Time for reality to over-rule Test traditions

Has Australia's complete domination of England in the latest Ashes debacle signalled an end to the five-Test series that has been the norm among nations who perceive themselves as being equal rivals?

Times were when a five-Test series was regarded as the ultimate contest, a battle when the strength of two Test nations would resolve who had the right to call themselves world champion.

Spread over several months, five Tests were sufficient to represent a true contest between teams that were close in standard. The five Tests allowed matches to be played in a variety of conditions to fully expose the skills of players in all situations. If injuries occurred, there was a fair chance that players could recover to play later in the series.

Time has long since past when an Australia-England series was anything like a contest for the best team in the world. Since 1986/87 when an experienced England crew were part of an emerging Australia's education, Australia has been on top.

The painful years for Australia, in the mid-1980s were excruciatingly frustrating for the Aussies, but they were brief years of anger. Compared to the problems England clearly have, they were very brief.

Traditionally, Australia-England, Australia-West Indies, England-West Indies, England-South Africa and India-West Indies have been the five-Test series. There have been other occasions when other sides have played five Tests.

New Zealand, for instance, have only ever played five five-Test series, three of them in the 1950s, one in 1961/62 in South Africa, and in 1972 in the West Indies.

Is there still the time and place for five-Test matches?

It has to be said that when the International Cricket Council were attempting to create their five-yearly programme, in order to facilitate the introduction of the ICC Test Championship, fitting in the traditional five-Test series was one of the biggest problem areas for organisers.

Is it likely that the demands of the ICC Test Championship will see more series of shorter duration between teams each summer?

Already, in summers when England or the West Indies are not involved, Australia host two teams for six Test matches. Next year Australia will play winter Test matches at northern cities of the continent.

For several seasons now, New Zealand has hosted five Tests in a summer, divided between two countries around the Christmas-New Year period and later in the summer in February-March.

Because of the timing of its summer England has now found that it must host two countries per season in order to meet its obligation to the ICC Test Championship.

But how long can England command a five-Test series every time it meets Australia, or other countries even?

Does it achieve anything when sides are so obviously mis-matched?

Some series are musts for five Tests. How much greater might the outstanding series between India and Australia of 2000/01 have been had it been fought over five Tests? It was classic enough as it was in three matches.

The increasing intrusion of the one-day game into the touring schedule has further diminished the impact of the five-Test series.

Cricket is a game of tradition, but the time has come where the notion of tradition far outweighs the competitiveness between two ill-matched combinations.

The constant diet of cricket for most teams has also diminished the impact of the five-match contests. For the purists there will always be the contests within a game to keep their interest, the assault on the game's records that occasionally occurs.

In the commercial world, there is also an attraction from the prospect of the five-match contests. But, in reality, how much value is gained if most of the matches are completed within four days, or in the latest case in three days?

It would be far better to have two lots of three Tests, such as when New Zealand and South Africa shared their tour of Australia last summer. Six Test venues are catered for in Australia, so no-one is missing out.

Australia has set a marvellous standard for the rest of the world to aspire to. In recent times only India, at home, and New Zealand in Australia, have managed to get even close.

With the Ashes already locked up 3-0 from three games, the Australians could look at a golden opportunity to blood new talent in the next two Tests such is the richness of their resources.

England on the other hand must be wondering from which direction some form of relief could possibly come. There is precious little comfort to be had from getting up and beating Australia in the remaining Tests either.

The reality is, sad as it may be for the traditions of the game, that England is not up to playing a five-Test series.

Its lack of form may well usher in reduced contests for one of the sport's oldest prizes.

But might that not give the genuine five-Test series much more impact?