Heh, good find. It's never happened before. The previous record for the least number of players used in a series of at least three Tests was 23, which had been achieved twice: Aus (11) v Eng (12) in 1882/3, and NZ (12) v Aus (11) in 1981/2.
There have also been seven series in which both sides used 12 players, all of them in the 20th century: NZ v WI 68/9, Eng v Pak 74, Eng v Pak 78, NZ v WI 79/80, Aus v Ind 80/1, Pak v Aus 88/9, SL v Aus 99.
All of the series mentioned above were three Tests long.
An honourable mention goes to Eng v Aus in 1989 (my favourite series), which I think has the greatest difference between the two sides - Australia used 12 players, and England used 29.
Wow, it's as rare as it gets! How did you track the results so quickly? And what are the results for series of 2 Tests or longer?
I remember reading about England using 29 players in that series. It's the first Ashes I read up on when I began following cricket, thanks to this 1992 cricket Almanac I bought at the time. It had pictures of Mark Taylor and Terry Alderman. It's incredible how something I read relatively speaking so long ago sticks out in my mind so clearly, versus something I've been trying to memorize for the past few days, and I can only recollect the first sentence of with any degree of precision. The same principle has also applied to my ability to regurgitate cricket statistics in the pre-2002 and post-2002 era. I find that I'm most confident and quick with anything that happened in the mid-90s, especially if it's to do with India and SRT.
How did you track the results so quickly? Nothing special - just trawling through the relevant Cricinfo stats page.
And what are the results for series of 2 Tests or longer? This would require too much work. :) Both sides used eleven players in the recent NZ v SL series (2006/7), but I can't be bothered checking any further back. There are probably several other examples.
Fair enough. Thanks a lot for the stats on series of three Tests. I suppose it would be equally easy to find out what percentage of all series have been 3-match affairs and so forth?
I suppose it would be equally easy to find out what percentage of all series have been 3-match affairs and so forth? Since I can't find it off-hand, it's probably take me half an hour or so.
no subject
There have also been seven series in which both sides used 12 players, all of them in the 20th century:
NZ v WI 68/9, Eng v Pak 74, Eng v Pak 78, NZ v WI 79/80, Aus v Ind 80/1, Pak v Aus 88/9, SL v Aus 99.
All of the series mentioned above were three Tests long.
An honourable mention goes to Eng v Aus in 1989 (my favourite series), which I think has the greatest difference between the two sides - Australia used 12 players, and England used 29.
no subject
I remember reading about England using 29 players in that series. It's the first Ashes I read up on when I began following cricket, thanks to this 1992 cricket Almanac I bought at the time. It had pictures of Mark Taylor and Terry Alderman. It's incredible how something I read relatively speaking so long ago sticks out in my mind so clearly, versus something I've been trying to memorize for the past few days, and I can only recollect the first sentence of with any degree of precision. The same principle has also applied to my ability to regurgitate cricket statistics in the pre-2002 and post-2002 era. I find that I'm most confident and quick with anything that happened in the mid-90s, especially if it's to do with India and SRT.
no subject
Nothing special - just trawling through the relevant Cricinfo stats page.
And what are the results for series of 2 Tests or longer?
This would require too much work. :) Both sides used eleven players in the recent NZ v SL series (2006/7), but I can't be bothered checking any further back. There are probably several other examples.
no subject
no subject
Since I can't find it off-hand, it's probably take me half an hour or so.