England's tour already following a familiar pattern

All Ashes tours since 1989 have followed a similar pattern.

Enthusiasm is quickly replaced by a feeling of déjà vu as Australia systematically put England to the sword. That is then followed by the Ashes themselves being put under the microscope.

The Ashes was so fondly followed because it produced cricket of the highest quality. Feats of wonder such as Laker's 19 wickets, Massie's 16 wickets, Cowper's 307 and Botham's 149* were all performed in the forum of an Ashes Test.

If the one sided nature of it continues, interest in it will surely decline. This doesn't matter to the ACB who would of course persist with it. Why wouldn't they, when it produces record ticket sales? So they will keep playing England twice over a four-year period.

That doesn't leave a lot of scope to play the other countries.

England, South Africa, the West Indies, Pakistan and now India for the most part play in Australia on a regular cycle.

New Zealand were in Australia in 2001/02. Their next trip is 2006/07. Sri Lanka last played a Test match down under in 1995/96. Their next trip is 2004.

With Australia so far ahead of the rest of the world, it should be in their interests to foster and promote competition or otherwise there will be no one left to play.

Sadly, Australia has traditionally been remiss in this area. Australia should have looked after New Zealand and promoted New Zealand cricket. A strong trans-Tasman rivalry seems logical. England played New Zealand on four separate occasions before Australia first played them. From the first game in 1946, there was a 27-year hiatus before the next encounter.

When Australia finally played Zimbabwe in 1999, only the West Indies hadn't played a Test against cricket's newest Test-playing member. Why should Australia be near the end of the queue when it comes to playing new countries? They should be at the forefront, welcoming them to the cricketing community.

Sachin Tendulkar played as an 18-year-old in Australia in the summer of 1991/92. Already then, he was something special and his 114 at the WACA against an attack with the might of McDermott, Hughes, Reiffel and Whitney was an impressive innings. So good that Tendulkar rates it his finest.

It was nearly eight years later before Australian crowds got to again witness this superstar in the flesh.

The major flaw in Australia's schedule is their noted inability to play South Africa in a five-Test series either in Australia or in South Africa. Notwithstanding the fluctuations in form of either side, world cricket is crying out for these two great teams to lock horns over such a tussle.

The way things have been going, the Ashes are decided by the time they hit Melbourne and Sydney. Is there any point in having massive ticket sales and attendances for dead rubbers?

Australia have been so good in recent time that last year's series with New Zealand really captured the imagination. Had it not been for some highly questionable umpiring decisions in the third Test, which all went Australia's way, New Zealand would have won the three-Test series, 1-0.

If it had been a five-Test series, the buzz would have been amazing heading to Melbourne with New Zealand one-up with two to play. Unless, New Zealand had won in Melbourne, it would have meant that for the first time since 1992/93, the fifth and final Test of a series in Australia would have been live.

Before the advent of one-day cricket, five-Test series were the norm. There was nothing else to play but Test matches. One-day cricket pays the bills which is why it's hard to fit in a five-Test series.

On the basis of form, other countries would have fair claim that they and not England deserve to play Australia in one.

Australia may soon possibly find that it has put all its eggs in the one basket. That playing England will cease to be anything but a charade and when it could have spent time creating new traditions and new rivalries, it was concentrating on a past one.