - 5 matches is essentially the longest a Test series will run nowadays). Other series - and associated limited over games - will likely be set dependent on what TV wants (increasingly this is more limited over games), how many tickets it is reckoned can be sold, how it fits in to the remainder of the international calendar and so on. Essentially, the lengths of the tours are down to the teams playing in them, so the answer as to why there’s so much variability is because that’s what the teams want.
There’s not many cricketers in their primes that stop playing Test cricket but I can see this changing as time goes by. Chris Gayle, MS Dhoni and AB De Villiers are the most prominent who, on talent, would probably be in the Test squads for their respective nations but have essentially stopped playing long form cricket to concentrate on shorter formats (especially given the contracts that they can command on the T20 circuit through the IPL, the Big Bash and, to a lesser extent, the English, South African and West Indian T20 competitions are likely more lucrative than playing Tests for their nation). Gayle and Dhoni are nearing the end of their careers and have probably done this to maximise their earning potential and limit wear and tear, so the answer is probably AB De Villiers. Like I said though, I can see this happening more over time, especially for nations that have less money/weaker economies than England, India or Australia. SA, in particular, with a weak rand, exports cricketers all over the place.
There will be many very good players who won’t play Test matches.
The question is whether they could be classed as great if they don’t.
SF Barnes would have been happy to spent 40+ years being paid bonuses to victimise swathes of batsmen in the English minor leagues. [including 904 wickets 1915-23 for Saltaire at an average of 5.26] You couldn’t draw up a Top 10 list of cricket’s best bowlers without him. In the 100th edition of Wisden he was named as one of the Six Giants of the Wisden Century along with Don Bradman, W. G. Grace, Jack Hobbs, Tom Richardson and Victor Trumper and he was an inaugural member of the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame. That’s the cream of cricket’s pantheon. But he did play 27 Tests with considerable success.
And, as noted above, there are ample example of players who have extended (lucrative) careers by specialising in limited overs cricket.
But if they were either never selected, or chose not to be available, for Test selection?
Dave Warner would not have any claim to be a great if he hadn’t demonstrated he could play in any format.
This year in the BBL07 season we are seeing England’s Tymal Mills for the first time. Due to a back condition he’ll probably never play in a Test which is a misfortune for us all.
Also here again for BBL07 is Samuel Badree, ranked as the best T20 bowler in the world, and has been for some time. He’s won two world T20 titles with the West Indies and yet has never played ODIs or a Test.
When it comes to it, who remembers individual T20 or ODI fixtures anyway, possibly outside a final?
So could you be considered as a great without ever being a Test cricketer?
I don’t think so. To be a great you need to play with the best, against the best.