Yes imo. The only differences between any tests I would say should be extra props for being clutch in a series decider, or even the WTC final.
Not sure if serious?
100% serious. Only for series that are like already say 2-2 or 1-1 or 0-0 going into the final test. Not for example if someone leads 2-1 or 1-0 and the other team can still win and draw the series.
A bit of both. There's usually going to be some laziness creep in when a series is dead. The Aussie teams did it a lot. I remember a 7-game 2003 ODI series in the West Indies they won it 4-0 without much challenge then casually dropped the last 3 games making the scoreline 4-3
I'll get to the absolute absurdity of your idea next but I don't even follow your rationale here?
Well two reasons. I mean ideally, I’d always want a series result but logistically it feels like those 2-1/1-0 scorelines occur too much and with the scheduling it might be difficult to accomodate all of those. Secondly, its a bit about the entertainment value too. Going into the final game 1 down you have the excitement of 1 team trying to grab that win. I feel it occurs more in the already drawn series where you have hype heading into the last game which can turn into a total bore and let down where both teams can be aiming for a draw.
Not really - it happened twice in the 93 and 97 Ashes where the series was long gone. England also secured series draws by winning at the Oval against the Windies in 91 and SA in 94 but I don't think either of those matches would be classed as dead rubbers. We lost series deciders v Pakistan in 92 and 96, and v NZ in 99, plus the one off test v SL in 98. Drew v Windies in 95 and India in 90.
I appreciate the support. Would you help me pen a letter to the ICC?
Maybe just leave it to Ben Stokes go about saving test cricket mate.
See, you’re good with funsies as well.
iirc we did that twice against Australia; in 1993 and 1997. Not sure we ever did it against anyone else, but my memory isn't what it used to be. We also won a few dead rubber tests in Australia (although the series wasn't actually decided in two of those), which didn't seem much consolation at the time but was way preferable to what we've usually done since then.
I was at the 98 test at Melbourne when we got back to 2-1 and then lost the 5th test at Sydney to lose 3-1. So in essence the series was alive after Melbourne even if the Ashes weren't. I think it was similar 4 years before where England won the 3rd of 4th test but lost the 5th. Then you had Caddick taking a load of wickets at Sydney for a consolation test in 2002/3.
WTC Final is worth about as much as a three day warm up V Gloucestershire reserves
Yup. As you say, the difference in 2002/03 was that the series was well and truly decided by then. Maybe that's why Caddick was never picked again as he'd been hopeless all the time the series was still alive.
Butcher's knock at Headingley in 2001 springs to mind.