I assume that is because, like the old British Empire, the "sun never sets" on this company, which performs incessantly all over the globe. One consequence is that there seems to be an amazing amount of disagreement in the critical response to different tours and different performances, often by the SAME reviewer or poster.
Here, for instance, is Judith Flanders in the Times Literary Supplement, reviewing the latest visit of the company to London.
The Mariinsky is huge -- with more than 200 dancers it is twice the size of the Royal Ballet -- and there are manyu smaller companies within the company. What is displayed on any given tour therefore viaries in quality. But [referring to the most recent London visit] I have never seen such mixed messages -- a splendid corps and demi-soloists, thrilling principals; dead-eyed soloists thumping through the steps, staid principals deaf to nuance and style; wonderful orchestral playing alongside botched entries and missed cues. Which represents the real Mariinsky? Rather worryingly, I think they all do.
What is going on? Is the Mariinsky too big? Are its components involved in a kind of civil war over repertoire, favored dancers and musicians? Is "Mariinisky" a reliable Brand Name for ballet goers worldwide? What about quality control?