One-off Aus v Eng Tests - Ashes or not?

[Magrat Garlick]

I'm working on improving Wikipedia's article on the Ashes, and was wondering whether any of you could give me a verifiable source on the status of the Centenary Tests, Bicentenary Tests and whatnot that was played in the 70s and 80s - whether they were just "a series" or whether the Ashes actually were at stake. Also, if anyone knows the same status of the one-off Test in 1887-88 I'd be very grateful.

 

[Swervy]

I'm working on improving Wikipedia's article on the Ashes, and was wondering whether any of you could give me a verifiable source on the status of the Centenary Tests, Bicentenary Tests and whatnot that was played in the 70s and 80s - whether they were just "a series" or whether the Ashes actually were at stake. Also, if anyone knows the same status of the one-off Test in 1887-88 I'd be very grateful.

the Centenary test of 77 and the one in 88(?)(the boring one when Broad smacked his wickets down when he got out) were not for the Ashes
The three test series in Australia in 79/80 werent for the Ashes either, although the Aussies said it should be,Lords said no.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Cheers Swervy - good to have a man with a memory around

 

[Richard]

The three test series in Australia in 79/80 werent for the Ashes either, although the Aussies said it should be,Lords said no.

I've never understood what the point in those 3 Tests was if it wasn't The Ashes?

 

[Swervy]

I've never understood what the point in those 3 Tests was if it wasn't The Ashes?

Its was kind of a 'welcome back' gesture for the WSC players..well more like to get the crowds back into the test grounds after no-one watched the78/79 Ashes series

 

[age_master]

interesting. i had always thought all Aus-Eng tests had the ashes at stake, you learn something new every day .

 

[wpdavid]

the Centenary test of 77 and the one in 88(?)(the boring one when Broad smacked his wickets down when he got out) were not for the Ashes
The three test series in Australia in 79/80 werent for the Ashes either, although the Aussies said it should be,Lords said no.

Also the oneoff Lord's test in 1980 (IIRC it was the centenary of the 1st test in England whereas 1977 was the centenary of the first one in Aus) wasn't for the Ashes

Going back into the mists of time, the first few England & Aus series weren't for the Ashes, as the concept wasn't invented straight away. I can't remember exactly when the famous obituary was printed, but it won't be hard to find.

 

[archie mac]

In his little book 'England V Australia Test Match Records 1877-1985'
David Frith lists the Tests in which the Ashes were not up for grabs, he lists the 1977, 1980 and the 1979-80 series. So I think you can assume that 1887-88 Test, was for the Ashes. This is lucky to even have Test Status according to Frith, as there were other Matches played that season, involving stroger teams that were denied Test Status.

 

[wpdavid]

Another one you may want to check out is the triangular series involving England, Aus & SA early in the 20th century - possibly 1912, but I'm not 100% sure. It may be the Ashes weren't at stake with another side involved.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Another one you may want to check out is the triangular series involving England, Aus & SA early in the 20th century - possibly 1912, but I'm not 100% sure. It may be the Ashes weren't at stake with another side involved.

They were, actually, someone else got that checked with the 1913 Wisden (wonders of cricinfo

 

[Craig]

There you go, I never thought the the tri series back in 1912 was for the Ashes.

 

[Richard]

In his little book 'England V Australia Test Match Records 1877-1985'
David Frith lists the Tests in which the Ashes were not up for grabs, he lists the 1977, 1980 and the 1979-80 series. So I think you can assume that 1887-88 Test, was for the Ashes. This is lucky to even have Test Status according to Frith, as there were other Matches played that season, involving stroger teams that were denied Test Status.

The first (and, really, only) Ashes Series was the Ivo Bligh tour of 1882\83. Everything before that (though there were only 5 or 6 Tests IIRR) was just Australia v England.
Since the 1882\83 tour, when England "recovered the ashes" of the body of English cricket, which died in 1882 when Australia somehow managed to win at The Oval, the series has not been played for the real, original Urn but what it symbolises - the death of English cricket. So long as Australia are metaphorically in possession, English cricket is in an unsatisfactory position; when England are metaphorically in possession we're happier.
But for ever the original Ashes Urn is the possession of MCC and was only ever a trophy for a single series.