There has been a very interesting discussion on Twitter about the logic of England’s schedule next summer. After the clearly too short South Africa v Australia series there has been a lot of discussion about why South Africa are only playing three Tests on these shores in 2012 and the soundness of that decision. I think I have probably made it known here and on Twitter that I think it is a bad idea, but it is not a straightforward issue and I want to spell out my thoughts.

The ECB are axeing one Test to fit in a five ODI series against Australia. From the standpoint of a spectator this looks like lunacy, but there is a reason. By agreeing to host the five ODIs against Australia England will play a reciprocal series in Oz just before the World Cup, so as to get their eye in. Also, it has been pointed out that the ODIs are money spinners and the ECB need money to fund nice things, like central contracts.

I still don’t like the decision though. For one thing, I question the soundness of the reasoning. It’s true that England have not done well at recent World Cups, but the problem goes deeper than preparation. That’s not to say that England will necessarily continue to fare poorly at World Cups (they used to fare poorly in Test matches too), but extra preparation time is still unlikely to dramatically improve the performance. Australian conditions are not as alien as Indian conditions and acclimatisation was not England’s problem in the last World Cup. (Whilst the conditions were problematic, England played better near the start of the tournament. If the issue had been acclimatisation they would have improved over the course of the tournament. The same would have happened in the most recent five match series, but clearly didn’t.) Certainly more preparation will not would not hurt, but it will only be a benefit if a lot else goes England’s way as well. Given that there will be warmup matches against other sides before the World Cup it looks like overkill. It’s not by itself enough to justify losing a Test match.

I’m not convinced that this series will offer a significant boost to the ECB coffers either. We saw this summer that there is still a strong appetite for Test cricket in England. (Wales not so much.) The four match series against India was about as one sided as they come, yet there were very large crowds every day. The images of the queues for the final day at Lord’s are still incredible. The crowds will clearly come when England play a strong side like South Africa. A Test match against the second best side in the world is not less likely to draw crowds than a meaningless five match ODI series, even against Australia. It can’t even be said that it is due to the Olympics, as the 2012 games fall during the Test series anyway. The decision would make a lot more sense if it had been a Test match against the West Indies to go, as the Windies are less of a contest, but we only played a two match series last time. I don’t know if that has a direct bearing on the current decision, but it would be understandable. There are still other, better ways that the ECB could have fit in five ODIs against Australia though. They could have reduced the number of ODIs against the Windies and/or South Africa, for instance, and played Australia at the tail end of the season. It is not a reasonable decision and I have yet to see a good explanation for it.

More broadly though, I oppose the notion of playing extra ODIs at the expense of a Test match. I understand that ODIs are important, that smaller nations need them to develop and that more matches mean more money for the ECB. (And I don’t think the ECB are being greedy, there is a lot of good they can do with more money.) This sends a message that the ODIs are a priority though, which is not a good message to send. Unless England actually win the World Cup, a good ODI performance is unlikely to raise the profile of cricket as much as a good Test series is. If I ask about the summer of 2005, how many people will wax lyrical about the tied NatWest Trophy final? It was a very good ODI series, but it was not in the same postcode as the Test series. I think the same will hold with the World Cup. It would be very nice if England win it, but it will not be a disaster if we don’t and anything short of making the final is very unlikely to be as exciting as a full Test series. Even if England do go to the final I don’t think anyone will be saying that it was down to the extra preparation (see above). It’s possible, of course, and it’s possible that South Africa will be two up after three matches, but neither are likely. More likely we will be denied a conclusion to the series, just as South Africa and Australia were today, in exchange for a World Cup performance that still fails to capture the imagination

Today we saw another example of how incredible Test cricket is. There has been a bit of hand-wringing in recent times about bat starting to dominate ball to an unreasonable extent. It isn’t all founded, but it is true that there has been an increasing sentiment that a ‘good’ pitch is a road on which both sides can score 500 in the first innings. Today blew that out of the water. Today we saw the ball finally make a comeback. Twenty-three wickets fell, nineteen of them in the space of about three hours after lunch. It was, as I mentioned earlier, the most incredible day of cricket I have seen.

We have already seen some spectacular tests this year when the bowlers were on top of the batsmen. Sri Lanka collapsed so spectacularly in Cardiff, England collapsed at Lord’s to set up a close finish, India collapsed to Stuart Broad at Trent Bridge to set up an English victory that had looked impossible, India collapsed to the West Indies earlier this week before the West Indies returned the favour and set up a thrilling finish to the test. This one will trump them all. Hopefully groundsmen and administrators are finally learning that a good pitch has something in it for batsmen and bowlers.

Today was also yet another reason why Test cricket is the greatest form of the sport. In what other sport could you have the match so utterly transform not once but twice? In what other sport could a side have a historically bad performance and still have a good chance to win? South Africa are in a good position on 81-1 needing 236, but at the start of their innings 236 looked like a very daunting target. The ‘ebb and flow’ of Test matches has always been considered a benefit, today it was a tsunami. How frustrating then that what should have been a third Test was scrapped in favour of more unremarkable limited overs matches? There were a pair of good contents in that leg, but most were one sided and dull. By contrast, when have these two sides not put on a thrilling exhibition of test cricket? Already England have played five meaningless ODIs in India. Next year they will have five more against Australia instead of a fourth Test against South Africa. This after the ECB and CSA agreed that the Test series ought to be a five match ‘marquee’ series. It is maddening, and there is a petition for the ECB and CSA to see sense. (I know I’ve plugged it before, but it is all the more obvious now why it is needed.) A three match series last winter would have seen the Ashes drawn 1-1 and a two match series here will certainly not be enough to determine a proper winner. We’re finally getting decent pitches, now we’re losing the matches to play on them.